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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 11, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites USB, claim 3 recites DAC, claim 11 recites JM and claim 13 recites PID. Any first use of abbreviated term should be preceded by the phrase it represents. Further, claims recite “analog” and “analogue” interchangeably. Appropriate correction is required.
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. For example, claim 4 recites m, x, y and z. Claim 6 recites C and D. Claim 10 recites x.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-18 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “A method for control and transfer of audio between analog and computer in digital audio processing including one or a combination of” (emphasis added). It is not clear what is meant by “between analog and computer” i.e. what is meant by “analog”. Further it recites “transmitted over the communication line, to ensure real-time feedback and interaction using a continuous stream of audio data and/or control data divided into small buffers for transmission over the connection, providing real-time auditory feedback and interactive device control and response” (emphasis added). It is not clear who provides feedback to whom, and what is meant by “auditory feedback”.
Claim 3 recites “This audio is processed using analog processing hardware” (emphasis added). It is not clear if it refers to “audio sent from host” or if it refers to “analog audio”. It further recites “d. and this circuit is controlled by control signals that are output are outputs and inputs of analog voltage or current to control the analog processing block that in turn changes the analog processing” (emphasis added). It is not clear what is meant by “that are output are outputs”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "eventually" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrases "such as" and “etc.” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the analog block" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the phrases "such as" and “etc.” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 ends after limitation “a. Audio sent from host at x is eventually converted by DAC to analog audio in analog block y.”. Paragraphs “b.”, “c.” and “d.” are extraneous.
Claims 5-6 recite the limitation "the analog processing block" in line 5 of base claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " aggregation block (C) and the Applet or Hub (C)" (emphasis added). It is not clear if (C ) is for “aggregation block” it is for “Applet or Hub”. Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for limitation “the Applet or Hub” in the claims.
Claim 7 recites “b. Assessing audio clock timing of processing on the host computer of the source audio c. Providing a USB connection between the host computer and an ancillary processing audio hardware,” (emphasis added). It does not end the limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the endpoint processing" in line 10, and “the ancillary processing” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 8-11 recite the limitation "the digital processor" in line 1, “the processing audio hardware” in line 2 of base claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Base claim 8 recites “enable clock synchronization of the processing along the USB connection in isochronous mode” (emphasis added). It is not clear what or how processing is carried out along USB connection i.e. over physical USB cable.
Base claim 9 recites “b. Measuring clock rate of hardware processing audio” (emphasis added). It is not clear if it is meant to be cock rate of “hardware” or it is meant to be clock rate of “audio” similar to measuring clock rate of “audio” in digital processor.
Base claim 9 recites the limitation "the endpoint processing" in line 11, and “the ancillary processing” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Base claim 10 recites “e. Determining if multi-instance (multi-channel) alignment (MCA) is required by assessing if level of each used audio buffer from application on channel 'x' empty or full AND is alignment allowed now” (emphasis added). It is not clear if it is meant to be application on channel 'x'. It is not clear if buffer is provided from application.
Claim 11 recites “preferably 100x longer than sample interval” (emphasis added). It is not clear if “100x” is meant to be some specific value or if it is meant to be “100 times”.
Claims 12-18 recite the limitation “the processing audio hardware” in line 1, “the digital software”, “the end analogue device” in lines 2-3, “that device” in line 4, and “the endpoint processing” in line 5 of base claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the step of comparing the measured clock rate" and “the measure clock rate” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the step of comparing the measured clock rate" and “the measure clock rate” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the step of comparing the measured clock rate" and “the measure clock rate” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the step of adjusting clock rate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 17-18 end after limitation “wherein the step of endpoint synchronized processing without a universal clock is by a multi-instance sync method that aligns audio channel buffers at certain times, either using audio skip/repeat, or using ASRC (audio sample rate conversion).” in base claim 17. Paragraphs “a.” and “b.” are extraneous.
Claim 18 recites “preferably 100x longer than sample interval” (emphasis added). It is not clear if “100x” is meant to be some specific value or if it is meant to be “100 times”.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Patent No. 6,347,380).
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a method for control and transfer of audio between analog and computer in digital audio processing including one or a combination of
a. controlling data by converting to-and-from analog to control the analog circuit (Fig. 1 items 20, 22, 24 CODEC performing conversion) and
b. time correction in analogue and digital audio processing (Figs. 1-3 item 30, time correction between analog and digital data buffer interfaces)
wherein a communication line using connection (Fig. 1 item 15 and AC LINK BUS) between analog processor (Figs. 1-2 item 42, 44) and digital computer processor (Figs. 1-2 item 12) using a continuous stream of audio data divided into small buffers (Fig.1 items 40, 52a, Fig. 2 items 40, 104, 106, CODEC FIFO), and transmitted over the communication line, to ensure real-time feedback (Fig. 3 item 174) and interaction (Fig. 3 item 156, Figs. 4-7) using a continuous stream of audio data and/or control data divided into small buffers for transmission over the connection, providing real-time auditory feedback and interactive device control and response (col. 2 ll. 42-col. 10 ll. 5).
Chang does not explicitly specify stream of audio, but it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that computer (Fig. 2A item 12) with audio data file (Fig. 2A item 102) provides continuous stream of audio.
Regarding claim 2, Chang teaches wherein the communication line uses USB (col. 2 ll. 44-45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-18 are objected as they are rejected as interpreted with 35 USC 112 issues as indicated above.
The above objection(s) is (are) based on the claim(s) as presently set forth in its (their) totality. It should not be interpreted as indicating that amended claim(s) broadly reciting certain limitations would be allowable. A more detailed reason(s) for allowance may be set forth in a subsequent Notice of Allowance if and when all claims in the application are put into a condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7547. 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights