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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “selection part”, “combination part” recited in claims 1-2, 9-12 and 16-17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in fig. 6 of the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nandan, WO 20150044104 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Nandan discloses a signal processing apparatus (fig. 1, 102) comprising:
a selection part configured to select, from among a plurality of pieces of coded data obtained by encoding a plurality of media signals, pieces of the coded data targeted for combination without decoding the pieces of coded data (Para. 24 (the video traffic management system 102 selects a set comprising of one or more video streams from amongst the total number of video streams being received and there is no decoding before transmission of the set selected is scheduled)); and a
combination part configured to combine the pieces of coded data selected as the target for combination (Para. 24 (the set of videos selected from all the videos received when there is less than required bandwidth forms the target combination of video stream that will satisfy the determined bandwidth)).
Regarding claim 2, Nandan discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the selection part selects the pieces of coded data targeted for combination on a basis of a degree of importance calculated for each piece of the coded data (Para. 24-25 (priority is given to video streams with higher QoS (quality of service) factor in than those with a lower QoS and so on-this that video streams with higher QoS fact are more important/relevant than those with a lower QoS factor)).
Regarding claim 3, Nandan discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the degree of importance is calculated on a basis of attribute information corresponding to the coded data (Para. 24-25 (see QoS factor for attribute information)).
Regarding claim 11, Nandan does not explicitly disclose the signal processing apparatus, wherein the combination part weights, before combining, the pieces of coded data selected as the target for combination, the weighting being made according to the degree of importance (Para. 24-25 (priority is given to video streams with higher QoS (quality of service) factor than those with a lower QoS factor so that a video stream with a higher QoS factor is more important/relevant than the video with a lower QoS factor-iso in forming a set, high QoS factor videos are selected for combining and the QoS factors are identified first before the combination is done)).
Regarding claim 18, Nandan discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the media signals include at least a video signal, an audio signal, or a haptic signal (Para. 24 (video streams include video signals)).
Regarding claim 19, Nandan discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the pieces of coded data not selected as the target for combination are discarded (Para. 25 (when the transmission buffer is full or exceeded -low quality packets are dropped-dropping meets discarded)).
Regarding claim 20, Nandan discloses a signal processing method for causing a signal processing apparatus to perform:
selecting, from among a plurality of pieces of coded data, pieces of the coded data targeted for combination without decoding the pieces of coded data (Para. 24 (the video traffic management system 102 selects a set comprising of one or more video streams from amongst the total number of video streams being received and there is no decoding before transmission is scheduled)); and
combining media signals obtained by decoding the pieces of coded data selected as the target for combination (Para. 24 (the set of videos selected from all the videos received when there is less than required bandwidth is the target combination)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4-10, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandan, WO 20150044104 A1, in view of Brejka, WO 2018224839 A2.
Regarding claim 4, Nandan discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the signal processing apparatus is included in a server connected with a plurality of terminals individually used by a plurality of users (Para. 30 (client devices 104 meets terminals)), and
Nandan does not explicitly disclose the plurality of pieces of coded data are data transmitted from each of the plurality of terminals.
Brejka discloses a plurality of pieces of coded data are data transmitted from each of the plurality of terminals (pg. 20, ll. 25-29).
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 apparatus of Brejka to include the plurality of pieces of coded data are data transmitted from each of the plurality of terminals as disclosed by Brejka in order to support generating and displaying the reactions of multiple viewers to the same video presentation at remote locations.
Regarding claim 5, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the attribute information indicates feature quantities of the media signals (Nandan: Para. 21 (video frame size or frame type meets feature quantities)).
Regarding claim 6, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the attribute information is information attached to the coded data when transmitted from the terminals (Brejka: pg. 14, ll. 3-5; pg. 15, ll. 22-23 (the reaction video includes reaction metadata for example time stamps for the frames of the reaction video captured by the camera-transmitted with the reaction videos)).
Regarding claim 7, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the feature quantities of the media signals include at least a size, a degree of change, or a type of the media signals (Nandan: Para. 21 (frame type , frame size)).
Regarding claim 8, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the attribute information indicates a degree of relation between the user of any of the terminals transmitting the coded data on one hand and the user of any of the terminals to which the combined coded data is transmitted on the other hand (Brejka: pg. 20, ll. 21-24 (the reaction videos are selectively transmitted back to group of users who are subscribed to the reaction video service-so the degree relationship here between the users who submitted reaction videos and those who received reaction videos is the subscription to the service information)).
Regarding claim 9, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the selection part selects the pieces of coded data targeted for combination in units of groups to which the users of the terminals transmitting the coded data belong, the groups being indicated by the attribute information (Brejka: pg. 20, ll. 21-24 (here subscribed group)).
Regarding claim 10, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses selecting the number of pieces of the coded data targeted for combination which number corresponds to at least either a processing load of the server or a load of communication with the terminals (Nandan: Para. 21, 24 (number frames that can be supported by available bandwidth-see frame rates)).
Regarding claim 13, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the signal processing apparatus is included in a terminal connected with a server that repeats transmission of the coded data, and the plurality of pieces of coded data are data transmitted from the server (Nandan: Para. 24, 35 (102 distributes video from video servers)).
Regarding claim 14, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the attribute information indicates attributes of the media signals (Nandan: Para. 24 (QoS factor)).
Regarding claim 15, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the attribute information is information attached to the coded data when transmitted from the server (Nandan: Para. 24 (QoS factor)).
Regarding claim 16, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the selection part selects the number of pieces of the coded data targeted for combination which number corresponds to at least either a processing load of the terminal or a reproduction environment for the combined media signals (Nandan: Para. 14-15 (see jitter network traffic to client)).
Regarding claim 17, Nandan in view of Brejka discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the combination part weights, before combining, the pieces of coded data according to the attribute information and a reproduction environment for the combined media signals (Nandan: Para. 14, 15, 21(number frames that can be supported by available bandwidth)).
Claim 12, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandan, WO 20150044104 A1, in view of Rumereich, USPG_Pub. 20160007062.
Regarding claim 12, Nandan does not explicitly disclose the signal processing apparatus, wherein the combination part combines frequency signals obtained by decoding the coded data and encodes the combined frequency signals without converting them to time signals.
Rumereich discloses the signal processing apparatus, wherein the combination part combines frequency signals obtained by decoding the coded data and encodes the combined frequency signals without converting them to time signals (Para. 15 (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing allows multiples segments to be transmitted on different frequencies simultaneously as a single band-which gives broadcasters a very large shared channel which increases the bandwidth available to the broadcaster)).
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 apparatus of Nandan to include signal processing apparatus, wherein the combination part combines frequency signals obtained by decoding the coded data and encodes the combined frequency signals without converting them to time signals as disclosed by Rumereich in order to improve broadcast bandwidth of the broadcaster.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BANTAMOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3581. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST..
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/ANTHONY BANTAMOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2422