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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 11 recite a first and second “non human” sound, this is ambiguously discussed in the specification as filed:
¶: 41: “The non-human sound is generated from any source that is not human, such as a dog, cat, instruments, ambulance, etc.”
¶ 46: “The captured sound can be any type of sounds such as human voice, non-human sound, or instrument sound. The captured sound is transmitted to other participant devices of the conference call.”
¶ 57: “sources can be any type of sources, such as human voice, non-human voice, or instruments.”
The recitation is considered ambiguously supported, particularly, the specification defines the term “non human,” as a class of sounds comprising animals, instruments, emitters of sirens, etc. but additionally includes instruments outside the human voice, or animal classes. Further the specification discusses determining voice and non voice signal of an input such as by training a learning model based thereon. A skilled artisan in possession of the specification cannot be expected to discern the metes and bounds of such a recitation particularly with regard to whether sounds of human origin outside voice such as whistling, clapping, etc. fall outside the claim as they are treated by the learning model as non-voice, and voice is disclosed as the principal “human,” feature. Is clapping a human sound or a non-human sound, or indeed an “instrument,”? The special class type understanding of “instruments,” makes it further ambiguous as to whether a human played instrument is a “non-human” sound. Because the specification supports conflicting frameworks that yield opposite results for a same sound the claims fail to inform a person having ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention and the claims are considered indefinite. Claims 1, 11 additionally recite an “at least one environment of the second device,” the specification lacks discussion of an “environment,” and the recitation is considered indefinite. Do the claims resolve a computing environment, network environment, physical environment, etc.; and what are the limits of such an environment. Claims 2-10, 12-20 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Claims 2, 12 additionally recite “causing the at least one second device to display at least one of the first user-selectable element or the second user-selectable element,” this is considered indefinite as the elements are disclosed in claim 1 as displayed on the first device and it is unclear why or how the second device would display elements capable of controlling the first device. Further, parent claim 1 recites and claim 2 resolves “at least one second device,” if multiple second devices exist does a singular one among the “at least one second device” display the element, does a subset of the second devices display, all additional devices? Claims 7, 17 additionally recite a vicinity; the specification lacks discussion of a “vicinity.” Claims 10, 20 appear to contain a typographical error “determining that that the first non-human sound is the first musical instrument.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai: 20180352193 hereinafter Sa further in view of Minor: 20170187884 hereinafter Mi and further in view of Koretzky: 20180122403 hereinafter Ko.
Regarding claim 1
Sa teaches:
A computer-implemented method for adjusting a sound level during a virtual meeting (Sa: Abstract; ¶ 11, 31; Fig 1, 2: a processor driven telepresence system, method, etc. operable for providing ambiance to a shared virtual meeting space) the method comprising:
identifying a first sound and a second sound, wherein the first sound and the second sound are received at a first device of a plurality of devices participating, via a communications network, in the virtual meeting (Sa: ¶ 56-59; Fig 2, 6, 12, 13: a communication controller operable over a network in concert with two or more user communication devices to receive user voice, environmental sound, etc. of a communication space of a user),
wherein the first device receives the first sound and the second sound via the communications network from at least one second device of the plurality of devices (Sa: ¶ 56-59; 6, 12, 13: system connects a user device to a partner device over a network and transmits distinct audio data portions of each, one to the other), and
wherein the at least one second device detects the first sound and the second sound in at least one environment of the at least one second device (Sa: ¶ 92-94, etc.; Fig 12, 13: each user device detects user voice, environmental sound, etc. of said user) ;
determining that the first sound and the second sound correspond to a first non-human sound and a second non-human sound, respectively (Sa: ¶ 34, 44, 52-59, 87, 92-94: system operates to perform source separation on incoming audio streams from user device, determine characteristics of sound therein, classifies determined sounds as particular sound components of the stream such as indoor speech, such as that of a human; and variously classified indoor characteristic sounds and/or indoor noise components comprising non-human environmental sounds, etc. based thereon);
based at least in part on determining that the first sound and the second sound correspond to the first non-human sound and the second non-human sound affording user control over the delivery of the sound components (Sa: ¶ 34, 44, 52-59, 87, 92-94:; Fig 6: system operative to receive user input directive of a volume mixture of the delivered voice and first, second, etc. sound).
Sa detects first and second non-human sounds of first and second users but does not explicitly teach rendering a per source type user interface elements as two or more user selectable volume control elements causing the first device to simultaneously display in such a way that the voice and/or the two distinct environmental sounds each comprise a user operable volume control element.
In related field of endeavor Mi teaches a computer-implemented method for adjusting a sound levels during a virtual meeting (Mi: Abstract; Fig 2: system, method for operating terminals participating in a group communication session) the method comprising:
identifying a first sound and a second sound, wherein the first sound and the second sound are received at a first device of a plurality of devices participating, via a communications network, in the virtual meeting (Mi: ¶ 8: each/any terminal of the system operative to receive at a user device a plurality of audio streams generated at terminal(s) of additional user(s)),
wherein the first device receives the first sound and the second sound via the communications network from at least one second device of the plurality of devices (Mi: ¶ 36: audio channels that are received by the first communication client are respectively associated with each of the other users), and
wherein the at least one second device detects the first sound and the second sound in at least one environment of the at least one second device (Mi:¶ 33: audio data originating from a user terminal includes audio input received from the microphone thereof and/or audio generated by the user terminal for the purpose of the group call);
causing the first device to simultaneously display:
a first user-selectable element for controlling a volume of the first sound output of the first device; and a second user-selectable element for controlling a volume of the second sound output of the second device, etc. (Mi: ¶ 30, 84, etc.; Fig 3a, 3b; such as the client application of the figure operable for display on user devices of participants in the group call); and
based at least in part on receiving input in relation to the first user-selectable element, causing adjustment of the volume of the first sound output of the first device (Mi: ¶ 30, 38, 84; Fig 3a, 3b: system responds to user operation of volume control for each/any participant by adjusting the volume of the respective participant, with regard to Mi the microphone input and audio data are not separated into component parts for distinct volume control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt the source separation and stream delivery system of Sa to include the Mi taught per source volume control elements to for at least the purpose of realizing a system providing users individual control over the delivery of voice and sounds of the other participants in a communication session, conference, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Sa in view of Mi does not explicitly teach that based on determining that the first sound and the second sound correspond to a first non-human sound and a second non-human sound, respectively providing user interface control elements for the individually detected sounds.
In a related field of endeavor Ko teaches a system and method for performing audio source separation on audio sample streams to enable real time mixing of audio sources in said stream (Ko: Abstract; Fig 1, 3, 4, 12); comprising
Identifying at least a first and a second sound components within a stream (Ko: ¶ 129, 157; Fig 3, 4, 12); wherein the sound components comprise human and non-human sounds (Ko: ¶ 51: sounds comprise voice, musical instruments, other sounds corresponding to unique non-human audio sources) and generating a first user-selectable element for controlling a volume of the first non-human sound output at the first device; and a second user-selectable element for controlling a volume of the second non-human sound output at the first device (Ko: ¶ 52, 53, 79, Fig 3: system displays user interface to a user for performing volume control on identified components of an audio stream). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to equip the Sa in view of Mi system and method with the Ko taught system and method for decomposing an audio stream in to voice and other non-human components of incoming streams for at least the purpose of affording controls of all components of conference or meeting streams to each/any user in the conference; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Sa in view of Mi in view of Ko teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising causing the at least one second device to display at least one of the first user-selectable element or the second user- selectable element (Sa: 87, etc.; Fig 6, etc.: system affords the users of the communication system control over the presentation of human, user voice, etc. sounds; and non-human, user environment, etc. sounds); (Mi: ¶ 40, etc.: system presents user interface control for stream elements comprising human and non-human sounds to the users of the system). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Mi and Ko as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Mi, and/or Ko to the modified device of Sa, Mi, and Ko; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Sa in view of Mi in view of Ko teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the first and the second sound correspond to the first non-human sound and the second non-human sound, respectively, is performed by a remote server hosting the virtual meeting (Sa: ¶ 75-82, 91-94, etc.: such as by a processing server operable to perform and/or distribute the disclosed functionality); (Mi: ¶ 33, etc.: server operable to process, forward, etc. incoming streams among users of the system); (Ko: ¶ 79: server operates to perform source separation to generate component signals, etc., user interface based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Mi and Ko as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Mi, and/or Ko to the modified device of Sa, Mi, and Ko; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Sa in view of Mi in view of Ko teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first device is located at a first location and the at least one second device is located at least one second location remote from the first location (Sa: ¶ 31: system connects at least a first and second user devices over diverse remote locations); (Mi: ¶ 23: system facilitates and manages communications of a plurality of end user terminals). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Mi and Ko as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Mi, and/or Ko to the modified device of Sa, Mi, and Ko; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Sa in view of Mi in view of Ko teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising applying a weight filter to the adjusted first non-human sound (Sa: 87, etc.; Fig 6, etc.: system affords the users of the communication system control over the presentation of human, user voice, etc. sounds; and non-human, user environment, etc. sounds; applies a weight filter in the form of a value D that manages the volume of independent stream components); (Mi: ¶ 40, etc.; Fig 3A: system allows volume control weightings to filter the audio delivered to each/any user); (Ko: Fig 3: such as by operation of the instrument portions of the provided user interface). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Mi and Ko as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Mi, and/or Ko to the modified device of Sa, Mi, and Ko; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Sa in view of Mi in view of Ko teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying the first and second non-human sounds using a learning model trained based at least in part on data sets stored in an audio source repository (Sa: ¶ 93, etc.: system accesses a sound source determination database); (Ko: ¶ 53, 98, etc.: a learning model operable to determine human and non-human source components of an audio stream such as voice; and instrument or other sounds). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Mi and Ko as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Mi, and/or Ko to the modified device of Sa, Mi, and Ko; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Sa in view of Mi in view of Ko teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying first metadata corresponding to the first non-human sound; identifying second metadata corresponding to the second non-human sound; and based at least in part on the first metadata, causing the first device to display, in a vicinity of the first user-selectable element, a first label identifying the first non-human sound; and based at least in part on the second metadata, causing the first device to display, in a vicinity of the second user-selectable element, a second label identifying the second non-human sound (Sa: ¶ 93: system determines stream associated metadata operable to present components of the audio stream in conjunction therewith); (Ko: ¶ 84, 129: system identifies metadata of audio stream components and presents an identifier providing information with respect to the audio stream component corresponding thereto). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Mi and Ko as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Mi, and/or Ko to the modified device of Sa, Mi, and Ko; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Sa in view of Mi in view of Ko teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a third sound, wherein the third sound is received at the first device via the communications network from the at least one second device; determining that the detected third sound corresponds to a human voice; and causing the first device to display a third user-selectable element for controlling a volume of the human voice output at the first device (Sa: ¶ 93: system determines stream associated data operable to present components of the audio stream including voice and additional sounds in conjunction therewith); (Ko: ¶ 53, 98, etc.: a learning model operable to determine human and non-human source components of an audio stream such as voice; and two or more instrument or other sounds). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Mi and Ko as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Mi, and/or Ko to the modified device of Sa, Mi, and Ko; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Sa in view of Mi in view of Ko teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first non-human sound is a first musical instrument, and the second non-human sound is a second musical instrument (Ko: Fig 3: such as depicted in the figure). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Mi and Ko as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Mi, and/or Ko to the modified device of Sa, Mi, and Ko; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Sa in view of Mi in view of Ko teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising causing the first device to display the first user-selectable element and the second user-selectable element based at least in part on determining that that the first non-human sound is the first musical instrument and the second non-human sound is the second musical instrument (Ko: Fig 3: such as depicted in the figure). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Mi and Ko as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Mi, and/or Ko to the modified device of Sa, Mi, and Ko; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 11—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 10 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights