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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-11, 15, and 17 are amended.
Claims 7 and 16 have been canceled.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18 are presently pending.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of the claims over Quere and Kerofsky (see Remarks, pgs. 9-12), the Examiner disagrees. Applicant attacks the Quere reference as not disclosing a plurality of playback processing modules (see Remarks, pg. 10) and attacks the Kerofsky as not teaching or suggesting timing information for plurality of processing modules nor maintaining audio-video synchronization of buffered channels (see Remarks, pgs. 11-12). The Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Quere discloses a playback receiver that may split an AV stream into video and audio streams and store the video and audio streams in respective buffers, and maintain synchronization timing between the buffered streams for when a channel switch event occurs (see the Non-Final rejection mailed out on 27 March 20226 – hereinafter the Non-Final – pg. 6) It is noted Applicant does not dispute such teachings. Kerofsky is subsequently introduced in the Non-Final, pg. 8 as teaching that a media device may have a plurality of tuner modules and respective buffers that selectively fed to a decoder for the purposes of fast channel changing. Thus, in the it would be obvious to be duplicate the receiver and buffers of Quere to have a plurality of receivers with respective video and audio stream buffers and a system for maintaining timing between respective video and audio buffer pairs. The Non-Final pgs. 11-12 note that Kerofsky teaches where access point information for each individual buffer may be individually maintained.
It is noted that Applicant argues that an assertion was made that the access point information of Kerofsky ‘inherently includes timing information’ (see Remarks, pg. 11, final ¶ - pg. 12, ¶1). It is noted that at no point was it asserted such information was inherently included. The Examiner notes the Non-Final, pg. 12 specifically states that such information is inferably understood, citing MPEP 2144.01. MPEP 2144.01 states: "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Although not explicitly stated, it would be inferably understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that certain timing information for the plurality of received channels would obviously differ from channel to channel as the audio/visual information received can obviously be widely different in content and encoded differently from one another. With Quere’s teachings of maintaining Audio-Video timing for buffered content for the purposes of fast audio-visual syncing upon channel change, and Kerofsky’s teachings of utilizing multiple tuners/buffers and tracking the individual buffer states for fast channel change, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably draw therefrom that such timing information as taught by Quere could individually/independently be maintained across the multiple tuner/buffer modules of Kerofksy. As such, the combined teachings of Quere and Kerofksy reasonably disclose, teach, and suggest all of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “playback processing modules” and “audio and video control sub-module’ in claims 1 and 10; “audio processing sub-module” and “video processing sub-module” in Claims 2 and 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18 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.
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added) “wherein each of the playback processing modules comprises’ and “wherein the playback processing modules include…” where the Claim previously recites “a plurality of playback processing modules”. The recitation of ‘the playback processing modules’ is indefinite as it is unclear if the use of the article ‘the’ refers to all of the previously recited plurality of playback processing modules, or merely a portion of the playback processing modules. Based on the context of the originally presented claims, the Examiner will presume that ‘the playback processing modules’ refers to the totality of the ‘plurality of playback processing modules’ and examine the claims under that assumption. However, Examiner would recommend amending the language to recite ‘the plurality of playback processing modules”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 recites: ‘a specific media source of the media sources’ where Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 depends, recites ‘a plurality of media sources’. Similar as above, it is indefinite if ‘the media sources’ refers to the totality of the previously recited ‘plurality of media sources’ or merely a portion of said plurality. In the interests of Compact Prosecution, the Examiner will presume that ‘the media sources’ refers to the totality of the ‘plurality of media sources’ and examine the claims under that assumption. However, Examiner would recommend amending the language to recite ‘the plurality of media sources”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 3 recites (emphasis added): “a decoding circuit, configured to be controlled by the audio processing sub-module and the video processing sub-module”. Claims 1 and 2, upon which Claim 3 depend, recite ‘a plurality of playback processing modules’, wherein each playback processing module comprises ‘an audio processing sub-module’ and ‘a video processing sub-module’, which implies a plurality of audio and video processing sub-modules. Although presently recites “each playback processing module further comprises” the aforementioned decoding circuit, it is indefinite to which of the plurality of audio/video processing submodules the decoding circuits are controlled by. In the interests of Compact Prosecution, the Examiner will presume that ‘the audio/video processing sub-module’ refers to respective ‘audio/video processing sub-modules’ and examine the claims under that assumption. However, Examiner would recommend amending the language to recite ‘a decoding circuit, configured to be controlled by the respective audio processing sub-module and the respective video processing sub-module”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 4 and 5 recite “the audio processing sub-module” and “the video processing sub-module” which suffers the same issues as Claim 3 above.
Claim 6 recites “the audio and video control sub-module”. Claim 1 upon which Claim 6 depends, recites ‘a plurality of playback processing modules’, wherein each playback processing module comprises “an audio and video control sub-module”, which implies a plurality of audio and video control sub-modules. As such the recitation of “the audio and video control sub-module” is indefinite as it is unclear to which of the plurality of audio and video control sub-modules “the audio and video control sub-module” refers. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 6 recites: “a synchronization control process, configured to control timing synchronization of the playback processing module”. Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 depends, recites ‘a plurality of playback processing modules’. It is unclear to which of the plurality of playback processing modules the recited ‘the playback processing module’ of Claim 6 refers. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 recites: “wherein when the media source that the playback processing module corresponds to...”. Claim 1, upon which Claim 8depends, recites ‘a plurality of playback processing modules’. It is unclear to which of the plurality of playback processing modules the recited ‘the playback processing module’ of Claim 8 refers. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 9 recites: “wherein the audio and video control sub-module further includes…” Claim 1 upon which Claim 9 depends, recites ‘a plurality of playback processing modules’, wherein each playback processing module comprises “an audio and video control sub-module”, which implies a plurality of audio and video control sub-modules. As such the recitation of “the audio and video control sub-module” is indefinite as it is unclear to which of the plurality of audio and video control sub-modules “the audio and video control sub-module” refers. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 9 recites (emphasis added): “the audio processing sub-module” and “the video processing sub-module”. Claims 1 and 2, upon which Claim 9 depend, recite ‘a plurality of playback processing modules’, wherein each playback processing module comprises ‘an audio processing sub-module’ and ‘a video processing sub-module’, which implies a plurality of audio and video processing sub-modules. Although presently recites “each playback processing module further comprises” the aforementioned decoding circuit, it is indefinite to which of the plurality of audio/video processing submodules the decoding circuits are controlled by. In the interests of Compact Prosecution, the Examiner will presume that ‘the audio/video processing sub-module’ refers to respective ‘audio/video processing sub-modules’ and examine the claims under that assumption. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10 suffers similar issues as Claim 1 above.
Claim 11 suffers similar issues as Claim 2 above.
Claim 12 suffers similar issues as Claim 3 above.
Claim 13 suffers similar issues as Claim 4 above.
Claim 14 suffers similar issues as Claim 5 above.
Claim 15 suffers similar issues as Claim 6 above.
Claim 17 suffers similar issues as Claim 8 above.
Claim 18 suffers similar issues as Claim 9 above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 6, and 10-13 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quere et al. (US 2019/0364327 A1) (of record, hereinafter Quere) in view of Kerofsky et al. (US 2005/0229221 A1) (of record, hereinafter Kerofsky).
Regarding Claim 1, Quere discloses a media playback device, [Figs. 3, 7: receiver 30] comprising:
one or more playback processing modules, respectively corresponding to one or more media sources; [Figs. 3, 7; 0040: front end 300 may receive AV stream from some source]
wherein each of the one or more playback processing modules comprises: an audio and video control sub-module, configured to provide and update timing information and control timing synchronization of the at least one playback processing module when processing a plurality of audio data units and a plurality of video data units according to the timing information. [Figs. 3, 7; 0035-36, 0040: AV stream is split into video and audio streams and fed to respective video buffer/decoder 305 and audio buffer/decoder 305, where PCRs comprising respective PTSes of video and audio frames are obtained upon stream transition and provided to STC clock to control synchronization of video and audio decoding]
wherein the one or more playback processing modules include a first playback processing module; an audio and video control sub-module of the first playback processing module [Figs. 3, 7; 0035-36, 0040: AV stream is split into video and audio streams and fed to respective video buffer/decoder 305 and audio buffer/decoder 305] includes a first timing process, wherein the first timing process provides and updates timing information, thereby to control the first playback processing module. [Quere – Figs. 3, 7; 0042: PTSes of respective video frames and audio frames are obtained and utilized to calculate any drift between buffered Audio and Video frames]
Quere fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of playback processing modules respectively corresponding to a plurality of media sources; wherein the playback processing modules include a first playback processing module and a second playback processing module; an audio and video control sub-module of the first playback processing module includes a first timing process, and an audio and video control sub-module of the second playback processing module includes a second timing process, wherein the first timing process and the second timing process respectively provide and update timing information that is independent from each other, thereby to control the first playback processing module and the second playback processing module. (Emphasis on the particular elements of the limitations not explicitly disclosed by Quere – specifically, wherein a second playback processing module and corresponding sub-modules/processes exists in the playback device).
Kerofsky, in analogous art, teaches a plurality of playback processing modules respectively corresponding to a plurality of media sources; wherein the playback processing modules include a first playback processing module and a second playback processing module; an audio and video control sub-module of the first playback processing module includes a first timing process, and an audio and video control sub-module of the second playback processing module includes a second timing process, wherein the first timing process and the second timing process respectively provide and update timing information that is independent from each other, thereby to control the first playback processing module and the second playback processing module. [Kerofsky – Figs. 2-4; 0015-16, 0038-41: a receiver may receive and buffer multiple channels (including both audio and video data) not being viewed in anticipation of a channel change, where selector 126 selectively passes buffered audio and video of a selected channel to the decoder to decode and output; 0033: system may pre-identify access point information in each buffer (where it would be inferably understood that each buffered channel information may comprise different access point/timing information – such as the time-stamps of Quere above) relative to other buffered channels. See MPEP 2144.01)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Quere with the teachings of Kerofsky to specify a plurality of playback processing modules and corresponding sub-modules and processes in order to allow a system to minimize the time delay of switching channels by buffering content of a plurality of channels in anticipation of a channel change. [Kerofsky – ABST; 0014-16]
Regarding Claim 2, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Quere and Kerofsky disclose wherein each playback processing module further comprises:
an audio processing sub-module, configured to receive and process the plurality of audio data units that are provided by a specific media source of the media sources; [Quere – Figs. 3, 7; 0035-36, 0040: Audio Buffer/Decoder 305] and selectively enabling audio decoding; [Kerofsky – Figs. 2-4; 0015-16, 0038-41: a receiver may receive and buffer multiple channels (including both audio and video data) not being viewed in anticipation of a channel change, where selector 126 selectively passes buffered audio and video of a selected channel to the decoder to decode and output] and
a video processing sub-module, configured to receive and process the plurality of video data units that are provided by the specific media source, [Quere – Figs. 3, 7; 0035-36, 0040: video buffer/decoder 304] and selectively enabling video decoding. [Kerofsky – Figs. 2-4; 0015-16, 0038-41: a receiver may receive and buffer multiple channels (including both audio and video data) not being viewed in anticipation of a channel change, where selector 126 selectively passes buffered audio and video of a selected channel to the decoder to decode and output]
Regarding Claim 3, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 2 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Quere and Kerofsky disclose wherein each playback processing module further comprises: a decoding circuit, configured to be controlled by the audio processing sub-module and the video processing sub-module to perform at least one of the audio decoding and the video decoding, wherein when the audio processing sub-module enables the audio decoding, the decoding circuit is configured to perform the audio decoding on the plurality of audio data units; and when the video processing sub-module enables the video decoding, the decoding circuit is configured to perform the video decoding on the plurality of video data units. [Quere – Figs. 3, 7; 0035-36, 0040: AV stream is split into video and audio streams and fed to respective video buffer/decoder 305 and audio buffer/decoder 305, where PCRs comprising respective PTSes of video and audio frames are obtained upon stream transition and provided to STC clock to control synchronization of video and audio decoding; Kerofsky – Figs. 2-4; 0015-16, 0038-41: a receiver may receive and buffer multiple channels (including both audio and video data) not being viewed in anticipation of a channel change, where selector 126 selectively passes buffered audio and video of a selected channel to the decoder to decode and output]
Regarding Claim 4, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 3 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Quere discloses wherein the audio processing sub-module is configured to record presentation timestamps corresponding to the plurality of audio data units; and the video processing sub-module is configured to record presentation timestamps corresponding to the plurality of video data units. [Quere – Figs. 3, 7; 0035-36, 0040: AV stream is split into video and audio streams and fed to respective video buffer/decoder 305 and audio buffer/decoder 305, where PCRs comprising respective PTSes of video and audio frames are obtained upon stream transition and provided to STC clock to control synchronization of video and audio decoding; 0042: PTSes of respective video frames and audio frames are obtained and utilized to calculate any drift between buffered Audio and Video frames; Kerofsky – Figs. 2-4; 0015-16, 0038-41]
Regarding Claim 6, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 4 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Quere discloses wherein the audio and video control sub-module comprises: a timing process, configured to provide and update the timing information based on a reference clock generated by an oscillator circuit of the media playback device; and a synchronization control process, configured to control timing synchronization of the playback processing module when processing the plurality of audio data units and the plurality of video data units according to the timing information, the presentation timestamps respectively corresponding to the plurality of audio data units, and the presentation timestamps respectively corresponding to the plurality of video data units. [Quere – Figs. 3, 7; 0035-36, 0040: AV stream is split into video and audio streams and fed to respective video buffer/decoder 305 and audio buffer/decoder 305, where PCRs comprising respective PTSes of video and audio frames are obtained upon stream transition and provided to STC clock to control synchronization of video and audio decoding; 0036: receiver includes an internal oscillator clock or STC that governs decoding operations; 0042: PTSes of respective video frames and audio frames are obtained and utilized to calculate any drift between buffered Audio and Video frames]
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites a method that executes the functions of the apparatus of Claim 1. As such, Claim 10 is analyzed and rejected similarly as Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 11, Quere and Kerofksy disclose all of the limitations of Claim 10 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore Claim 11 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 2 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 12, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore Claim 12 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 3 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 12 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore Claim 13 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 13 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore Claim 15 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 6 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quere and Kerofsky as applied to claims 4 and 13, respectively, above, and further in view of Farkash et al. (US 2013/0339997 A1) (of record, hereinafter Farkash).
Regarding Claim 5, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 4 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Quere and Kerofsky disclose wherein when the audio processing sub-module does not enable the audio decoding, the audio processing sub-module records the presentation timestamps respectively corresponding to the plurality of audio data units; when the video processing sub-module does not enable the video decoding, the video processing sub-module records the presentation timestamps respectively corresponding to the plurality of video data units. [Quere – Figs. 3, 7; 0042: PTSes of respective video frames and audio frames are obtained and utilized to calculate any drift between buffered Audio and Video frames; Kerofsky – Figs. 2-4; 0015-16, 0038-41: a receiver may receive and buffer multiple channels; 0033: system may pre-identify access point information in each buffer (where it would be inferably understood that each buffered channel information may comprise different access point/timing information relative to other buffered channels. See MPEP 2144.01)]
Quere and Kerofsky fail to explicitly disclose wherein the audio processing sub-module discards the plurality of audio data units and wherein the video processing sub-module discards the plurality of video data units.
Farkash, in analogous art, teaches wherein the audio processing sub-module discards the plurality of audio data units and wherein the video processing sub-module discards the plurality of video data units. [0071: fast channel change buffers (such as the buffers of Quere and Kerofsky above) may record the latest random access point (RAP) and stores data until the next RAP is received, whereupon the buffer is purged of all data up to the latest RAP]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Quere and Kerofsky with the teachings of Farkash to discard the plurality of audio and video data units so as to only maintain the latest RAP in a fast channel change buffer to more quickly decode video data in response to a channel change. [Farkash – 0016-17]
Regarding Claim 14, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 13 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore Claim 14 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 5 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quere and Kerofsky as applied to claims 6 and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Yu (US 2016/0165301 A1) (of record, hereinafter Yu).
Regarding Claim 8, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 6 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Quere and Kerofsky disclose wherein when the media source that the at least one playback processing module corresponds to is switched from a first specific media source to a second specific media source based on a user operation, the timing process resets the timing information. [Quere – Figs. 3, 7; 0033: user may change a channel0035-36, 0040: AV stream is split into video and audio streams and fed to respective video buffer/decoder 305 and audio buffer/decoder 305, where PCRs comprising respective PTSes of video and audio frames are obtained upon stream transition and provided to STC clock to control synchronization of video and audio decoding; Kerofsky – Figs. 2-4; 0013: user may channel surf; 0015-16, 0038-41: a receiver may receive and buffer multiple channels (including both audio and video data) not being viewed in anticipation of a channel change, where selector 126 selectively passes buffered audio and video of a selected channel to the decoder to decode and output]
Quere and Kerofsky fail to explicitly disclose the audio processing sub-module and the video processing sub-module respectively retain settings of the audio decoding and the video decoding of the decoding circuit.
Yu, in analogous art, teaches the audio processing sub-module and the video processing sub-module respectively retain settings of the audio decoding and the video decoding of the decoding circuit. [0019: a receiver decoder may have different working settings to decode different types of media (where it would be inferably understood that if the decoder switches between media of the same type, they would obviously retain/use the same decoding settings. See MPEP 2144.01)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Quere and Kerofsky with the teachings of Yu to specify retain settings of the decoding circuit as it would be readily understood that decoder settings for a specific type/format of media would be the same if two different media streams were encoded in the same media type/format.
Regarding Claim 17, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 15 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore Claim 16 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 8 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quere and Kerofsky as applied to claims 6 and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Demas et al. (US 2003/0179319 A1) (of record, hereinafter Demas).
Regarding Claim 9, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 6 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Quere and Kerofsky disclose wherein the audio and video control sub-module further includes: a display control process, configured to control the video processing sub-module according to a user operation, such that the video processing sub-module selectively enables the video decoding. [Quere – Figs. 3, 7; 0033: user may change a channel; 0051: AV output 7000; Kerofsky – Figs. 2-4; 0013: user may channel surf; 0015-16, 0038-41: a receiver may receive and buffer multiple channels (including both audio and video data) not being viewed in anticipation of a channel change, where selector 126 selectively passes buffered audio and video of a selected channel to the decoder to decode and output]
Quere and Kerofsky fail to explicitly disclose wherein an enablement state of the video decoding controlled by the video processing sub-module can be different from an enablement state of the audio decoding controlled by the audio processing sub-module.
Demas, in analogous art, teaches wherein an enablement state of the video decoding controlled by the video processing sub-module can be different from an enablement state of the audio decoding controlled by the audio processing sub-module. [0044: in a PIP application two or more video sequences may be decoded and displayed but only one audio may be decoded at a time]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Quere and Kerofsky with the teachings of Demas to specify that video decoding and audio decoding may be separately enabled as it is understood that PIP applications may allow for only one audio stream associated with multiple output video streams to be decoded and output. [Demas – 0044]
Regarding Claim 18, Quere and Kerofsky disclose all of the limitations of Claim 15 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore Claim 18 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 9 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/WILLIAM J KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights