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 .
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 9, 12 – 16, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 13 and 17 – 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,188 (hereinafter Farrar ’188).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Re claim 1,
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of Farrar ’188
A method comprising: receiving an audio transmission including data modulated onto an audio signal; detecting a first portion of the audio transmission, the first portion including predetermined frequencies that are produced at predetermined times; determining a first magnitude of at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission; equalizing a second portion of the audio transmission by adjusting a second magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the second portion of the audio transmission based on the first magnitude; and demodulating the second portion of the audio transmission to extract the data.
1. A method comprising: receiving, at a microphone, an audio transmission including data modulated onto an audio signal; identifying a first portion of the audio transmission, the first portion including predetermined frequencies that are produced at predetermined times; determining a first frequency distribution identifying a power distribution for at least one predetermined frequency of the predetermined frequencies during the first portion of the audio transmission; identifying a magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution; identifying a second portion of the audio transmission; equalizing the second portion of the audio transmission according to the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency comprising: determining a second frequency distribution of the second portion of the audio transmission; and dividing a magnitude of the at least one predetermined frequency within the second frequency distribution by the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution, and demodulating the second portion of the audio transmission to extract the data.
In view of the above, it is clear that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claim 1 of Farrar ’188 by eliminating the italicized portion of limitation of claim 1.
Furthermore, because omission element(s) in the claim would make the claim in the instant application broader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the claim in the instant application is merely an obvious variation of the claim in the parent application. It is well settled that omission of an element and it function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1969). In light of the foregoing discussion, the broad claim of the instant application is rejected as obvious double patenting over the narrower copending claim.
Claims 2 – 9 and 12 of the instant application is identical/similar with claims 1 – 9 of Farrar ’188.
Re claim 2,
Claim 2 of Instant Application
Claim 2 of Farrar ’188
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining that the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies occurs at a first time different from a second time of the predetermined times, wherein the second time indicates when the at least one of the predetermined frequencies is expected to occur.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution occurs at a first time different from a second time of the predetermined times, wherein the second time indicates when the at least one predetermined frequency is expected to occur.
Re claim 3,
Claim 2 of Instant Application
Claim 8 of Farrar ’188
The method of claim 1, wherein the first magnitude represents a maximum magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission, an average magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission, or a combination thereof.
The method of claim 7, wherein the first frequency is higher than the second frequency and the method further comprises: identifying a third frequency of the predetermined frequencies, wherein the third frequency is lower than the second frequency; and determining, based on maximum magnitudes of the first frequency and the third frequency, a maximum magnitude corresponding to the second frequency.
Re claim 4,
Claim 4 of Instant Application
Claim 3 of Farrar ’188
The method of claim 2, further comprising adjusting timing information for the second portion of the audio transmission based on the difference between the first time and the second time.
The method of claim 2, further comprising: adjusting timing information for the second portion of the audio transmission based on the difference between the first time and the second time.
Re claim 5,
Claim 5 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of Farrar ’188
The method of claim 1, wherein equalizing the second portion of the audio transmission further comprises: determining a second frequency distribution of the second portion of the audio transmission; and dividing a magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the second frequency distribution by the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies.
A method comprising:…equalizing the second portion of the audio transmission according to the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency comprising: determining a second frequency distribution of the second portion of the audio transmission; and dividing a magnitude of the at least one predetermined frequency within the second frequency distribution by the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution,…
Re claim 6,
Claim 6 of Instant Application
Claim 4 of Farrar ’188
The method of claim 1, wherein the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies is determined using a frequency filter corresponding to the at least one of the predetermined frequencies.
The method of claim 1, wherein the magnitude of the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution is identified using a frequency filter corresponding to the at least one predetermined frequency.
Re claim 7,
Claim 7 of Instant Application
Claim 5 of Farrar ’188
The method of claim 6, wherein determining the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies further comprises, for each predetermined frequency, running a corresponding frequency filter over the predetermined time corresponding to the predetermined frequency.
The method of claim 4, wherein identifying the magnitude of the at least one predetermined frequency further comprises, for each predetermined frequency, running a corresponding frequency filter over the predetermined time corresponding to the predetermined frequency.
Re claim 8,
Claim 8 of Instant Application
Claim 6 of Farrar ’188
The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined frequencies include all of the frequencies required to demodulate the second portion of the audio transmission.
The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined frequencies include all of the frequencies required to demodulate the second portion of the audio transmission.
Re claim 9,
Claim 9 of Instant Application
Claim 7 of Farrar ’188
The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined frequencies do not include at least a second frequency required to demodulate the second portion of the audio transmission.
The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined frequencies do not include at least a second frequency required to demodulate the second portion of the audio transmission.
Re claim 12,
Claim 12 of Instant Application
Claim 9 of Farrar ’188
The method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the audio transmission is at least one of (i) a preamble of the audio transmission indicating the beginning of the audio transmission and (ii) at least a subset of a header of the audio transmission.
The method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the audio transmission is at least one of (i) a preamble of the audio transmission indicating the beginning of the audio transmission and (ii) at least a subset of a header of the audio transmission.
Re claim 13,
Claim 13 of Instant Application
Claim 10 of Farrar ’188
A system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including: receiving an audio transmission including data modulated onto an audio signal; detecting a first portion of the audio transmission, the first portion including predetermined frequencies that are produced at predetermined times; determining a first magnitude of at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission; equalizing a second portion of the audio transmission by adjusting a second magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the second portion of the audio transmission based on the first magnitude; and demodulating the second portion of the audio transmission to extract the data.
A system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive, at a microphone, an audio transmission including data modulated onto an audio signal; detect a first portion of the audio transmission, the first portion including predetermined frequencies that are produced at predetermined times; determine a first frequency distribution identifying a power distribution for at least one predetermined frequency of the predetermined frequencies during the first portion of the audio transmission; identify a magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution; identify a second portion of the audio transmission; equalize the second portion of the audio transmission according to the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency; wherein the equalizing the second portion of the audio transmission comprises: determine a second frequency distribution of the second portion of the audio transmission; and divide a magnitude of the at least one predetermined frequency within the second frequency distribution by the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution; and demodulate the second portion of the audio transmission to extract the data.
In view of the above, it is clear that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claim 10 of Farrar ’188 by eliminating the italicized portion of limitation of claim 10.
Furthermore, because omission element(s) in the claim would make the claim in the instant application broader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the claim in the instant application is merely an obvious variation of the claim in the parent application. It is well settled that omission of an element and it function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1969). In light of the foregoing discussion, the broad claim of the instant application is rejected as obvious double patenting over the narrower copending claim.
Claims 14 – 16 and 18 of the instant application is identical/similar with claims 10 – 13 and 17 of Farrar ’188.
Re claim 14,
Claim 14 of Instant Application
Claim 10 of Farrar ’188
The system of claim 13, wherein equalizing the second portion of the audio transmission further comprises: determining a second frequency distribution of the second portion of the audio transmission; and dividing a magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the second frequency distribution by the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies.
A system comprising:…wherein the equalizing the second portion of the audio transmission comprises: determine a second frequency distribution of the second portion of the audio transmission; and divide a magnitude of the at least one predetermined frequency within the second frequency distribution by the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution;…
Re claim 15,
Claim 15 of Instant Application
Claim 17 of Farrar ’188
The system of claim 13, wherein the first magnitude represents a maximum magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission, an average magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission, or a combination thereof.
The system of claim 16, wherein the first frequency is higher than the second frequency and the method further comprises: identifying a third frequency of the predetermined frequencies, wherein the third frequency is lower than the second frequency; and determining, based on maximum magnitudes of the first frequency and the third frequency, a maximum magnitude corresponding to the second frequency.
Re claim 16,
Claim 16 of Instant Application
Claim 13 of Farrar ’188
The system of claim 13, wherein the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies is determined using a frequency filter corresponding to the at least one of the predetermined frequencies.
The system of claim 10, wherein the magnitude of the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution is identified using a frequency filter corresponding to the at least one predetermined frequency.
Re claim 18,
Claim 18 of Instant Application
Claims 11 – 12 of Farrar ’188
The system of claim 13, wherein the operations further include: determining that the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies occurs at a first time different from a second time of the predetermined times, wherein the second time indicates when the at least one of the predetermined frequencies is expected to occur; and adjusting timing information for the second portion of the audio transmission based on the difference between the first time and the second time.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the memory stores further instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: determining that the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution occurs at a first time different from a second time of the predetermined times, wherein the second time indicates when the at least one predetermined frequency is expected to occur.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory stores further instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: adjust timing information for the second portion of the audio transmission based on the difference between the first time and the second time.
Re claim 20,
Claim 20 of Instant Application
Claim 18 of Farrar ’188
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, comprising: receiving an audio transmission including data modulated onto an audio signal; detecting a first portion of the audio transmission, the first portion including predetermined frequencies that are produced at predetermined times; determining a first magnitude of at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission; equalizing a second portion of the audio transmission by adjusting a second magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the second portion of the audio transmission based on the first magnitude; and demodulating the second portion of the audio transmission to extract the data.
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: receive, at a microphone, an audio transmission including data modulated onto an audio signal; detect a first portion of the audio transmission, the first portion including predetermined frequencies that are produced at predetermined times; determine a first frequency distribution identifying a power distribution for at least one predetermined frequency of the predetermined frequencies during the first portion of the audio transmission; identify a magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution; identify a second portion of the audio transmission; equalize the second portion of the audio transmission according to the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency; wherein the equalizing the second portion of the audio transmission comprises determine a second frequency distribution of the second portion of the audio transmission; and divide a magnitude of the at least one predetermined frequency within the second frequency distribution by the magnitude for the at least one predetermined frequency within the first frequency distribution; and demodulate the second portion of the audio transmission to extract the data.
In view of the above, it is clear that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claim 18 of Farrar ’188 by eliminating the italicized portion of limitation of claim 18.
Furthermore, because omission element(s) in the claim would make the claim in the instant application broader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the claim in the instant application is merely an obvious variation of the claim in the parent application. It is well settled that omission of an element and it function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1969). In light of the foregoing discussion, the broad claim of the instant application is rejected as obvious double patenting over the narrower copending claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 – 2, 6, 8, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgarte (US 2005/0195995) in view of Georgi (US 2013/0051449).
Re claim 1, Baumgarte teaches of a method comprising: receiving an audio transmission including an audio signal (N input audio channels, Paragraph 0017 and Fig. 3); detecting a first portion of the audio transmission (previous frame, Paragraph 0051), the first portion including predetermined frequencies that are produced at predetermined times (output of STFT, Paragraph 0030); determining a first magnitude of at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission (#310, #312, Fig.3); equalizing (#306, Fig.3) a second portion of the audio transmission by adjusting a second magnitude (magnitude equalization, Abstract and Paragraph 0028) of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the second portion of the audio transmission based on the first magnitude (current frame, Paragraph 0051). However, Baumgarte does not specifically teach of the audio transmission including data modulated onto the audio signal and demodulating the second portion of the audio transmission to extract the data.
Georgi teaches of receiving an audio transmission including data modulated onto the audio signal (#110, Figures 1 – 2) and demodulating the audio transmission to extract the data (#340, Figures 1 – 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed modulation/demodulation so as to enable secure communications.
Re claim 13, Baumgarte and Georgi teach of a system comprising: a processor (processor, Paragraphs 00987 – 0099 of Baumgarte); and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor (Paragraph 0099 of Baumgarte), cause the processor to perform operations including: receiving an audio transmission including data modulated onto an audio signal; detecting a first portion of the audio transmission, the first portion including predetermined frequencies that are produced at predetermined times; determining a first magnitude of at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission; equalizing a second portion of the audio transmission by adjusting a second magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the second portion of the audio transmission based on the first magnitude; and demodulating the second portion of the audio transmission to extract the data (see claim 1).
Re claim 20, Baumgarte and Georgi teach of a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor (Paragraph 0099 of Baumgarte), cause the processor to perform operations, comprising: receiving an audio transmission including data modulated onto an audio signal; detecting a first portion of the audio transmission, the first portion including predetermined frequencies that are produced at predetermined times; determining a first magnitude of at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission; equalizing a second portion of the audio transmission by adjusting a second magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the second portion of the audio transmission based on the first magnitude; and demodulating the second portion of the audio transmission to extract the data (see claim 1).
Re claim 2, Baumgarte teaches of further comprising determining that the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies occurs at a first time different from a second time of the predetermined times (SIFT, Fig.2 and Paragraphs 0029 – 0031, where the fourier transform transforms time-domain signals into their individual frequency components), wherein the second time indicates when the at least one of the predetermined frequencies is expected to occur (each time-domain signal that corresponds to a specific time is converted into a corresponding individual frequency components).
Re claims 6 and 16, Baumgarte teaches of wherein the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies is determined using a frequency filter corresponding to the at least one of the predetermined frequencies (STFT, Fig.2 and Paragraphs 0029 – 0031).
Re claim 8, Baumgarte teaches of wherein the predetermined frequencies include all of the frequencies required to demodulate the second portion of the audio transmission (the previous and the current frame have the same predetermined frequencies).
Claims 3, 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgarte and Georgi in view of Visser et al (US 2010/0017205).
Re claims 3 and 15, Baumgarte and Georgi teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 except of wherein the first magnitude represents a maximum magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission, an average magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission, or a combination thereof.
Visser teaches of a first magnitude represents a maximum magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission, an average magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies within the first portion of the audio transmission, or a combination thereof (maximum magnitude, Figures 22 – 23 and T640, Fig.58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first magnitude represent a maximum magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies so as to perform efficient equalization.
Re claim 7, Baumgarte and Georgi teach all the limitations of claim 6 except of wherein determining the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies further comprises, for each predetermined frequency, running a corresponding frequency filter over the predetermined time corresponding to the predetermined frequency.
Visser teaches of determining a first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies further comprises, for each predetermined frequency, running a corresponding frequency filter over the predetermined time corresponding to the predetermined frequency (F10-1 – F10-q, Figures 20 and 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have for each predetermined frequency, run a corresponding frequency filter over the predetermined time corresponding to the predetermined frequency for each predetermined frequency, running a corresponding frequency filter over the predetermined time corresponding to the predetermined frequency for reduced computational complexity.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgarte and Georgi in view of Ferchland et al (US 2012/0039424).
Re claim 4, Baumgarte and Georgi teach all the limitations of claim 2, except of further comprising: adjusting timing information for the second portion of the audio transmission based on the difference between the first time and the second time.
Ferchland teaches of adjusting timing information for the second portion of the audio transmission based on the difference between the first time and the second time (Paragraphs 0019 and 0070 and Figures 1 – 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted timing information for detecting the second portion that succeed the first portion.
Re claim 18, Baumgarte and Georgi teach all the limitations of claim 13, as well as Baumgarte teaches of further comprising determining that the first magnitude of the at least one of the predetermined frequencies occurs at a first time different from a second time of the predetermined times (SIFT, Fig.2 and Paragraphs 0029 – 0031, where the fourier transform transforms time-domain signals into their individual frequency components), wherein the second time indicates when the at least one of the predetermined frequencies is expected to occur (each time-domain signal that corresponds to a specific time is converted into a corresponding individual frequency components). However, Baumgarte and Georgi do not specifically teach of further comprising: adjusting timing information for the second portion of the audio transmission based on the difference between the first time and the second time.
Ferchland teaches of adjusting timing information for the second portion of the audio transmission based on the difference between the first time and the second time (Paragraphs 0019 and 0070 and Figures 1 – 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted timing information for detecting the second portion that succeed the first portion.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgarte and Georgi in view of Varanese et al (US 2014/0169488).
Re claim 9, Baumgarte and Georgi teach all the limitations of claim 1, except of wherein the predetermined frequencies do not include at least a second frequency required to demodulate the second portion of the audio transmission.
Varanese teaches of wherein the predetermined frequencies (of the preamble, Fig.2A) do not include at least a second frequency required to demodulate the second portion of the data transmission (frequencies or subcarriers that are not used by the preamble, Fig.2A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a narrowband preamble that does not include at least a second frequency required to demodulate the second portion of the audio transmission for increased data transfer allocation.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgarte and Georgi in view of Preston et al (US 2004/0125824).
Re claims 12 and 19, Baumgarte and Georgi teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 except of wherein the first portion of the audio transmission is at least one of (i) a preamble of the audio transmission indicating the beginning of the audio transmission and (ii) at least a subset of a header of the audio transmission.
Preston teaches of a first portion of the audio transmission is at least one of (i) a preamble of the audio transmission indicating the beginning of the audio transmission (#73, Fig.5) and (ii) at least a subset of a header of the audio transmission (#75, Fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first portion of the audio transmission is at least one of a preamble and a header of the audio transmission to prevent corruption of the data payload.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10 – 11, 14 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights