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 communication filed 1/13/2025. Claims 2-21 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Double Patenting
2. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Claims 2-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of US Patent No. 11,863,820 (hereafter “Patent’820”) in view of Wang (US 2008/0154401).
As to claim 2, Patent’820 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, cause the audience measurement meter to perform a set of operations (Claim 17’s parent claim 15. “At least one non-transitory computer readable medium
comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of an audience measurement computing system, cause the audience measurement computing system to at least”) including:
generating an initial sequence of monitored fingerprints at an initial sampling rate from a media signal corresponding to media presented by the media presentation device (Claim 17’s parent claim 15, “process media signatures of a second type generated by the device meter from the media presented by the media device to monitor the media presented by the media device”; claim 17, “a higher sampling rate than the media signatures of the second type”, indicating a sampling rate of the signatures/fingerprints of the second type),
but does not expressly disclose that the signatures/fingerprints are from initial sequentially sampled segments of a media signa, wherein the initial sequentially sampled segments are separated in time by an initial sampling interval corresponding to the initial sampling rate, or while generating the initial sequence of monitored fingerprints, measuring one or more characteristics of the media signal, determining, based on the measured one or more characteristics of the media signal, an adjusted sampling rate different from the initial sampling rate, or generating a subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints at the adjusted sampling rate from subsequent sequentially sampled segments of the media signal; 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.
Wang discloses that signatures/fingerprints are from initial sequentially sampled segments of a media signa, wherein the initial sequentially sampled segments are separated in time by an initial sampling interval corresponding to the initial sampling rate of the fingerprints (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 is 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);
generating a subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints at the adjusted sampling rate from 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).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’820 with Wang. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to adapt fingerprinting/landmarking density to activity of the sound recording (Wang, [0030]).
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claim 2.
A to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Patent’820 in view of 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 (Patent’820, Claim 17’s parent claim 15, “process media signatures of a second type generated by the device meter from the media presented by the media device to monitor the media presented by the media device…, multiple media signatures of the second type are determined not to match corresponding reference signatures of the second type, the reference signatures of the second type also being associated with the first reference media”).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Patent’820 in view of Wang 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 7, Patent’820 in view of Wang discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 2, wherein the set of operations further includes:
prior to generating the initial sequence of monitored signatures: (i) generating a high-resolution type fingerprint from the media signal corresponding to the media presented by the media presentation device, (ii) sending the high-resolution type fingerprint to a server for comparison with high-resolution reference fingerprints, (iii) receiving an indication that the high-resolution matches to at least one high-resolution fingerprint, and (iv) in response to receiving the indication, generating the initial sequence of monitored fingerprints at the initial sampling rate (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein, that the claimed “a high-resolution fingerprint” is interpolated as “a fingerprint”, and that step (iii) is interpreted “receiving an indication that a fingerprint matched a reference fingerprint”. See Patent’820, Claim 17’s parent claim 15, “process media signatures of a first type generated by a device meter from media presented by a media device to monitor the media presented by the media device, the media signatures of the first type to be processed until a first one of the media signatures of the first type is determined to match a first reference signature of the first type, the first reference signature of the first type being associated with first reference media· and process media signatures of a second type generated by the device meter from the media presented by the media device to monitor the media presented by the media device, the media signatures of the first type having higher resolution than the media signatures of the second type, the media signatures of the second type to begin being processed after the first one of the media signatures of the first type is determined to match the first reference signature of the first type and to end being processed when multiple media signatures of the second type are determined not to match corresponding reference signatures of the second type, the reference signatures of the second type also being associated with the first reference media”; and claim 17, “wherein to have higher resolution than the second type, the media signatures of the first type are at least one of generated with a higher sampling rate than the media signatures of the second type, generated to include more bits of data than the media signatures of the second type, or generated based on more signal frequencies than the media signatures of the second type”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 21, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Patent’820 in view of Wang discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 7, wherein the initial sequence of monitored fingerprints and the subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints are low-resolution type fingerprints that are different from the high-resolution fingerprint (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation in rejection to claim 7, e.g., Patent’820, claim 17’s parent claim 15, “the media signatures of the first type having higher resolution than the media signatures of the second type”; Claim 17, “wherein to have higher resolution than the second type, the media signatures of the first type are at least one of generated with a higher sampling rate than the media signatures of the second type, generated to include more bits of data than the media signatures of the second type, or generated based on more signal frequencies than the media signatures of the second type”).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 8.
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent’820 in view of Wang, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Goldstein et al (US 2008/0240458).
As to claim 5, Patent’820 in view of Wang discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 2, but does not expressly disclose 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. Goldstein discloses a concept of 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 ([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 reads on the claimed “a signal strength” because the claim does not require a specific type of “signal” of the media signal).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’820 in view of Wang with Goldstein. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to increase signal resolution (Goldstein, [0058]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Patent’820 in view of Wang and Goldstein discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 4, 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, [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).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 7-8, 14-15 and 21 are 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.
a) Claim 7 recites “a high-resolution type fingerprint”, “the high-resolution”, “at least one high-resolution fingerprint”, wherein the scope of “high-resolution” cannot be definitely determined, lacking a readily assertable criterion for determining what is considered “high-resolution”. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as any resolution and hence interprets the recited “a high-resolution fingerprint” as “a fingerprint”. Claims 8, 14-15 and 21 are similarly rejected.
b) Claim 7 recites “iii) receiving an indication that the high-resolution matches to at least one high-resolution fingerprint”.
First of all, the recited “the high-resolution” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether or not the recited “the high-resolution” refers to a fingerprint, and if so, whether or not it refers to the previously recited “high-resolution type fingerprint”. Application is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any possibility and any fingerprint.
Secondly, it is unclear whether the recited “at least one high-resolution fingerprint” refers to the previously recited “high-resolution reference fingerprints” or other fingerprints. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any possibility and any fingerprint. As a result, the claimed limitation is intercepted as, e.g., “receiving an indication that a fingerprint matched a reference fingerprint”.
Claims 8, 14-15 and 21 are similarly rejected.
c) Claim 8 recites “low resolution type fingerprints that are different from the high-resolution type fingerprint”, wherein the scopes of “low resolution” and “the high-resolution” cannot be definitely determined, lacking a readily assertable criterion for determining what is considered “low resolution” or “high resolution”. For the sake of the examination, Examiner presumes that the claimed limitation reads “fingerprints that are different from the fingerprint”. Claims 15 is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
9. Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2008/0154401).
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));
generating a subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints at the adjusted sampling rate from 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).
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 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., [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 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., [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 7, Wang discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 2, wherein the set of operations further includes:
prior to generating the initial sequence of monitored signatures: (i) generating a high-resolution type fingerprint from the media signal corresponding to the media presented by the media presentation device, (ii) sending the high-resolution type fingerprint to a server for comparison with high-resolution reference fingerprints, (iii) receiving an indication that the high-resolution matches to at least one high-resolution fingerprint, and (iv) in response to receiving the indication, generating the initial sequence of monitored fingerprints at the initial sampling rate (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein, that the claimed “a high-resolution fingerprint” is interpolated as “a fingerprint”, and that step (iii) is interpreted “receiving an indication that a fingerprint matched a reference fingerprint”. 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. Even if the recited “high-resolution type fingerprint” were to be interpreted narrowly, Wang still teaches the claimed limitation, see e.g., 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Goldstein et al (US 2008/0240458).
As to claim 5, Wang discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 2, but does not expressly disclose 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. Goldstein discloses a concept of 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 ([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 reads on the claimed “a signal strength” because the claim does not require a specific type of “signal” of the media signal).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wang with Goldstein. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to increase signal resolution (Goldstein, [0058]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Wang in view of Goldstein discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 4, 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, [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).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 6.
12. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Goldstein, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of MacIntosh et al (US 2013/0308818).
As to claim 8, Wang 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 after the identified high-resolution type fingerprint using high-resolution fingerprints (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation in rejection to claim 7, e.g., 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),
but does not expressly disclose that the initial sequence of monitored fingerprints and the subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints are low resolution type fingerprints that are different from the high-resolution type fingerprint (See 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein).
MacIntosh discloses a set of initial sequence of monitored fingerprints and a subsequent sequence of monitored fingerprints are low resolution type fingerprints that are different from a high-resolution type fingerprint ([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 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.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights