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 .
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and has/have been examined.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-5, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, of U.S. Patent No. 12032628. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the issued patent/co-pending application anticipate the claims of the instant application. Please see below for the mapping in the table, where the bolded limitations indicate the corresponding limitations between the issued patent/co-pending application and instant application. With respect to the dependent claims, each of the claims map to a corresponding dependent claim of the issued patent/co-pending application or are found within the scope of the independent claim.
With respect to each of the dependent claims and independent claims, each claim corresponds numerically. Please see mapping that follows: Instant application claim (I), Issued Patent/Co-Pending App (P) - Claim 1 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 2 (I):Claim 2 (P), Claim 3 (I):Claim 5 (P), Claim 6 (I):Claim 4 (P), Claim 8 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 9 (I):Claim 2 (P), Claim 10 (I):Claim 5 (P), Claim 13 (I):Claim 4 (P), Claim 15 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 16 (I):Claim 2 (P), Claim 17 (I):Claim 5 (P), Claim 20 (I):Claim 4 (P).
Instant Application: 19029737
Issued Patent: 12032628
Claim 1: A tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising:
determining an exponential mean value associated with a first time-frequency bin based on a magnitude of an audio signal associated with the first time-frequency bin;
normalizing a second time-frequency bin based on the exponential mean value;
generating a fingerprint of the audio signal based on the normalized second time- frequency bin; and
generating a subfingerprint by selecting energy extrema associated with the normalized second time-frequency bin, wherein the fingerprint comprises the subfingerprint.
Claim 1: An apparatus, comprising:
signal transformer circuitry to transform an audio signal into a frequency domain including a plurality of time-frequency bins, wherein each of the time-frequency bins corresponds to an intersection of a frequency bin and a time bin and contains a portion of the audio signal;
audio segmenter circuitry to divide the audio signal into a plurality of audio segments including a first audio segment and a second audio segment, the first audio segment including a second group of time-frequency bins having a first time-frequency bin, the second audio segment including a first group of time-frequency bins having a second time-frequency bin;
mean calculator circuitry to determine:
a first exponential mean value associated with the first time-frequency bin based on a first magnitude of the audio signal associated with the first time-frequency bin; and
a second exponential mean value associated with the second time-frequency bin based on a second magnitude of the audio signal associated with the second time-frequency bin and the first exponential mean value;
bin normalizer circuitry to normalize the first time-frequency bin based on the second exponential mean value;
fingerprint generator circuitry to generate a fingerprint of the audio signal based on normalized time-frequency bins, wherein the normalized time-frequency bins include the normalized first time-frequency bin;
subfingerprint circuitry to generate a subfingerprint by selecting energy extrema of the normalized time-frequency bins, wherein selecting the energy extrema comprises selecting a group of the normalized time-frequency bins with the highest normalized energy values, and the fingerprint including the subfingerprint; and
memory manager circuitry to, after the second exponential mean value is determined, discard the first group of the time-frequency bins from memory.
Device claim 8 of the instant application is rejected over apparatus claim 1 of the issued patent/co-pending application using the same rationale as that provided in the table above for the CRM/apparatus claims.
Method claim 15 of the instant application is rejected over apparatus claim 1 of the issued patent/co-pending application using the same rationale as that provided in the table above for the CRM/apparatus claims.
Regarding the differences between Claim 15 of the instant application and claim 1 of the issued patent/co-pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the appartus limitation of the issued patent/co-pending application could be applied to performing the method as presented in the instant application.
As to claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19, this/these claim(s) are rejected over the issued patent/co-pending application in view of Chandler et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10866989), hereinafter Chandler.
Please see the claim mappings below for further detail.
As to claim(s) 7 and 14, this/these claim(s) are rejected over the issued patent/co-pending application in view of Sharifi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9202472), hereinafter Sharifi.
Please see the claim mappings below for further detail.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, of U.S. Patent No. 12235896. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the issued patent/co-pending application anticipate the claims of the instant application. Please see below for the mapping in the table, where the bolded limitations indicate the corresponding limitations between the issued patent/co-pending application and instant application. With respect to the dependent claims, each of the claims map to a corresponding dependent claim of the issued patent/co-pending application or are found within the scope of the independent claim.
With respect to each of the dependent claims and independent claims, each claim corresponds numerically. Please see mapping that follows: Instant application claim (I), Issued Patent/Co-Pending App (P) - Claim 1 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 2 (I):Claim 2 (P), Claim 3 (I):Claim 6 (P), Claim 4 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 5 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 7 (I):Claim 7 (P), Claim 8 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 9 (I):Claim 2 (P), Claim 10 (I):Claim 6 (P), Claim 11 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 12 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 14 (I):Claim 7 (P), Claim 15 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 16 (I):Claim 2 (P), Claim 17 (I):Claim 6 (P), Claim 18 (I):Claim 1 (P), Claim 19 (I):Claim 1 (P).
Instant Application: 19029737
Issued Patent: 12235896
Claim 1: A tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising:
determining an exponential mean value associated with a first time-frequency bin based on a magnitude of an audio signal associated with the first time-frequency bin;
normalizing a second time-frequency bin based on the exponential mean value;
generating a fingerprint of the audio signal based on the normalized second time- frequency bin; and
generating a subfingerprint by selecting energy extrema associated with the normalized second time-frequency bin, wherein the fingerprint comprises the subfingerprint.
Claim 1: A tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed, cause one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising:
transforming an audio signal into a frequency domain including a plurality of time-frequency bins, wherein each time-frequency bin of the plurality of time-frequency bins corresponds to an intersection of a frequency bin and a time bin and contains a portion of the audio signal;
determining a first audio segment comprising a first group of time-frequency bins, wherein the first group of time-frequency bins comprises a first time-frequency bin;
determining a second audio segment comprising a second group of time-frequency bins, wherein the second group of time-frequency bins comprises a second time-frequency bin;
determining an exponential mean value associated with the second time-frequency bin based on a magnitude of the audio signal associated with the second time-frequency bin;
normalizing the first time-frequency bin based on the exponential mean value;
generating a fingerprint of the audio signal based on the normalized first time-frequency bin;
generating a subfingerprint by selecting energy extrema associated with the normalized first time-frequency bin, wherein the fingerprint comprises the subfingerprint, and wherein selecting the energy extrema comprises selecting one or more normalized time-frequency bins with highest normalized energy values; and
based on the normalized first time-frequency bin, discarding the first group of time-frequency bins.
Device claim 8 of the instant application is rejected over CRM claim 1 of the issued patent/co-pending application using the same rationale as that provided in the table above for the CRM claims.
Method claim 15 of the instant application is rejected over CRM claim 1 of the issued patent/co-pending application using the same rationale as that provided in the table above for the CRM claims.
Regarding the differences between Claim 15 of the instant application and claim 1 of the issued patent/co-pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the CRM limitation of the issued patent/co-pending application could be applied to performing the method as presented in the instant application.
As to claim(s) 6, 13, and 20, this/these claim(s) are rejected over the issued patent/co-pending application in view of Chandler.
Please see the claim mappings below for further detail.
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 directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, the limitation(s) of determining, normalizing, generating, and generating, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, as well as mathematical calculations in prose. More specifically, the mental process of a human using pen and paper to perform a series of calculations on numerical data representing audio signals, such as calculating an exponential mean value on a specific subset of the data, performing a normalization calculation using the exponential mean value, and selecting specific data points to write down together that represent a sub-fingerprint and fingerprint. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, as well as mathematical calculations in prose, then it falls within the --Mental Processes—and –Mathematical Concepts-- groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of a computer readable medium and processors in claim 1, and a computing device, processors, and computer readable medium in claim 8, reads to generalized computer components, based upon the claim interpretation wherein the structure is interpreted using [0042] in the specification. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generalized computer components to determine, normalize, generate, and generate, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17, the claim(s) recite(s) features of the time-frequency bins, which reads on a human separating the numerical data into sections with specific characteristics. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20, the claim(s) recite(s) discarding data, which reads on a human erasing specific pieces of information once the calculation requiring that information is complete. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 7 and 14, the claim(s) recite(s) determining an additional exponential mean value, which reads on a human performing an additional exponential mean value calculation using an additional piece of data. No additional limitations are present.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi, in view of Marash (U.S. Patent No. 6363345), hereinafter Marash.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Sharifi teaches
(claim 1) A tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising (memory can be a computer-readable storage medium, i.e. non-transitory computer readable medium, storing computer-executable instructions, i.e. comprising instructions, where the processor and memory are communicatively couples to one another to perform the functions, i.e. when executed cause a processor to (4:39-50),(5:53-59)):
(claim 8) A computing device comprising (a system, where the services are provided by a computing device (3:57-61),(15:44-60)):
(claim 8) one or more processors (the system includes one or more processors to perform the functions of the system (4:39-50)); and
(claim 8) a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising (memory can be a computer-readable storage medium, i.e. non-transitory computer readable medium, storing computer-executable instructions, i.e. comprising instructions, where the processor and memory are communicatively couples to one another to perform the functions, i.e. when executed cause a processor to (4:39-50),(5:53-59)):
(claim 15) A computer-implemented method comprising (a method (3:57-61)):
determining an … mean value associated with a first time-frequency bin based on a magnitude of an audio signal associated with the first time-frequency bin (the time-frequency representation is plotted for each frequency present at a range of times, as well as the magnitude of the frequencies at the respective times, i.e. based on a magnitude of the audio signal associated with the first time frequency bin Fig. 2,(4:09-24), and local magnitude peaks can be identified as interest points (5:1-7), where a mean magnitude for an interest point can be calculated across a window centered at the interest point, i.e. determining a... mean value associated with a first time frequency bin (8:46-51));
normalizing a second time-frequency bin based on the … mean value (the magnitude of an interest point is normalized, i.e. normalize a second time-frequency bin, based on the mean magnitude within a window, which could include the magnitude of another interest point that falls within the window, i.e. based on the... mean value (8:39-60));
generating a fingerprint of the audio signal based on the normalized second time- frequency bin (the normalized interest point data, i.e. based on the normalized second time-frequency bin, is compared and ordered based on ascending or descending magnitude, which is encoded in a descriptor that creates a unique identifier for the audio clip, i.e. generate a fingerprint of the audio signal (9:7-37)); and
generating a subfingerprint by selecting energy extrema associated with the normalized second time-frequency bin, wherein the fingerprint comprises the subfingerprint (local magnitude peaks in the time-frequency spectrogram are identified and selected, i.e. selecting energy extrema, as interest points (4:66-5:7), where an interest point has both a point in time and associated frequency, and where a set of normalized interest point data are ordered based on relative magnitude to extract a descriptor of the subset of interest points, i.e. generate a subfingerprint…associated with the normalized second time-frequency bin, where descriptors of subsets of interest points are combined to create a unique identifier for the audio clip, i.e. the fingerprint including the subfingerprint (4:11-21),(9:7-37)).
While Sharifi provides the calculation of a mean magnitude for interest points, Sharifi does not specifically teach the calculation of an exponential mean value, and thus does not teach
exponential mean value....
Marash, however, teaches exponential mean value... (the magnitude of each frequency bin is estimated, then replaced by a smoothed value that uses a time exponential average, i.e. exponential mean value (5:34-55)).
Sharifi and Marash are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in processing input audio signals. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the calculation of a mean magnitude teachings of Sharifi with the specific calculation of a smoothed magnitude for each frequency bin using a time exponential average as taught by Marash. The motivation to do so would have been to achieve a predictable result of reducing the instability of the spectral estimation (Marash (5:45-49)).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Sharifi in view of Marash teaches claims 1, 8, and 15, and Sharifi further teaches
at least one time-frequency bin of the first time-frequency bin and the second time-frequency bin comprises a unique combination of (1) a time period of the audio signal and (2) a frequency band of the audio signal (the received audio clip is transformed into a time-frequency representation where each, i.e. each time-frequency bin, point in time, i.e. time period of the audio signal, has an associated, i.e. unique combination, frequency or frequencies, i.e. of the first group of time-frequency bins, plotted as bins, i.e. a frequency band Fig. 2,(4:11-24,57-65)).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Sharifi in view of Marash teaches claims 1 and 14, and Sharifi further teaches
determining an additional exponential mean value associated with the first time-frequency bin based on an additional magnitude of the audio signal associated with the first time-frequency bin (the time-frequency representation is plotted for each frequency present at a range of times, as well as the magnitude of each frequency at a respective time, i.e. a magnitude…an additional magnitude of the audio signal associated with the first time frequency bin Fig. 2,(4:09-24), and local magnitude peaks can be identified as interest points, where each point on the spectrogram is described by a time value, a frequency value, and a magnitude value (5:1-7),(7:15-24), where a mean magnitude for each interest point can be calculated across a window centered at each respective interest point, i.e. an additional exponential mean value associated with the first time-frequency bin based on an additional magnitude (8:46-51)).
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi, in view of Marash, and further in view of Stavropoulos et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2014/0114456), hereinafter Stavropoulos.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Sharifi in view of Marash teaches claims 1, 8, and 15.
While Sharifi in view of Marash provides the processing of bins, Sharifi in view of Marash does not specifically teach that the bins are in the same frequency band, and thus does not teach
the first time-frequency bin and the second time-frequency bin are in a same frequency band of the audio signal.
Stavropoulos, however, teaches the first time-frequency bin and the second time-frequency bin are in a same frequency band of the audio signal (the energy values of the FFT bins, i.e. the first time-frequency bin and the second time-frequency bin, within a frequency band of the transformed audio data is processed, i.e. in a same frequency band of the audio signal [0040:1-10].
Sharifi, Marash, and Stavropoulos are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in audio processing for signature extraction. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the processing of bins teachings of Sharifi, as modified by Marash, with the bins within a frequency band being processed as taught by Stavropoulos. The motivation to do so would have been to achieve a predictable result of enabling the signature extraction to occur within a predetermined frequency range (Stavropoulos [0040]).
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi, in view of Marash, and further in view of Chandler.
Regarding claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20, Sharifi in view of Marash teaches claims 1, 8, and 15.
While Sharifi in view of Marash provides for various calculations using received audio data, Sharifi in view of Marash does not specifically teach the deletion of data once the calculations are complete, and thus does not teach
based on the normalized second time-frequency bin, discarding ((claims 4, 11, and 18) the first time-frequency bin/(claims 5, 12, and 19) the second time-frequency bin/(claims 6, 13, and 20) the exponential mean value).
Chandler, however teaches based on the –computation result--, discarding the –data-- (when processing is performed on audio data from a data record, the processing layer consumes the data from a storage layer, runs the computation, i.e. based on the computation result, and then notifies the storage layer to delete data that are no longer needed, i.e. discarding the data (11:59-12:7).
Where Sharifi teaches the calculation of a mean value for frequency bins, as well as the normalization of a frequency bin (8:39-60), and Marash teaches the specific calculation of an exponential mean (5:34-55).
Sharifi, Marash, and Chandler are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in audio processing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the calculation of different values from audio data teachings of Sharifi, as modified by Marash, with the deletion of data once a computation has been run on it as taught by Chandler. The motivation to do so would have been to achieve a predictable result of enabling a storage layer to manage a data record to support processing of large streams of data (Chandler (12:1-4)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE A K SCHMIEDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571) 272-7799. 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.
/NICOLE A K SCHMIEDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights