Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed 9/23/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 2-21 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments been fully considered. The applicant argues the following issues.
(A) Double Patenting Rejection
Issue: The applicant argues that the subsequently filed Terminal Disclaimer dated 9/24/2026 overcomes the Double Patenting rejections.
The Double Patenting rejections set forth in the prior Office action have been withdrawn in light of the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 9/24/2026.
(B) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112
Issue: The applicant argues with respect to claims 7-8, 14-15 and 21 that the amended claims overcome the current 112 rejection.
The 112 rejections to claims 7-8, 14-15 and 21 have been withdrawn.
(C) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102
Issue 1: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 2 that the amended limitations, i.e., “generating an initial sequence of monitored fingerprints ... from respective initial sequentially sampled segments," "wherein the initial sequentially sampled segments are evenly separated in time by an initial sampling interval corresponding to the initial sampling rate” and “wherein
the subsequent sequentially sampled segments are evenly separated in time by a subsequent sampling interval corresponding to the adjusted sampling rate“ overcome the current rejection.
The arguments are moot in light of the new ground of rejections set forth below.
Issue 2: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 2 that the cited reference Wang fails to teach “determining, based on the measured one or more characteristics of the media signal, an adjusted sampling rate different from the initial sampling rate”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited and explained in the rejection section, Wang discloses that fingerprint location/density are determined from characteristics of the sound recording, such as “sample quality” and/or “the amount of activity within the sound recording”. Because fingerprints occur at these landmarks, the interval between fingerprints varies as a consequence of the landmark density, therefore the fingerprint sampling rate is equivalent to be adjusted based on the characteristics of the media signal.
(D) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Issue 1: The applicant argues with respect to dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 that the cited references fail to teach “determining the adjusted sampling rate includes determining, based on a signal strength of the media signal being greater than a threshold value, a decrease to the initial sampling rate that corresponds to the adjusted sampling rate."
This argument is moot in light of the new ground of rejection set forth below, because the references in combination used in the new ground of rejection to claim 2 teach claim 5 as well. See details in the rejection section below.
Issue 2: The applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 and claims 8 and 15 are based on applicant’s arguments directed to the independent claims.
See Examiner’s response regarding the independent claims above.
Terminal Disclaimer
3. The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/24/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 11,863,820 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2008/0154401) in view of Zopf (US 20080033583 A1).
As to claim 2, Wang discloses an audience measurement meter associated with a media presentation device comprising:
at least one processor; memory having stored thereon machine readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Fig. 1, “Sample Analyzer” and “Audio Search Engine” implies a processor and memory. See express disclosure in [0060]-[0061], “memory… processor”), cause the audience measurement meter to perform a set of operations including:
generating an initial sequence of monitored fingerprints at an initial sampling rate from initial sequentially sampled segments of a media signal corresponding to media presented by the media presentation device, wherein the initial sequentially sampled segments are separated in time by an initial sampling interval corresponding to the initial sampling rate (Fig. 2, “Record audio stream”; [0030], “audio content can be identified by identifying or computing characteristics or fingerprints of an audio sample and comparing the fingerprints to previously identified fingerprints. The particular locations within the sample at which fingerprints are computed depend on reproducible points in the sample. Such reproducibly computable locations are referred to as "landmarks." The location within the sample of the landmarks can be determined by the sample itself, i.e., is dependent upon sample qualities, and is reproducible. That is, the same landmarks are computed for the same signal each time the process is repeated. A landmarking scheme may mark about 5-10 landmarks per second of sound recording; of course, landmarking density depends on the amount of activity within the sound recording”; [0032], “Once the landmarks have been computed, a fingerprint is computed at or near each landmark timepoint in the recording…. The fingerprint is generally a value or set of values that summarizes a set of features in the recording at or near the timepoint”, wherein the initial landmarking rate/density corresponds to an initial sampling rate that the initial fingerprint sequence is generated from initial sequentially sampled/landmarked segments of a media signal, separated in time by an initial sampling interval corresponding to the same sampling rate);
while generating the initial sequence of monitored fingerprints, measuring one or more characteristics of the media signal (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation, e.g., [0030], “The location within the sample of the landmarks can be determined by the sample itself, i.e., is dependent upon sample qualities… A landmarking scheme may mark about 5-10 landmarks per second of sound recording; of course, landmarking density depends on the amount of activity within the sound recording”, wherein the “sample qualities” and “the amount of activity within the sound recording” are one or more characteristics of the media signal. See [0035], “For more information on calculating characteristics or fingerprints of audio samples, the reader is referred to U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2002/0083060, to Wang and Smith, entitled System and Methods for Recognizing Sound and Music Signals in High Noise and Distortion, the entire disclosure of which is herein incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in this description”, wherein Wang and Smith (US 2002/0083060) as fully incorporated by reference discloses at [0039], “Two general embodiments of step 14 are described below, one in which landmarks and fingerprints are computed sequentially, and one in which they are computed simultaneously”);
determining, based on the measured one or more characteristics of the media signal, an adjusted sampling rate different from the initial sampling rate (see citation above, e.g., [0030], “The location within the sample of the landmarks can be determined by the sample itself, i.e., is dependent upon sample qualities…landmarking density depends on the amount of activity within the sound recording”, wherein the “sample qualities” and/or “the amount of activity within the source recording” are measured one or more characteristics of the media signal, which is/are depended on to adjust the sampling rate (i.e., the landmarking rate/density determining the sampling rate of fingerprints). In other words, the fingerprint location/density are determined from characteristics of the sound recording, such as “sample quality” and/or “the amount of activity within the sound recording”. Because fingerprints occur at these landmarks, the interval between fingerprints varies as a consequence of the landmark density, therefore the fingerprint sampling rate is equivalent to be adjusted based on the characteristics of the media signal);
generating a subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints at the adjusted sampling rate from respective subsequent sequentially sampled segments of the media signal (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitations, e.g., [0032], “Once the landmarks have been computed, a fingerprint is computed at or near each landmark timepoint in the recording”; [0030], “The location within the sample of the landmarks can be determined by the sample itself, i.e., is dependent upon sample qualities…A landmarking scheme may mark about 5-10 landmarks per second of sound recording; of course, landmarking density depends on the amount of activity within the sound recording”, indicating that the subsequent sequential landmarking density/rate is adjusted based on the activity amount within the sound recording, hence the sampling rate of the monitored subsequent fingerprints is also adjusted accordingly since fingerprints correspond to the respective landmark timepoints); and
associating each given fingerprint of the subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints with respective timestamps corresponding to the sampled segment of the media signal used to generate the given fingerprint (See [0037], “To determine a relative time offset of an audio sample, the fingerprints of the audio sample can be compared with fingerprints of the original files to which they match. Each fingerprint occurs at a given time, so after matching fingerprints to identify the audio sample, a difference in time between a first fingerprint of the audio sample and a first fingerprint of the stored original file will be a time offset of the audio sample, e.g., amount of time into a song. Thus, a relative time offset (e.g., 67 seconds into a song) at which the sample was taken can be determined”, indicating that each fingerprint’s time, with an offset of this relative time offset, corresponds to the timestamp of the respective sampled segment of the media signal used to generate the given fingerprint. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific way to associate).
Wang does not expressly disclose that the separating of the initial sequentially sampled segments is evenly in time, or that the subsequent sequentially sampled segments are evenly separated in time by a subsequent sampling interval corresponding to the adjusted sampling rate. Wang discloses, however, as cited and explained above, that the initial and the adjusted fingerprints sampling location/intervals are based on the landmarking density reflecting different levels of sound activities, therefore the sampled fingerprinting segments would be evenly separated in time if the sound activities are stable/constant during the respective time intervals for the initial sequentially sampled segments, and for the subsequent sequentially sampled segments by a subsequent sampling interval corresponding to the adjusted sampling rate.
Zopf discloses that levels of sound activities can change from one time period to another time period, but can remain constant within a time period ([0137], “if input signal characteristics have changed (e.g., a switch from speech to music or vice versa has occurred; switching from loud, to quiet, to loud, etc., in different sections of a music piece has occurred; or a shift from singing, where there may be many peaks and valleys in the energy profile, to a more instrumental segment that has a more constant energy profile has occurred)”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wang with Zopf. The result of the combination would have been that the levels of sound activities are stable/constant during the respective time periods of the initial fingerprints sampling (e.g., at a constant level A), and the adjusted fingerprinting sampling (e.g., at a constant level B), resulting in the sampled segments being evenly separated in time during the respective time period having the respective stable sound activity level. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable processing of stable sound activity levels (Zopf, [0137]).
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claim 2.
A to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Wang in view of Zopf discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 2, wherein the set of operations further includes comparing at least some of the fingerprints in the subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints to reference fingerprints associated with the respective timestamps associated with the at least some of the fingerprints in the subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints (see citation in rejection to claim 2, e.g., Wang, [0030], “audio content can be identified by identifying or computing characteristics or fingerprints of an audio sample and comparing the fingerprints to previously identified fingerprints. The particular locations within the sample at which fingerprints are computed depend on reproducible points in the sample. Such reproducibly computable locations are referred to as "landmarks." The location within the sample of the landmarks can be determined by the sample itself, i.e., is dependent upon sample qualities, and is reproducible. That is, the same landmarks are computed for the same signal each time the process is repeated. A landmarking scheme may mark about 5-10 landmarks per second of sound recording; of course, landmarking density depends on the amount of activity within the sound recording”; [0032], “Once the landmarks have been computed, a fingerprint is computed at or near each landmark timepoint in the recording”; [0037], “To determine a relative time offset of an audio sample, the fingerprints of the audio sample can be compared with fingerprints of the original files to which they match. Each fingerprint occurs at a given time, so after matching fingerprints to identify the audio sample, a difference in time between a first fingerprint of the audio sample and a first fingerprint of the stored original file will be a time offset of the audio sample, e.g., amount of time into a song. Thus, a relative time offset (e.g., 67 seconds into a song) at which the sample was taken can be determined”; [0036], “to match the fingerprints of the audio sample with fingerprints of known audio tracks by generating correspondences between equivalent fingerprints, and the file in the database 110 that has the largest number of linearly related correspondences or whose relative locations of characteristic fingerprints most closely match the relative locations of the same fingerprints of the audio sample is deemed the matching media file”).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Wang in view of Zopf discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 2, wherein the one or more characteristics of the media signal includes at least one of a signal strength, a signal-to-noise ratio, or a noise level measured in the media signal (see citation in rejection to claim 2, e.g., Wang, [0030], “The location within the sample of the landmarks can be determined by the sample itself, i.e., is dependent upon sample qualities, and is reproducible. That is, the same landmarks are computed for the same signal each time the process is repeated. A landmarking scheme may mark about 5-10 landmarks per second of sound recording; of course, landmarking density depends on the amount of activity within the sound recording”, wherein “the sample qualities” and/or “the amount of activity within the sound recording” reflects sound signal strength).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Wang in view of Zopf teaches the audience measurement meter of claim 4, wherein determining the adjusted sampling rate includes determining, based on a signal strength of the media signal, a decrease to the initial sampling rate that corresponds to the adjusted sampling rate (It is to be noted that the claimed limitation can be interpreted as either a decrease that corresponds to the adjusted sampling rate, or the initial sampling rate that corresponds to the adjusted sampling rate. Also, the claim does not require a specific type of correspondence between the recited decrease or the initial sampling rate and the adjusted sampling rate. Therefore Examiner interprets as any type of correspondence. See citation and explanation in rejection to claim 2, wherein changes in sound activity result in changed fingerprinting location/interval resulting in an increase/decrease to the initial fingerprinting frequency), but does not expressly disclose that the signal strength being greater than a threshold value is based on. Zopf discloses a concept of a signal strength being greater than a threshold value is based on to determine a valid acoustic level for both increased or decreased stable sound levels (see citation in rejection to claim 2 and [0128], “A signal level on the signal channel that is above the threshold level is considered to be the desired audio signal. In this manner, signals with large dynamic range (e.g., speech) can be relatively easily distinguished from a noise floor”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wang with Zopf. Because Wang’s teaching of the adjusted/decreased fingerprinting location/interval is based on reduced sound activity levels, and Zopf discloses that both increased or decreased stable sound levels are determined based on sound signal strength being greater than a threshold, the combination of Wang and Zopf would have taught that the adjusted/decreased fingerprinting location/interval is also based on signal strength being greater than a threshold. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to distinguish from a noise floor (Zopf, [0128]). It is to be noted that the claim does not require that the signal strength being greater than a threshold is the only criterion that is based on for the adjusted sampling rate.
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 7, Wang in view of Zopf discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 2, wherein the set of operations further includes:
prior to generating the initial sequence of monitored fingerprints: (i) generating an additional monitored fingerprint from the media signal corresponding to the media presented by the media presentation device, (ii) sending the additional monitored fingerprint to a server for comparison with reference fingerprints, (iii) receiving an indication that the additional monitored fingerprint matches at least one of the reference fingerprints, and (iv) in response to receiving the indication, generating the initial sequence of monitored fingerprints at the initial sampling rate (see Wang, [0030], “audio content can be identified by identifying or computing characteristics or fingerprints of an audio sample and comparing the fingerprints to previously identified fingerprints” and Fig. 5, wherein an initial set of fingerprints generated on “New Audio sample” is in response to a matching fingerprint(s) that identified the “RA (Pink Floyd, Dark Side, etc.)” track, see further explanation in [0054], “Such oversampling would be redundant, given an accurate identification. Rather than periodically sampling, once a sample is identified and segmented within the audio stream, the next time to sample can be calculated to be outside the time of the identified sample. Thus, the sampling period can be adaptively adjusted to be at times after identified tracks. In this manner, the sampling density can be optimized”, indicating an initial set of fingerprinting sampling for the subsequent new track in response to the identified fingerprints in the current track. See also Fig. 7 and [0056], “multiple dense samplings may be taken and when the track ID changes, there can be assumed to have been a program transition (i.e., track change) in between the boundary samples. The time span represented by the matching samples then can be used to demarcate the identified track” wherein multiple dense samplings indicate a high temporal resolution).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 21, see similar rejection to claim 7.
6. Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zopf, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Goldstein et al (US 2008/0240458).
As to claim 6, Wang in view of Zopf discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in f claim 4, but does not expressly disclose wherein determining the adjusted sampling rate includes determining, based on a noise level of the media signal being greater than a threshold value, an increase to the initial sampling rate that corresponds to the adjusted sampling rate. Goldstein discloses determining an adjusted sampling rate includes determining, based on a noise level of a media signal being greater than a threshold value, an increase to an initial sampling rate that corresponds to the adjusted sampling rate (Goldstein, [0058], “For example, upon the ambient sound exceeding a first threshold, the sampling rate can be set to a first rate (e.g. 4 KHz). As the ambient sound increases in volume, or as prominent features are identified, the sampling rate can be increased to a second rate (e.g. 8 KHz) to increase signal resolution”, wherein a second threshold is implied in order to determine what volume change to trigger this increased sampling rate from 4 KHz to 8 KHz, and wherein the ambient sound volume can be considered a noise level).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wang in view of Zopf with Goldstein. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to increase signal resolution (Goldstein, [0058]).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 6.
7. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zopf, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of MacIntosh et al (US 2013/0308818).
As to claim 8, Wang in view of Zopf discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 7, including obtaining the initial sequence of monitored fingerprints and the subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints (see citation in rejection to claim 7, e.g., Wang, Fig. 7 and [0056], “multiple dense samplings may be taken and when the track ID changes, there can be assumed to have been a program transition (i.e., track change) in between the boundary samples. The time span represented by the matching samples then can be used to demarcate the identified track”),
but does not expressly disclose that the additional monitored fingerprint is generated with at least one of a higher data sampling rate, more bits of data, or more signal frequencies than are used to generate the initial sequence of monitored fingerprints and the subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints.
MacIntosh discloses additional monitored fingerprint generated with at least one of a higher data sampling rate, more bits of data, or more signal frequencies than are used to generate subsequent initial sequence of monitored fingerprints and further subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints ([0070], “We use temporal signatures as a coarse match for Search Space reduction and then spatiotemporal signatures for a detailed matching for program identification. A similar, yet higher temporal granularity set of features is used to manage synchronization at the mobile device”; [0054], “Once the ID and temporal matches are determined, further synchronization is enabled by a "send ahead" approach where the second set of features is pre-sent to the mobile device from the server to keep the circular buffer of the local cache updated. Occasionally a match is performed with the first set of features as before to ensure that the user has not tuned to different content”, indicating returning to matching the first set of features using “coarse match” to detect subsequent changes of program/content/track).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wang in view of Zopf with MacIntosh. The result of the combination would have been for the dense-sampling fingerprinting for detecting change of program/track as disclosed by Wang to instead use “coarse match” to detect change of program/track as disclosed by MacIntosh. The suggestion/modification would have been to efficiently use power and bandwidth (MacIntosh, [0050]).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 8.
Prior Art Cited but not Applied in the Rejection
8. Below is a list of prior art reference(s) cited but not applied in the rejection:
a) Zito et al (US 7623823 B2), disclosing lower sample rate is used when the usage pattern is continuous and/or relatively stable (see col. 12, paragraph 2).
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
