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 .
This Office Action is in response to correspondence filed 01 November 2024 in reference to application 18/934,962. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
The claims in this application do not commence on a separate sheet or electronic page in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(3) and 1.75(h). Appropriate correction is required in response to this action.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites “An encoder, a decoder or a transient detector configured, respectively, to encode at least one audio payload in audio content according to the method of claim 1.” However it is unclear how an decoder or transient detector could be use to perform the steps recited in claim 1 as the recited steps are performed by the encoder in the specification. Therefore claim 15 is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabnik et al. (US PAP 2013/0211564) in view of Radhakrishnan et al (US PAP 2014/0129011).
Consider claim 1, Wabnik teaches a method for encoding at least one audio payload in audio content (abstract), the method comprising:
providing audio content, into which at least one audio payload is to be embedded (0093, 0103 audio signal into which watermark is to be inserted),
providing at least one audio payload in the form of a binary sequence (0093, 0095, watermark is created from binary data),
applying a first spreading sequence to the binary sequence to obtain a first level spreading binary sequence (0097, frequency domain spreading on binary sequence),
applying at least one more spreading sequence different from the first spreading sequence to the first level spreading binary sequence to obtain at least one more spreading binary sequence of a higher level (0099, frequency domain spread sequence is spread again in the time domain, which occurs after the frequency spreading and is therefore at a higher level.), and
using the at least one more spreading binary sequence of a higher level to modulate the amplitude spectrum of the audio content to embed the at least one audio payload into the audio content.
Wabnik does not specifically teach providing audio content, into which at least one audio payload is to be embedded, in the form of an amplitude spectrum in the frequency domain; and
modulating the amplitude spectrum of the audio content to embed the at least one audio payload into the audio content.
In the same field of watermarking, Radhakrishnan teaches providing audio content, into which at least one audio payload is to be embedded, in the form of an amplitude spectrum in the frequency domain (0028, performing MDCT on audio signal to generate frequency spectrum); and
modulating the amplitude spectrum of the audio content to embed the at least one audio payload into the audio content (0033, watermark added in the frequency domain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the art at the time of effective filing to add the watermark in the time domain as taught by Radhakrishnan in the system of Wabnik in order to reduce the complexity of inserting the data into the audio signal according to psychoacoustic parameters.
Consider claim 2, Wabnik teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein with respect to at least two different levels of spreading, the step of applying at least one spreading sequence of that level to the binary sequence of the previous level to obtain the at least one spreading binary sequence of a higher level, is done such that:
if a bit of the binary sequence of the previous level is of the first value, the bit is spread by the at least one spreading sequence of that level (0100-103, time spreading is performed on the basis of +or – 1, spreading is done by multiplication, so positive bit would result is positive spread output), and
if a bit of the binary sequence of the previous level is of the second value, the bit is spread by the negative of the at least one spreading sequence of that level (00-103, time spreading is performed on the basis of +or – 1, spreading is done by multiplication, so negative bit would result is negative spread output).
Consider claim 4, Wabnik teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the amplitude spectrum is fragmented into audio signal windows by applying a windowing transform into the frequency domain to the amplitude spectrum (Figure 7, and 8, 0114-117, dividing audio spectrum into subbands).
Consider claim 5, Wabnik and Radhakrishnan teach the method of claim 4. Radhakrishnan further suggests wherein audio signal windows containing transients are encoded with less payload strength or are skipped (0030, watermark not added to frames where transients are present).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of effective filing to not insert the watermark where transients are present as taught by Radhakrishnan in the system of Wabnik and Radhakrishnan in order to prevent the watermark from being perceptible (Radhakrishnan 0030).
Consider claim 9, Wabnik teaches a method for decoding at least one audio payload from audio content (abstract), the method comprising:
providing audio content into which at least one audio payload was embedded (0094, receiving watermarked audio data),
obtaining the at least one spreading binary sequence that was used to modulate the amplitude spectrum of the audio content in the frequency domain for embedding the at least one audio payload into the audio content (0148-49 and 0140 by reference, multiplying by spreading sequence, which therefore must be obtained),
calculating at least one correlation coefficient between: at least part of the amplitude spectrum of the audio content, and the at least one spreading binary sequence, or its negative (0140-144, calculating a correlation between spreading sequence and audio content to detect watermark bits), and
depending on the sign of the at least one correlation coefficient determining whether an embedded bit of the at least one audio payload is of the first value or the second value thereby obtaining the value of the embedded bit of the embedded audio payload (0148-55, decoding messages, using scheme opposite of encoding at 0100-103).
Wabnik does not specifically teach providing audio content into which at least one audio payload was embedded in the form of an amplitude spectrum in the frequency domain.
In the same field of watermarking, Radhakrishnan teaches providing audio content into which at least one audio payload was embedded in the form of an amplitude spectrum in the frequency domain (0033, watermark added in the frequency domain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the art at the time of effective filing to add the watermark in the time domain as taught by Radhakrishnan in the system of Wabnik in order to reduce the complexity of inserting the data into the audio signal according to psychoacoustic parameters.
Consider claim 10, Wabnik teaches the method according to claim 9 wherein: the step of obtaining the at least one spreading binary sequence that was used to modulate the amplitude spectrum of the audio content in the frequency domain for embedding the at least one audio payload into the audio content comprises obtaining all spreading binary sequences of different levels which were used to obtain the highest-level spreading binary sequence (0140, 42, spreading sequences for both time and frequency spreading obtained),
the step of calculating at least one correlation coefficient comprises calculating correlation coefficients between: at least part of the amplitude spectrum of the audio content, and the highest-level spreading binary sequence, or its negative thereby obtaining a sequence of highest-level correlation coefficients (0140-144, calculating a correlation between spreading sequence and audio content to detect watermark bits), and
for each lower level calculating at least one correlation coefficient between the sequence of correlation coefficients of the higher level and the spreading binary sequence of the lower level until the lowest level has been reached (0140-44, time de-spreading and then frequency de-spreading).
Consider claim 15, Wabnik teaches An encoder, a decoder or a transient detector configured, respectively, to encode at least one audio payload in audio content according to the method of claim 1 (see figure 1 and figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Consider claim 3, Wabnik and Radhakrishnan teach the method according to claim 2. However the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “wherein the step of applying at least one more spreading sequence different from the first spreading sequence to the first level spreading binary sequence to obtain at least one more spreading binary sequence of a higher level includes at least: providing a number of different spreading sequences, applying a spreading sequence chosen from the number of spreading sequences to obtain a second level spreading binary sequence, choosing a further spreading sequence from the number of spreading sequences and applying the further spreading sequence to obtain a third level spreading binary sequence, repeating the previous step for a number of times, the number of times being equal to or larger than zero, until a highest-level spreading binary sequence is obtained, and wherein the step of using the at least one more spreading binary sequence to modulate an amplitude spectrum of the audio content to embed the at least one audio payload into the audio content includes at least using the highest-level spreading binary sequence to modulate the amplitude spectrum of the audio content in the frequency domain to embed the at least one audio payload into the audio content” when combined with each and every other limitation of the claim. Rather Wabnik only performs 2 levels of spreading on the binary sequence and they are not chosen from a plurality of spreading sequences. Therefore claim 3 contains allowable subject matter.
Consider claim 6, Wabnik and Radhakrishnan teach the method according to claim 5. However the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “wherein several consecutive windows are combined into blocks, such that windows in one block contain the same binary sequence.” Rather Wabnik relies on a differential coding scheme. Therefore claim 6 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 7 and 8 depend on and further limit claim 6 and therefore contain allowable subject matter as well.
Claims 11-14 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Consider claim 11, Wabnik teaches a method for decoding at least one audio payload from audio content, the method comprising:
obtaining the at least one more spreading binary sequence that was used to modulate the amplitude spectrum of the audio content for embedding the at least one audio payload into the audio content (0148-49 and 0140 by reference, multiplying by spreading sequence, which therefore must be obtained),
Wabnik does not specifically teach modulating the at least one audio payload in the amplitude spectrum.
In the same field of watermarking, Radhakrishnan teaches modulating the at least one audio payload in the amplitude spectrum (0033, watermark added in the frequency domain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the art at the time of effective filing to add the watermark in the time domain as taught by Radhakrishnan in the system of Wabnik in order to reduce the complexity of inserting the data into the audio signal according to psychoacoustic parameters.
However the prior art does not specifically teach or fairy suggest the limitations of
“obtaining information about the number of windows used during encoding of the at least one audio payload,
using a decoder window to read a block of the audio content into which the at least one audio payload has been embedded,
dividing the block in the decoder window into a number of windows which is greater than the number of windows used during encoding of the at least one audio payload,
calculating for each window its amplitude spectrum, combining the obtained amplitude spectra into one window, and
calculating at least one correlation between the at least one more spreading binary sequence and the combined amplitude spectra thereby obtaining the embedded audio payload.” Rather Wabnik relies on a differential coding scheme. Therefore claim 11 is allowable.
Claims 12-14 depend on and further limit claim 11 and therefore are allowable as well.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wabnick (2013/0232340) also teaches a similar method of watermarking a signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS C GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-1451. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-5pm Monday-Thursday.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
DOUGLAS GODBOLD
Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/DOUGLAS GODBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights