DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1-6, 8-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Romaswamy (US 2007/0192782).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15,
Romaswamy teaches a computing device, and corresponding method of operation, the computing device comprising:
a processor ([0037] teaches an audio engine (228); and [0038] teaches a video engine (232) – at least 228 and 232 having processing functionality);
and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions ([0017]-[0025] teach a series of machine readable instructions) that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of operations comprising:
receiving a first audio signal associated with media presented by a monitored media device(see 116 in fig. 1; [0027] teaches a signal splitter 118 routes the inputs being provided to the television 116 to a multi-engine meter 120 to facilitate monitoring of the A/V content provided to and presented by the television 116);
receiving a second audio signal from a first media source of a plurality of media sources (104, 15, 108, 110, 112 in fig. 1) communicatively coupled to the monitored media device (116), each media source configured to provide media to the monitored media device ([0027] teaches a plurality of audio/visual (A/V) content sources 102 that may include any or all of a game console 104, a set-top box (STB) 106, a digital video disk (DVD) player 108, a video cassette recorder (VCR) 110, a personal video recorder (PVR), a digital video recorder (DVR) 112, etc. The A/V content sources 102 are coupled to the inputs of an A/V switch 114 to route the outputs from a selected one of the A/V content sources 102 to the inputs of a television 116);
comparing frequency band values of the first audio signal with corresponding frequency band values of the second audio signal to determine a comparison result ([0043] teaches that signature information for the content being presented may be compared to a set of reference signatures corresponding to a known set of content; [0047] teaches determining whether the input audio samples 304 correspond to an audio signal that possesses a particular spectral shape and gives as an example, processing the spectral shape of an audio signal whereby increased energy in a band at or near 15.75 kHz is detected – it is understood that spectral analysis is the process of examining a signal's content in terms of its frequencies. Said frequency band values are used in determining the source content in decision processor 600); and
based on the comparison result, detecting that the first media source of the plurality of media sources provided the media presented by the monitored media device ([0047] teaches a decision processor 224 of FIG. 2, to determine the A/V content source corresponding to the input audio samples 304).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 16,
Romaswamy teaches that the first audio signal is received via an audio sensor located in a viewing environment of the monitored media device, the audio sensor configured to capture audio output by the monitored media device ([0035] teaches that to facilitate the determination of source and content identification information, the multi-engine meter 120 may also be provided with one or more sensors 128).
Regarding claim 3,
Romaswamy further teaches receiving a third audio signal from a second one of the plurality of media sources([0036] teaches “ The example multi-engine meter 200 is configured to process composite A/V inputs that include stereo left and right audio input signals 204 and a video input signal 208. The stereo audio input signals 204 are sampled by an audio sampler 212 at a suitable sampling rate, e.g., 48 kHz, and converted to a digital monaural audio signal. The resulting digital audio samples are stored in an audio buffer 216.” Thus teaching that samples are collected from more than a single source i.e., at least a second and a third audio signal); and comparing the frequency band values of the first audio signal with corresponding frequency band values of the third audio signal to determine a second comparison result, wherein detecting that the first media source provided the media is further based on the second comparison result ([0076] teaches a metering engine metric evaluator 652 samples the available audio, video and metadata metrics/results obtained from the audio/video/metadata engines. A sub-process 702 determines the A/V content source providing the monitored A/V content presentation. At sub-process 703, the metering engine metric evaluator 652 determines content identification information).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18,
Romaswamy teaches the corresponding frequency band values of the second audio signal comprise frequency band values of a set of frequency bands, and the method further comprises selecting the set of frequency bands based on a first set of trending coefficients determined for the first audio signal and a second set of trending coefficients determined for the second audio signal (at least [0009] teaches signature-based identification wherein the content shall generate a substantially unique signature (e.g., a waveform, etc.) for that content. The signature information shall be compared to a set of reference signatures so as to determine a substantial match; [0047] teaches that audio signals may exhibit increased energy in a frequency band at or near 15.75 kHz due to video signal leakage. Thus, knowledge of whether the audio has a particular spectral shape i.e., increased energy corresponding to the identified and thus select trending coefficients, is used to determine the area of focus when determining a match.)
Regarding claims 5 and 12,
Romaswamy teaches that the frequency band values of the first audio signal and the frequency band values of the second audio signal are respective power spectral density values ([0109] –[0111] teaches the benefit of utilizing power spectral density (PSD) and teaches identifying different average values of different macroblocks, so as to identify a large sum of PSD differences as compared to a video image that does not exhibit macroblocking. This disclosure teaches that the compared signals used to detect macroblocking are derived from power spectral density (PSD) values. While the system also uses template matching, the specific process for macroblock detection is based on the analysis and comparison of signals derived from power spectral density values.)
Regarding claim 6,
Romaswamy teaches processing samples of the first audio signal to determine power spectral density values of the first audio signal; and processing samples of the second audio signal to determine power spectral density values of the second audio signal ([0109] teaches computing the power spectral density (PSD) of the signals in question).
Regarding claim 17,
Romaswamy teaches wherein the computing device is a meter located in a viewing environment of the monitored media device (see 1201 in fig. 1).
Regarding claims 8, 14 and 20,
Romaswamy teaches detecting that the first media source provided the media presented by the monitored media device based on the comparison result comprises detecting that the first media source provided the media presented by the monitored media device based on a determination that the comparison result satisfies a predefined threshold ([0110] teaches “…the macroblock detector 424 then compares the sum of PSD differences to a predetermined threshold set to detect macroblocking (block 1328). …Thus, if the sum of PSD differences is substantially zero (block 1336), the macroblock detector 424 reports that the A/V content source corresponds to a game console (block 1340). Otherwise, the macroblock detector 424 reports that the A/V content source is indeterminate (block 1344). The example process 1300 then ends.” This disclosure explicitly states that the determination is based on whether the comparison of the sum of PSD differences satisfies a predetermined threshold ).
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 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 7, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romaswamy (US 2007/0192782) in view of Thyssen (US 2013/0163781).
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 19,
Romaswamy teaches the features of claims 1, 9 and 15, but fails to expressly teach comparing the frequency band values of the first audio signal with the corresponding frequency band values of the second audio signal to determine the comparison result comprises cross-correlating the frequency band values of the first audio signal with the corresponding frequency band values over a window of n time delays over a range of time to determine the comparison result.
Thyssen teaches processing the respective frequency band values of the first audio signal and the respective frequency band values of the second audio signal for the subset of the frequency bands comprises:
cross-correlating the frequency band values of the first audio signal with the corresponding frequency band values over a window of n time delays over a range of time to determine the comparison result ([0040] teaches that a measure of coherence between the first audio signal and the second audio signal may be calculated, for example, by estimating a cross-correlation between the first audio signal and the second audio signal in a time domain or estimating a cross-spectrum between the first audio signal and the second audio signal in the frequency domain; [0050] teaches determining that breathing noise is present in the first audio signal based on the comparison thus teaches determining the comparison result).
Before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Romaswamy per the teachings of Thyssen for the purpose of utilizing cross-correlation techniques for determining the presence of an audio signal based upon a comparison.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,641,892 to PANGER. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of obvious wording variations.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 20,
Comprehensive claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,641,892 teaches all features recited in claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 20.
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 19,
Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,641,892 teaches all features recited in claims 7, 13 and 19.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,349,123 to PANGER. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of obvious wording variations.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 15 and 18,
Comprehensive claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,349,123 teaches all features recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 15 and 18.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 12,
Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,349,123 teaches all features recited in claims 5, 6 and 12.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,630 to PANGER. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of obvious wording variations.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 9, 15,
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,630 teaches all features recited in claims 1, 3, 9 and 15.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 16,
Claim 2, 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,630 teaches all features recited in claims 2, 10 and 16.
Regarding claims 5,
Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,630 teaches all features recited in claims 5.
Regarding claims 6 and 12,
Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,630 teaches all features recited in claims 6 and 12.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 18are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,695,987 to PANGER. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of obvious wording variations.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 15 and 18,
Comprehensive claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,695,987 teaches all features recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 15 and 18.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 12,
Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,695,987 teaches all features recited in claims 5, 6 and 12.
Claims 1,9 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,204 to PANGER. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of obvious wording variations.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15,
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,204 teaches all features recited in claims 1, 9 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE PENDLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7497. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/DIONNE PENDLETON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689