DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Paragraph [0198] states “FIG. 10 illustrates an architectural diagram of a method to modify audio content comprising a meta-processor 1002, in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure. In an embodiment, the architectural diagram 1000 may be an embodiment of…”. Paragraph [0199] refers to “meta data 1000”. However, figure 10 only shows a box 1000 labeled as “A/V content with Object’s meta data”. Applicant should make these paragraphs and the figures consistent.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
There are many references to “method 100” starting at paragraph [0075], however no item 100 is found in the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 refers to “the input” which would be better as “the received audio input” since it is never labeled as “the input”.
Claim 20 refers to “the output” which would be better as “the received audio input” since it is never labeled as “the input”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, states “for each audio object among a plurality of audio objects associated with an audio content, the plurality of audio objects being at least some of a total number of audio objects associated with the audio content”. The claim later states “for each audio object” several times. It is unclear if these references are to the “plurality of audio objects” or the “total number”. It is suggested to refer to a plurality of first audio objects if the smaller set is intended to clarify. Such as: “for each audio object among a plurality of first audio objects associated with an audio content, the plurality of audio objects being at least some of a total number of audio objects associated with the audio content” and “for each first audio object”.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected in an analogous manner. It is suggested that “for at least some of the plurality of audio objects…” be changed to “for a plurality of first audio objects of the plurality of audio objects…”.
Claims 2-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-22 is/are determined to be directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In this instance the claims are to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Regarding method claim 1, the claim is to an abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm. The mathematical algorithm including determining statistical information of an audio objects as explained below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps provided do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, they merely provide additional mathematical processes to achieving the abstract data or outputting some form of the result.
Claim 1 recites, in part, a method of determining a crisp emotion value (of an enumerated emotion set) for each object, performing some calculations on the values for each object, placing the objects in an ordered list, and modifying a gain of the objects on the list (note this is not on the basis of anything so a simple blanket multiplication such as doubling the values will do).These steps describe the concept of a mathematical formula similar to mathematical calculations such as calculating the difference between local and average data values which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, see In re Abele. All of these concepts relate to practices in which information is manipulated and calculation are made through mathematical correlations. The concept described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those mathematical calculations found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claim 1 of performing mathematical calculations based on received audio signals is an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-15, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2-15 only further defined the calculations made.
Regarding apparatus claims 16-17 and CRM claims 18-20, the claims are rejected in an analogous manner as including the abstract idea of claims 1-15 as above. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited devices, are general use computers and generic speakers used in a conventional manner. Including a general purpose computer implementing an abstract idea and generic speakers outputting a resultant audio signal is still not patentable eligible subject matter.
The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer and audio applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The user of generic computer components to mathematically process audio signals does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Outputting audio via a speaker is well-known and routine. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iwaki et al. (US 20060153390 A1) see paragraph [0326], Thelen (US 20070223871 A1) see figure 2, Anzawa et al. (US 20040235531 A1) see figure 8, Ahn et al. (US 20140222432 A1) see figure 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 pm.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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 J SUTHERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/PAUL KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights