Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered on August 4, 2026 for patent application 18/832,896 filed on July 24, 2024.
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claims 10-15 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 10 now requires sending, to a cloud server, “a multimedia configuration of the vehicle comprising one or more of a number of speakers in the vehicle, a position of each speaker in the vehicle, and a type of each speaker in the vehicle,” and the cloud server is configured to apply a second, larger set of processing features “based on the multimedia configuration of the vehicle.” The concept of a “multimedia configuration” was not recited in the claims as originally filed, and because claim 1 was amended in a different fashion, taking claim 1 in a different direction, claims 1 and 10 are now divergent inventions.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 10-15 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recited “sending at least a portion of the plurality of digital AV signals to a cloud-based server configured to apply one or more processing features to the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals at a rate faster than a playback rate of the AV data file (emphasis added by Examiner).”
Because of the syntax of the claim language, it is unclear what is done “at a rate faster.” That is, does the claim require “sending at least a portion of the plurality of digital AV signals to a cloud-based server… at a rate faster than a playback rate of the AV data file?”
Or, rather, does the claim require “a cloud-based server configured to apply one or more processing features… at a rate faster than a playback rate of the AV data file?”
As the claim can be interpreted in at least 2 different ways, it is rendered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling (Pub. No.: US 2018/0181366) in view of Watanabe et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0210598) and Begeja et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0122285).
Regarding claim 1, Bowling discloses a method for on-demand audiovisual (AV) data processing for playback in a vehicle (Fig. 1, element 121), comprising: pre-processing, with a local digital signal processor of the vehicle, an AV data file obtained from a broadcast media source (Fig. 1, element 110, paras. [0029]-[0034]; Fig. 2, element 112, para. [0047]); sending at least a portion of the plurality of digital AV signals to a cloud-based server configured to apply one or more processing features to the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals (para. [0089]; “Computing device 200 may receive an audio data stream, send it to cloud system 300 to be processed remotely, and receive a modified data stream from cloud system 300 for output at computing device 200.”); receiving processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals from the cloud-based server (para. [0089]; “Computing device 200 may receive an audio data stream, send it to cloud system 300 to be processed remotely, and receive a modified data stream from cloud system 300 for output at computing device 200.”) and saving the received processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals in a buffer of the local digital signal processor (para. [0031]); and outputting the processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals to one or more AV sinks of the vehicle (para. [0089]; “Computing device 200 may receive an audio data stream, send it to cloud system 300 to be processed remotely, and receive a modified data stream from cloud system 300 for output at computing device 200;” see also Fig. 5, paras. [0109]-[0112]).
It could be argued that Bowling does not explicitly disclose the pre-processing including forming a plurality of digital AV signals from the AV data file. However, in analogous art, Watanabe discloses that a “reproducing device 2 reproduces a digital AV signal supporting a plurality of channel counts, and outputs the digital AV signal as an HDMI (trademark) signal. In this embodiment, the digital AV signal is assumed to support a plurality of channel counts including a channel count of 7.1.6 channels (the front left channel FL, the front right channel FR, the center channel C, the surround left channel SL, the surround right channel SR, the surround back left channel SBL, the surround back right channel SBR, the subwoofer channel SW, a top front left channel TFL, a top front right channel TFR, a top middle left channel TML, a top middle right channel TMR, a top rear left channel TRL, and a top rear right channel TRR) (para. [0028]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowling to allow for the pre-processing to include forming a plurality of digital AV signals from the AV data file. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a plurality of signals to be sent to different speakers in the vehicle, which could improve the sounds quality experienced by the user.
The combination of Bowling and Watanabe does not disclose sending at least a portion of the plurality of digital AV signals to a cloud-based server configured to apply one or more processing features to the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals at a rate faster than a playback rate of the AV data file. However, in analogous art, Begeja discloses that “[t]he system can extract video metadata from a video program displayed on a playback device to a viewer. The system can process video metadata in advance and store it either in the video program itself or in a separate file. The system can extract video metadata from the video in real time by processing the video and analyzing the video contents during playback. As video processing technology develops, the system can initiate video metadata analysis when playback is started and can finish the analysis before the end of the video, essentially extracting metadata faster than playback (para. [0031]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowling and Watanabe to allow for sending at least a portion of the plurality of digital AV signals to a cloud-based server configured to apply one or more processing features to the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals at a rate faster than a playback rate of the AV data file. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to be prepared with processed data, such that the system is able to “[cache] video metadata until it is needed (Begeja, para. [0031]),” which could improve system performance.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein sending at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals to the cloud-based server comprises receiving, from the cloud-based server, a request indicating which of the plurality of digital AV signals to send to the cloud-based server and sending the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals to the cloud-based server in response to the request (Bowling, Fig. 5, paras. [0109]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja discloses the method of claim 2, and further discloses further comprising sending, to the cloud-based server, an indication of the one or more processing features to be applied to the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals, and wherein the cloud-based server is configured to determine which of the plurality of digital AV signals to request based on the one or more processing features to be applied (Bowling, Fig. 5, paras. [0109]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein only the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals are sent to the cloud-based server and processed versions of only the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals are received from the cloud-based server, and further comprising outputting a remainder of the plurality of digital AV signals along with the processed versions of only the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals to the one or more AV sinks (Bowling, para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising sending, to the cloud-based server, engine noise data comprising a noise profile of an engine of the vehicle picked up by a microphone of the vehicle, and wherein the one or more processing features applied by the cloud-based server comprise selectively boosting frequency components of digital audio associated with frequency components of the engine noise (Bowling, para. [0014]; “Each of automobiles 120 may be capable of making various sounds, such as a car horn sound. Other sounds may emanate from one or more of automobiles 120, such as squealing tires, a loud engine, wind noise, or the voice of an angry motorist.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling (Pub. No.: US 2018/0181366) in view of Watanabe et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0210598), Begeja et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0122285) and Sadowksi et al. (Pat. No.: 8,537,890).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja discloses the method of claim 1, but it could be argued that Bowling does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of digital AV signals is stored in a first buffer and further comprising saving the processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals in a second buffer. However, in analogous art, Sadowksi discloses “receiving an input that includes video data, wherein the video data is compressed; decompressing the video data; writing via a first write port the processed video data to a buffer in order to process the video data, wherein the video data written in only a first format based on input requirements of the first device, wherein the first device is a video decoder; and writing uncompressed video data to a second buffer to enable the uncompressed video data to be processed by a second device, wherein the uncompressed video data is written in a second format based on requirements of the second device (see the language of claim 11).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja to allow for the plurality of digital AV signals to be stored in a first buffer and further comprising saving the processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals in a second buffer. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for different formats of the same content to be stored in different buffers, which allows for quicker access to a particular version when requested, which could improve system performance and user satisfaction.
Claims 5, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling (Pub. No.: US 2018/0181366) in view of Watanabe et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0210598), Begeja et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0122285), Sadowksi et al. (Pat. No.: 8,537,890) and Potetsianakis et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0212294).
Regarding claim 5, the combination as stated above discloses the method of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising determining that a network connection to the cloud-based server has been lost, and in response, cross-morphing the processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals saved in the second buffer with locally processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals, the locally processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals processed by the local digital signal processor. However, in analogous art, Potetsianakis discloses that “[t]he rendering device 100 may in turn render the scene as the augmentation of the video object or the external environment, namely by locally rendering the first part of the scene and by including the prerendered version of the second part of the scene, for example by blending or otherwise combining the prerendered version of the second part of the scene with the locally rendered first part (para. [0155]),” wherein “if there is little available bandwidth, the client may switch or change the ratio towards local rendering, whereas if there is ample available bandwidth, the client may switch or change the ratio towards remote rendering. This may for example involve the following steps: 1. If the bandwidth is too low or reduces to zero (e.g., when the client loses network connectivity connection), the client may switch to local rendering (paras. [0228]-[0229]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above art to allow for determining that a network connection to the cloud-based server has been lost, and in response, cross-morphing the processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals saved in the second buffer with locally processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals, the locally processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals processed by the local digital signal processor. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the presentation to continue with minimum disruption were the connection to the server lost, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
Regarding claim 6, the combination as stated above discloses the method of claim 5, and further discloses further comprising determining that the network connection to the cloud-based server has been restored, and in response, cross-morphing the processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals received from the cloud-based server after the network connection is restored with locally processed versions of the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals (Potetsianakis, paras. [0155] and [0228]-[0230]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination as stated above discloses the method of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the cross-morphing performed in response to determining that the network connection to the cloud-based server has been lost is performed over a first cross-morphing period (Potetsianakis, paras. [0155] and [0228]-[0230]; any period over which this said cross-morphing is performed can be referred to as “a first cross-morphing period”), and wherein the cross-morphing performed after the network connection is restored is performed over a second cross-morphing period (Potetsianakis, paras. [0155] and [0228]-[0230]; any period over which this said cross-morphing is performed can be referred to as “a second cross-morphing period”), the second cross-morphing period longer than the first cross-morphing period (Potetsianakis, paras. [0155] and [0228]-[0230]; if the second cross-morphing period was ever, by happenstance, longer than the first cross-morphing period, which could obviously occur over thousands or millions of iterations, then the conditions of this claim would be met. The language of the claim does not require that the second period “must be” or “is programmed to be” longer than the first period, or something similar. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling (Pub. No.: US 2018/0181366) in view of Watanabe et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0210598), Begeja et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0122285) and Filos et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0382509).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the AV data file is obtained from a local media source positioned in the vehicle. However, in analogous art, Filos discloses a multi-speaker audio playback system 136 (Fig. 1, element 136, para. [0030]), wherein a “device 900 may include a voice-activated device, an audio device, a wireless speaker and voice activated device, a portable electronic device, a car, a vehicle, a computing device, a communication device, an internet-of-things (IoT) device, a virtual reality (VR) device, an augmented reality (AR) device, a smart speaker, a mobile communication device, a smart phone, a cellular phone, a laptop computer, a computer, a tablet, a personal digital assistant, a display device, a television, a gaming console, a music player, a radio, a digital video player, a digital video disc (DVD) player, a tuner, a camera, a navigation device, or any combination thereof (para. [0087]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja to allow for the AV data file to be obtained from a local media source positioned in the vehicle. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to bring external devices, such as cellular phones, into their vehicles to provide audio to the vehicle’s sound system, a process well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the AV data file comprises an audio file and the one or more AV sinks comprise one or more speakers of the vehicle, and wherein the one or more processing features applied to the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals comprise one or more of surround sound, immersion effects, reverberations, virtual speakers, virtual bass, and adaptive equalization. However, in analogous art, Filos discloses a multi-speaker audio playback system 136 (Fig. 1, element 136, para. [0030]), wherein an “output signals 141 can be based on configuration settings (e.g., a surround sound configuration, a channel balance setting, etc.) of the multi-speaker audio playback system 136, configuration settings of the speaker controller 108, configuration settings of the speakers 120, or a combination thereof (para. [0038]),” wherein “[t]he device 900 may include a voice-activated device, an audio device, a wireless speaker and voice activated device, a portable electronic device, a car, a vehicle, a computing device, a communication device, an internet-of-things (IoT) device, a virtual reality (VR) device, an augmented reality (AR) device, a smart speaker, a mobile communication device, a smart phone, a cellular phone, a laptop computer, a computer, a tablet, a personal digital assistant, a display device, a television, a gaming console, a music player, a radio, a digital video player, a digital video disc (DVD) player, a tuner, a camera, a navigation device, or any combination thereof (para. [0087]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja to allow for the AV data file to comprise an audio file and the one or more AV sinks to comprise one or more speakers of the vehicle, and wherein the one or more processing features applied to the at least the portion of the plurality of digital AV signals comprise one or more of surround sound, immersion effects, reverberations, virtual speakers, virtual bass, and adaptive equalization. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for well-known components and features of an audio system to be used, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling (Pub. No.: US 2018/0181366) in view of Watanabe et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0210598), Begeja et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0122285) and Gintis et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0078566).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising receiving, from the cloud-based server, a list of available processing features, checking processing features selected from the list against each other for compatibility, and, in response to one or more of the selected processing features being incompatible, notifying a user and prompting the user to select compatible processing features. However, in analogous art, Gintis discloses that “network testing software then consults a database of compatible test features for the user selected hardware, as shown in block 232. The network testing software checks if user selected hardware is incompatible with user selected test features, as shown in block 234. If so, the network testing software may, in various embodiments or as appropriate, issue a warning message to the user, apply a suggested correction if possible, or suggest correction if possible, as shown in block 234. That is, when the selected hardware is incompatible with the selected test features, the network testing software may identify corrective changes to the selected hardware and/or the selected test features, notify the user of suggested corrective changes to the selected hardware and/or the selected test features, and, in some embodiments, automatically apply the corrective changes to the selected hardware and/or the selected test features. When incompatibilities are found between the user selected test features and the user selected hardware, the flow of actions may continue at block 230 to allow a user to re-select and/or de-select hardware to be used in the network test to remove any incompatibility issues. During this process, network testing software suggested hardware and/or feature changes may be provided as automated correction to the user by text boxes, pop-up boxes, pre-filled in check boxes rendered conspicuous by a color, and by other techniques. The automated corrections may include packet size changes, header size changes, frame size changes, speed changes, memory used changes, number of streams changes, and others. Also, at this point the user may select to return to block 220 to amend or change the user selected test features. This may be achieved by the user selecting a network testing software provided icon, pull down menu item, or other user interface technique (para. [0046]; see also Fig. 2).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowling, Watanabe and Begeja to allow for receiving, from the cloud-based server, a list of available processing features, checking processing features selected from the list against each other for compatibility, and, in response to one or more of the selected processing features being incompatible, notifying a user and prompting the user to select compatible processing features. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known process of determining compatibility to be used, which could prevent errors and improve user satisfaction with the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of Watanabe and Begeja, as well as Gintis.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7, 9 and 16-18 are rejected. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 September 24, 2026
