DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (18/852,951) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 18/852,951, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Preliminary Amendment and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment received October 7, 2024.
Claims 1–9, 11–15, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, and 55 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS filed September 30, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDS has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) recites “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed.” Moreover, 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(r) recites “Arrows may be used at the ends of lines, provided that their meaning is clear, as follows: (1) On a lead line, a freestanding arrow to indicate the entire section towards which it points.”
Fig. 6, items 201 and 203 are reference characters that do not indicate a surface or cross section on which it is placed. Thus, the drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) for failing to include lead lines for each reference character.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3) recites “Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3) for failing to include letters measuring at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. See Fig. 11 (the text within box items 1101–1104).
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(u)(2) recites “The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters.” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(u)(2) for failing to include view numbers larger than numbers used for reference characters. See Figs. 1–11.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) recites “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible.”
The title of the invention is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) for failing to be as specific as possible. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “DETERMINING AUDIO INPUT SIGNAL FORMAT USED BY MULTIPLE TERMINALS.”
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b):
The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.
MPEP § 608.01(b) recites the abstract “should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, ‘This disclosure concerns,’ ‘The disclosure defined by this invention,’ ‘This disclosure describes,’ etc.”
The abstract is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b) for using phrases which can be implied. The Examiner recommends deleting the first sentence of the abstract.
Means-plus-Function Language
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(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
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The instant application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses 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:
“core network element” (claim 1, lines 1–2); and
“first terminal” (claim 11, line 1).1
Since the claim limitations invoke § 112(f), claims 1–9, 11–15, 17, 18, 22, 24, and 25 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Notably, the corresponding structure described in the Specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof of the “core network element” “includes: a processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor.” Spec. 2:19–21. The corresponding structure described in the Specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof of the “first terminal” includes “a mobile phone, a computer, a tablet computer, a conference system device, an augmented reality (AR) device, a virtual reality (VR) device, an automobile.” Id. at 4:27–29.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under § 112(f), Applicant may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke § 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of § 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011) (available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1–9, 11–15, 17, 18, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Notably, as discussed above, the claim element “core network element” (claim 1, lines 1–2) is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Claims 1–9, therefore, are single-means claims. Moreover, as discussed above, the claim element “first terminal” (claim 11, line 1) is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Claims 11–15, 17, 18, 22, 24, and 25 are, therefore, single-means claims.
“A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” MPEP § 2164.08(a) (citing In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715(Fed. Cir. 1983)).
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 5, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(i) When a subjective term is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification supplies some objective standard for measuring the scope of the term. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970).
MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV)
Claim 5, line 13 (emphasis added) recites “wherein the network in the first condition is better than the network in the second condition.” The network in the first condition being better than the network in the second condition is a subjective term. The Examiner finds the Specification does not provide some objective standard for measuring when the network in the first condition is better than the network in the second condition. Accordingly, claim 5 is objected to as being indefinite.
(ii) claim 22, line 2, “wherein in a case that” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the limitation is the case or not. It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation is the case. See MPEP § 2173.06 (citing Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312).
Claim 24, line 2; and claim 25, line 2 by analogy.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 1032
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.
Imai and Verkama
Claims 1–4, 11–15, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Imai et al. (US 2017/0134697 A1; filed Nov. 1, 2016) in view of Verkama (US 8,265,696 B1; PCT filed Oct. 19, 1999).
Regarding claim 1, while Imai teaches a method for capability determination (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02), performed by a core network element (fig. 7, item 50), comprising:
receiving a first identifier set (fig. 7, item S2; “In step S2, the management system 50 acquires data indicating codecs from the terminal management DB 5003” at ¶ 113; “The nonvolatile storage 5000 includes a terminal management DB 5003 formed of a terminal management table (Table 4)” at ¶ 98; “COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7), and receiving a second identifier set (“In step S2, the management system 50 acquires data indicating codecs from the terminal management DB 5003” at ¶ 113; “The nonvolatile storage 5000 includes a terminal management DB 5003 formed of a terminal management table (Table 4)” at ¶ 98; “COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for second terminal item 10B at fig. 7),
wherein the first identifier set is configured to indicate at least one audio input signal format (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7; “communications are performed between the multiple information processing terminals by causing the information processing terminals to mutually transmit and receive data such as . . . audio data” at ¶ 205; “The first communications are performed using a codec (hereinafter called ‘first codec’) capable of being used by the first terminal and the second terminal to perform communication.” at ¶ 206) supported by a first terminal (fig. 7, item 10A), the second identifier set is configured to indicate at least one audio input signal format (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for second terminal item 10B at fig. 7; “communications are performed between the multiple information processing terminals by causing the information processing terminals to mutually transmit and receive data such as . . . audio data” at ¶ 205; “The first communications are performed using a codec (hereinafter called ‘first codec’) capable of being used by the first terminal and the second terminal to perform communication.” at ¶ 206)) supported by a second terminal (fig. 7, item 10B); and
determining, based on the first identifier set and the second identifier set, an audio input signal format (fig. 7, item S11; ¶ 122) used by the first terminal and the second terminal during establishment of a communication link (fig. 7, item S12),
Imai does not teach (A) the first identifier set being reported by the first terminal; and (B) the second identifier set being reported by the second terminal.
Verkama teaches an identifier set being reported by a terminal (“a mobile switching centre in a digital telecommunication network configured to receive information regarding availability of a plurality of supported speech codecs of a calling terminal” at claim 17; “The speech codecs supported by the mobile station MS1 of subscriber A are indicated to the mobile switching centre WMSC(A).” at 7:47–49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Imai’s first identifier set to be reported by the first terminal and for Imai’s second identifier set to be reported by the second terminal as taught by Verkama to provide “simplified signalling better adaptable to new systems, in which the speech codec to be used is agreed upon between mobile switching centres.” Verkama 2:52–55.
Regarding claim 2, Imai teaches does not teach wherein one or both of: the first identifier set is reported in response to the first terminal accessing a network; or the second identifier set is reported in response to the second terminal accessing a network.
Verkama teaches wherein one or both of:
a first identifier set is reported (“a mobile switching centre in a digital telecommunication network configured to receive information regarding availability of a plurality of supported speech codecs of a calling terminal” at claim 17; “The speech codecs supported by the mobile station MS1 of subscriber A are indicated to the mobile switching centre WMSC(A).” at 7:47–49) in response to a first terminal (fig. 1, item MS1) accessing a network (fig. 1, item RAN; 4:1–17); or
a second identifier set is reported in response to a second terminal accessing a network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Imai’s first identifier set to be reported in response to the first terminal accessing a network as taught by Verkama to provide “simplified signalling better adaptable to new systems, in which the speech codec to be used is agreed upon between mobile switching centres.” Verkama 2:52–55.
Regarding claim 3, Imai teaches wherein determining, based on the first identifier set and the second identifier set, the audio input signal format used by the first terminal and the second terminal during the establishment of the communication link comprises:
in a case that both the first identifier set and the second identifier set comprise a first candidate identifier (“the ‘common codec’ capable of being used by both the first terminal 10A and the second terminal 10B” at ¶ 122), determining an audio input signal format (TABLE 4 at ¶ 98 shows a common codec “H264” between terminals “01aa” and “01ab”) corresponding to the first candidate identifier as the audio input signal format used by the first terminal (codec “H264” of terminals “01aa”) and the second terminal (codec “H264” of terminals “01ab”) during the establishment of the communication link (fig. 7, item S12).
Regarding claim 4, Imai teaches wherein determining, based on the first identifier set and the second identifier set, the audio input signal format used by the first terminal and the second terminal during the establishment of the communication link comprises:
determining, based on the first identifier set (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7), the second identifier set (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for second terminal item 10B at fig. 7) and a network state (fig. 1, item 2i is operational; fig. 6, item 2 is operational), the audio input signal format (fig. 7, item S11; ¶ 122) used by the first terminal and the second terminal during the establishment of the communication link (fig. 7, item S12).
Regarding claim 11, while Imai teaches a method for capability reporting (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02), performed by a first terminal (fig. 7, item 10A), comprising:
having a first identifier set (fig. 7, item S2; “In step S2, the management system 50 acquires data indicating codecs from the terminal management DB 5003” at ¶ 113; “The nonvolatile storage 5000 includes a terminal management DB 5003 formed of a terminal management table (Table 4)” at ¶ 98; “COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7) for a core network element (fig. 7, item 50), the first identifier set being configured to indicate at least one audio input signal format (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7; “communications are performed between the multiple information processing terminals by causing the information processing terminals to mutually transmit and receive data such as . . . audio data” at ¶ 205; “The first communications are performed using a codec (hereinafter called ‘first codec’) capable of being used by the first terminal and the second terminal to perform communication.” at ¶ 206) supported by the first terminal;
wherein, the first identifier set is used for determining, in combination with a second identifier set (“In step S2, the management system 50 acquires data indicating codecs from the terminal management DB 5003” at ¶ 113; “The nonvolatile storage 5000 includes a terminal management DB 5003 formed of a terminal management table (Table 4)” at ¶ 98; “COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for second terminal item 10B at fig. 7), an audio input signal format (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7; “communications are performed between the multiple information processing terminals by causing the information processing terminals to mutually transmit and receive data such as . . . audio data” at ¶ 205; “The first communications are performed using a codec (hereinafter called ‘first codec’) capable of being used by the first terminal and the second terminal to perform communication.” at ¶ 206) used by the first terminal and a second terminal during establishment of a communication link (fig. 7, item S12), the second identifier set is configured to indicate at least one audio input signal format (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for second terminal item 10B at fig. 7; “communications are performed between the multiple information processing terminals by causing the information processing terminals to mutually transmit and receive data such as . . . audio data” at ¶ 205; “The first communications are performed using a codec (hereinafter called ‘first codec’) capable of being used by the first terminal and the second terminal to perform communication.” at ¶ 206) supported by the second terminal (fig. 7, item 10B),
Imai does not teach (A) the first terminal reporting the first identifier set to the core network element; and (B) the second identifier set is reported by the second terminal to the core network element.
Verkama teaches an identifier set being reported by a terminal (“a mobile switching centre in a digital telecommunication network configured to receive information regarding availability of a plurality of supported speech codecs of a calling terminal” at claim 17; “The speech codecs supported by the mobile station MS1 of subscriber A are indicated to the mobile switching centre WMSC(A).” at 7:47–49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Imai’s first identifier set to be reported by the first terminal to the core network element and for Imai’s second identifier set to be reported by the second terminal to the core network element as taught by Verkama to provide “simplified signalling better adaptable to new systems, in which the speech codec to be used is agreed upon between mobile switching centres.” Verkama 2:52–55.
Regarding claim 12, claim 2 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Imai teaches further comprising:
determining (fig. 7, item S2) an audio input signal format (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7) supported by the first terminal (fig. 7, item 10A); and
determining a unique corresponding identifier (“H264” and “H265” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98) for each audio input signal format.
Regarding claim 14, Imai teaches wherein determining the audio input signal format (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7) supported by the first terminal (fig. 7, item 10A) comprises:
determining the audio input signal format supported by the first terminal according to an audio acquisition device (fig. 4, item 114) connected to the first terminal (fig. 4, item 10; fig. 7, item 10A) and a software processing algorithm (“The microphone 114 is configured to input voice of a user to generate audio data of the user.” and “The audio input-output I/F 116 is configured to control the microphone 114” at ¶ 58; “the voice input part 15a may be implemented, for example, by the microphone 114 (FIG. 4)” at ¶ 75) capability possessed by the first terminal.
Regarding claim 15, Imai teaches wherein the audio acquisition device comprises at least one of: a built-in single microphone (fig. 4, item 114); a plurality of built-in microphones; or an external audio signal acquisition device,
wherein the external audio signal acquisition device comprises at least one of: an audio signal acquisition ball; a microphone audio acquisition array; or a control-by-wire headphone.
Regarding claim 55, Imai teaches a core network element (fig. 7, item 50), comprising: a processor (fig. 5, item 201); and a memory (fig. 5, item 202, 203) storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 55.
Imai, Verkama, and Morris
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Imai in view of Verkama, and in further view of Morris et al. (US 2022/0345234 A1; filed Apr. 21, 2021).
Regarding claim 18, Imai does not teach further comprising: reporting an audio playback format capability possessed by the first terminal to the core network element.
Verkama teaches reporting a codec format capability possessed by a first terminal to a core network element (“a mobile switching centre in a digital telecommunication network configured to receive information regarding availability of a plurality of supported speech codecs of a calling terminal” at claim 17; “The speech codecs supported by the mobile station MS1 of subscriber A are indicated to the mobile switching centre WMSC(A).” at 7:47–49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Imai’s first terminal to report a codec format capability possessed by the first terminal to the core network element as taught by Verkama to provide “simplified signalling better adaptable to new systems, in which the speech codec to be used is agreed upon between mobile switching centres.” Verkama 2:52–55.
Morris teaches an audio playback format capability (“audio playback format (e.g., ATMOS, 7.1, 5.1, stereo, mono, etc.)” at ¶ 30; “a desired audio playback format (e.g., summing/upmixing)” at ¶ 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for the Imai/Verkama combination’s codec format capability to be an audio playback format capability as taught by Morris to meet “to automate the process of creating various versions of sound mixes.” Morris ¶ 1.
Imai, Verkama, and Stengel
Claims 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Imai in view of Verkama, and in further view of Stengel et al. (US 2022/0191638 A1; filed Mar. 3, 2021).
Regarding claim 22, while Imai teaches wherein in a case that a single microphone (fig. 4, item 114) is built in the first terminal (fig. 4, item 10; fig. 7, item 10A), the audio input signal format supported by the first terminal comprises a signal (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7)
Imai does not teach the signal being at least one of: a mono-track signal; or an object signal, wherein the object signal comprises a mono-track audio signal and a single-channel metadata signal.
Stengel teaches at least one of: a mono-track signal (“input audio 108 is mono-track audio” at ¶ 74); or
an object signal, wherein the object signal comprises a mono-track audio signal and a single-channel metadata signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Imai’s signal to be at least one of: a mono-track signal; or an object signal, wherein the object signal comprises a mono-track audio signal and a single-channel metadata signal as taught by Stengel “ to improve performance while simplifying programming.” Stengel ¶ 170.
Regarding claim 24, while Imai teaches wherein in a case that a plurality of microphones are built in the first terminal, or that the first terminal (fig. 7, item 10A) is externally connected to an external audio signal acquisition device (fig. 7, item 10B), the audio input signal format supported by the first terminal comprises a signal (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7),
Imai does not teach the signal being at least one of: a mono-track signal; a dual-track signal; a multi-track signal; an object signal; a metadata-assisted spatial audio (MASA) format signal; or a spatial audio signal,
wherein the object signal comprises at least one track audio signal and one channel metadata signal, or wherein the spatial audio signal comprises at least one of: at least one track signal; a background signal; or a metadata signal.
Stengel teaches at least one of: a mono-track signal (“input audio 108 is mono-track audio” at ¶ 74); a dual-track signal; a multi-track signal; an object signal; a metadata-assisted spatial audio (MASA) format signal; or a spatial audio signal,
wherein the object signal comprises at least one track audio signal and one channel metadata signal, or wherein the spatial audio signal comprises at least one of: at least one track signal; a background signal; or a metadata signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Imai’s signal to be at least one of: a mono-track signal; a dual-track signal; a multi-track signal; an object signal; a metadata-assisted spatial audio (MASA) format signal; or a spatial audio signal, wherein the object signal comprises at least one track audio signal and one channel metadata signal, or wherein the spatial audio signal comprises at least one of: at least one track signal; a background signal; or a metadata signal as taught by Stengel “ to improve performance while simplifying programming.” Stengel ¶ 170.
Regarding claim 25, while Imai teaches wherein in a case that one or more microphones (fig. 4, item 114) are built in the first terminal (fig. 4, item 10; fig. 7, item 10A), and that the first terminal is externally connected to an audio signal acquisition device (fig. 7, item 10B), the audio input signal format supported by the first terminal comprises a signal (“COMPATIBLE CODEC” at TABLE 4, ¶ 98 for first terminal item 10A at fig. 7),
Imai does not teach the signal being at least one of: a mono-track signal; a dual-track signal; a multi-track signal; an object signal; or a spatial audio signal, wherein the object signal comprises at least one track audio signal and one channel metadata signal, or wherein the spatial audio signal comprises at least one of: at least one track signal; a background signal; or a metadata signal.
Stengel teaches at least one of: a mono-track signal (“input audio 108 is mono-track audio” at ¶ 74); a dual-track signal; a multi-track signal; an object signal; or a spatial audio signal,
wherein the object signal comprises at least one track audio signal and one channel metadata signal, or
wherein the spatial audio signal comprises at least one of: at least one track signal; a background signal; or a metadata signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Imai’s signal to be at least one of: a mono-track signal; a dual-track signal; a multi-track signal; an object signal; or a spatial audio signal, wherein the object signal comprises at least one track audio signal and one channel metadata signal, or wherein the spatial audio signal comprises at least one of: at least one track signal; a background signal; or a metadata signal as taught by Stengel “ to improve performance while simplifying programming.” Stengel ¶ 170.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: US-20170134440-A1; US-20140325578-A1; US-20160315762-A1; US-6798786-B1; US-20170257411-A1; US-20040047437-A1; and US-20170272779-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner notes “Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise.” Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2021). See also Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term “compliance mechanism” in a method claim was a means-plus-function term); see also MPEP § 2181.
2 The Examiner notes claims 5–9 and 17 are not prior-art rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, but are also not indicated allowable because they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).