DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on July 6, 2026. As set forth therein, claims 34, 51, 52, and 54 have been amended, claim 45 has been canceled and claims 55-57 have been added.
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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,878,828 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Response to Arguments
Amendment to the Specification
The Examiner notes that the amendment to the specification uses double brackets to indicate subject matter to be removed. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.173(d)(1), brackets must be used (i.e. single brackets). See MPEP 1453(I), which discloses all amendments submitted under 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1)(i), which include any deletions or additions, must be made by submission of the entire text of each added or rewritten paragraph with markings (i.e., single brackets and underlining), except that an entire paragraph of specification text may be deleted by a statement deleting the paragraph without presentation of the text of the paragraph.
Reissue Declaration
The Patent Owner states that the current amendment recites “a metafile including attribute information that indicates each attribute of the encoded data of the plurality of groups.” The Examiner finds that the Applicant has overcome this issue. Therefore, the rejection will be withdrawn.
Recapture
The Examiner finds that in view of the amendment to claim 34, 52, and 54, the Applicant has overcome the previous recapture issue. Therefore, the rejection will be withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The Applicant states that the present amendments obviate the double patenting rejection by introducing features not recited in RE50383 including “a source outside of the information processing apparatus” and a “second processing circuity configured to control the acquiring the one or more groups of encoded data”.
The Examiner notes that although claim 16 does not specifically recite “a source outside of the information processing apparatus” and a “second processing circuity configured to control the acquiring the one or more groups of encoded data”, other claims of RE50383 do recite these limitations. This includes claims 1, 9,10,13,14 and 15 which each recite “a source outside the reception device” and “processing circuitry configured to control acquiring the one or more groups of encoded data on the basis of the attribute information” as recited in claims 10 and 13. Therefore, the current reissue claims, as amended are not patentably distinct from RE50385 as set forth below. In addition, the Examiner has cited secondary teachings as set forth below in view of the applicant’s amendments to the claims with respect to the double patenting rejections. The secondary teachings are based upon prior art which was set forth in the previous non-final office action.
35 USC §102 and 103
The Applicant states that neither Xiang nor Seo teach or suggest at least a metafile including present identification information that includes a preset identifier in association with a particular group identifier, the present identifier identifying preset collection of groups of encoded data with which the particular group of encoded data is associated , and the particular group identifier identifying the particular group of encoded data.
The Examiner notes that in view of the amendment to the claims, it is agreed that neither Xiang nor Seo teach or suggest each limitation as claimed.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 15, 2025, proposes an amendment to the specification and the claims that does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b), which sets forth the manner of making amendments in reissue applications.
Specifically, the Examiner notes that the use of double brackets is not permitted for the indication of subject matter to be removed. In addition, the new claims should be completely underlined. See 37 CFR 1.173(d), which discloses underling of subject matter to be added and brackets (i.e. single brackets) for the indication of subject matter to be removed.
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: “first processing circuitry” and “decoder circuitry” in claims 34, 52 and 54; “second processing circuitry” in claim 34 and 52; “third processing circuitry” in claims 51, 52 and 54 and “fourth processing circuitry” in claim 54.
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.
The Examiner finds that the ‘828 patent provides the following corresponding structure for each of the recited terms for performing each claimed function.
The Examiner notes that as set forth in col. 17, lines 29-35, the ‘828 patent discloses that the CPU 221 control an operation of each unit in the service receiver 200 and that the CPU 221 activates software by developing software or data read from the flash ROM 222 in the DRAM 223 and control each unit in the service receiver 200. Thus, the Examiner considers that each recited circuitry has a corresponding structure of a CPU along with an algorithm for performing each recited functions. See also Figure 19.
“first processing circuitry”(claims 34, 52 and 54 -“to receive a plurality of audio streams) – the ‘828 patent discloses a service receiver 200 which includes a receiving unit 201 which receives a MPD file which includes a media stream. See col. 17, lines 43-48. Thus, the corresponding structure is a CPU along with a receiver and algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“second processing circuitry” (claim 51 -“combine the plurality of audio streams”) – the ‘828 patent discloses a “combiner 212 reads audio stream of each audio frame from the container buffers, among the container buffers 211-1 to 211-N, in which each audio stream extracted by the DASH/MP4 analyzing unit 202 is imported, and supplies, to the 3D audio decoder 213, encoded data of a group having an attribute compatible with the speaker configuration and viewer (user) selection information.” See col. 18, lines 39-45. Thus, the corresponding structure is a CPU along with a combiner and algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“second processing circuitry” (claim 54 – “decode the plurality of audio streams into a plurality of audio data”) - the ‘828 patent discloses a 3D audio decoder which performs a decode process on the encoded data supplied form the combiner. See col. 18, lines 43-54. Thus, the corresponding structure is a CPU along with a decoder and algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“third processing circuitry”(claims 52 and 54 – “combine the plurality of audio streams”) – the ‘828 patent discloses a “combiner 212 reads audio stream of each audio frame from the container buffers, among the container buffers 211-1 to 211-N, in which each audio stream extracted by the DASH/MP4 analyzing unit 202 is imported, and supplies, to the 3D audio decoder 213, encoded data of a group having an attribute compatible with the speaker configuration and viewer (user) selection information.” See col. 18, lines 39-45. Thus, the corresponding structure is a CPU along with a combiner and algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“decoder circuitry”(claim 34 - “perform a decoding process on the plurality of audio streams and acquire a plurality of audio data”); (claim 52 – “decode the plurality of audio streams into a plurality of audio data”) – the ‘828 patent discloses a 3D audio decoder which performs a decode process on the encoded data supplied form the combiner. See col. 18, lines 43-54. Thus, the corresponding structure is a CPU along with a decoder and algorithm for performing the claimed function.
“fourth processing circuitry” (claim 54 – “selectively acquire the one or more groups of encoded data on a basis of the attribute information, the preset identification information, or the stream correspondence relation information, and reconfigure an audio stream including the one or more groups of encoded data’) – the ‘828 patent discloses in the stream reconfiguration unit 231, the encoded data of the predetermined group having the attribute compatible with the speaker configuration and viewer selection information is selectively acquired and the audio stream having the encoded data of the predetermined group is reconfigured. The reconfigured audio stream is supplied to a delivery interface 232. Then, the reconfigured audio stream is delivered (transmitted) to a device 300 connected to the internal network from the delivery interface 232. See col. 21, lines 55-63.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 34-37, 52 and 53 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No RE50383 in view of Xiang et al. US Patent Pub. 2014/0023197. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant reissue are broader than the claims of RE50383. See below claim chart comparison.
Reissue Claim 34
RE50383
34. An information processing apparatus comprising:
16. A reception device comprising:
a first processing circuitry configured to receive a metafile and a plurality of audio streams from a source outside of the information processing apparatus, the metafile having meta information used to acquire one or more groups of encoded data of a plurality of groups of encoded data carried by the plurality of audio streams, each audio stream of the plurality of audio streams including a respective subset of the plurality of groups of encoded data,
a receiving unit configured to receive a metafile having meta information used to acquire, from communication network or broadcast, a predetermined number of audio streams including a plurality of groups of encoded data,
the metafile including attribute information that indicates each attribute of the encoded data of the plurality of groups of encoded data
the metafile including attribute information that indicates each attribute of the encoded data of the plurality of groups,
the metafile including preset identification information that includes a preset identifier in association with a particular group identifier,
the preset identifier identifying a preset collection of groups of encoded data with which the particular group of encoded data is associated, and the particular group identifier identifying the particular group of encoded data, and
the metafile including stream correspondence relation information indicating in which audio stream, of the plurality of audio streams,
each group of the plurality of groups of encoded data are included; a second processing circuitry configured to control acquiring the one or more groups of encoded data on a basis of the attribute information, the preset identification information, or the stream correspondence relation information; and
the metafile including preset identification information that includes a preset identifier in association with a particular group identifier,
the preset identifier identifying a preset collection of groups of encoded data with which a group of encoded data is associated, and the group identifier identifying the particular group of encoded data, and
the metafile including stream correspondence relation information indicating in which audio stream, of the audio streams,
each group of the plurality of groups of encoded data are included; and a processing unit configured to: selectively acquire at least one group of encoded data on the basis of the attribute information, preset identification information, or stream correspondence relation information, acquire selection information from user, and
a decoder circuitry configured to perform a decoding process on the plurality of audio streams and acquire a plurality of audio data, each audio data of the plurality of audio data being configured to drive a speaker of a speaker system.
decode encoded data of a group having an attribute compatible with speaker configuration of speaker system and the selection information on the basis of the attribute information.
As set forth above, claim 34 is broader since it does not specifically recite that the information processing apparatus is a reception device or that a processing unit is configured to decode encoded data of a group having an attribute compatible speaker configuration information of a speaker system and the selection information.
The Examiner notes that with “decoder circuitry” of the instant reissue claim, claim 16 of RE50383 performs the same function of decoding the encoded data with respect to the respect to the function of a processing unit. Therefore, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that decoder circuity configured to perform a decoding process is not patentably distinct from a processing unit configured to decode is encoded data. In addition, each claim sets are directed to a speaker system and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a speaker system includes a speaker will be driven based on the audio data.
The Examiner acknowledges that the current reissue claim 34 is also narrower since it recites receiving the plurality of audio streams from a source outside of the information processing apparatus, the metafile having meta information used to acquire one or more groups of encoded data and each audio stream of the plurality of audio streams including a respective subset of the plurality of groups of encoded data.
Nonetheless, the Examiner does not find these limitations to be patentably distinct. The Examiner notes that with respect to an outside source, claim 16 of RE50383 already recites that the predetermined number of audio streams is acquired from a communication network or broadcast. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the audio stream is from an outside source.
In addition, with respect to subset, Xiang is directed to a MPEG coder (see figure 1 and paragraph [0075]) which discloses an MPEG encoder encodes audio sources 4 to generate an encoded version of the audio sources 4. The Examiner finds that as shown in Figure 1, the audio sources 4 are external to the encoder/decoder. In addition, the Examiner finds that as set forth in paragraph [0081], [0107]-[0111] and Figures 7a-7C, the decoder generates channels which are rendered via a number of loud speakers. In addition, Xiang describes the audio sources as a set of audio objects to be encoded and therefore, the plurality of audio streams includes a subset of audio encoded data. See Figure 2A of Xiang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive an audio stream from an outside source and acquire a subset of audio encoded data. As already claimed by claim 16 of RE50383 it was already known to communicate with an outside network for receiving an audio stream. In addition, Xiang also discloses receive audio from an audio source outside of the system. Xiang further discloses of sets of audio data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to separate sounds or acquire subsets of data in the event a user may want to separate sources form other types of sources. See paragraph [0090] of Xiang.
The Examiner notes that claim 52 adds a limitation directed to third processing circuitry configured to combine the plurality of audio streams, however this limitation is not a patentable distinction since claim 16 of the underling patent already groups the data in accordance with a speaker configuration of the speaker system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that combining the audio streams together for the speaker system would have been obvious since it would all the groups of data to be sent together to the speaker system.
The Examiner also finds that claims 35-37 and 53 are also not a patentable distinction in view of Xiang. See paragraph [0120] which discloses that the audio coding may use MPEG-H 3D Audio. See paragraph [0120] which discloses that the audio coding may use MPEG-H 3D Audio. See also paragraph [0075] which described the code as a MPEG codec which encodes the audio sources and an MPEG decoder which decodes the audio sources. As set forth in paragraphs [0164-0170], the audio includes a metadata portion (e.g. a header). In addition, as to payload, the Examiner notes that Xiang disclose that the audio data stream is included and therefore includes a payload. See paragraph [0074].
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use MPEG Audio. As explained by Xiang, MPEG is well known in the art and using MPEG provides a goal of a uniform listing experience regardless of the particular setup used for reproduction. See paragraph [0075].
Claims 38-43 and 54 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No RE50383 in view of Xiang et al. US Patent Pub. 2014/0023197 and Seo US Patent Pub. 2006/0087585.
The Examiner notes that claim 16 of RE50383 does not disclose whether the header includes a packet type, a packet label and a packet length.
Nonetheless, Seo discloses that it was known for an MPEG based audio stream to include a packet with a payload and wherein the header includes a stream ID (packet label), Packet Length and packet type. See paragraphs [0090], [0094] and Tables 1 (paragraph [0030]) and 2 (paragraph [0094]). See also Figure 7B (which discloses that both audio data and video is included) and paragraph [0090] which disclose that the data field ay contain audio data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a packet type, packet label and packet length in the header. Seo discloses that it was known for the header to include information pertaining to its contents. As explained by Seo, this information is used to help decode the packets received. See paragraph [0090]. See also paragraph [0092] which discloses that information within a header contains information for decoding each packet. Thus, including various information within the packet including type, label and length would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it can be used for decoding each packet.
In addition, Seo discloses that the payload includes a start code (see paragraph [0094] and Table 2), Frame information (see paragraphs [0095, 0098-0099 and 0111] which discloses that the received data includes the frame information) and Config information (see paragraph [0098] which discloses that frame rate adjustment is indicated for the frame information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Sync information, Frame information and Config information as disclosed by Seo. Seo discloses that for an audio payload it was known to include Sync information, Frame information and Config information. As explained by Seo with respect to Table 2, the various payload fields include additional information which is used by the decoder when decoding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include the information related to synchronization start code, frame information and config information so that the decoder can be able to decode each packet based on the specific information provided within the packet.
Seo discloses that it was known to include Frame information pertaining to the received audio stream. See e.g., paragraphs [0095, 0098-0099 and 0111] which disclose that frame information pertaining to the audio data is processed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Frame information which includes either channel or object encoded data. As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Sync information, Frame information and Config information as disclosed by Seo. Seo discloses that for an audio payload it was known to include Frame information. As explained by Seo with respect to Table 2, the various payload fields include additional information which is used by the decoder when decoding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include the information related to synchronization start code, frame information and config information so that the decoder can be able to decode each packet based on the specific information provided within the packet.
In addition, see paragraph [0079] of Xiang which discloses that the object-based coding is based on individual (single) spatial audio objects and are used to generate single channel elements (see paragraph [0081]). See also paragraphs [0074] and [0077] which discloses the mapping and rendering of the data to the speakers. As set forth in paragraph [0077], the metadata is included as an extension element to the audio object. See also paragraph [0080]. Xiang discloses in paragraph [0090] that the audio object may include a commentator’s dialogue (speech dialog object) which is directed to a speech language.
The Examiner notes that claim 54 is similar to claims 38 and 54 and therefore, for the limitations that are the same, claim 54 is not patentably distinct from claim 16 of RE50383. The Examiner notes however, that claim 54 additionally recites where the audio streams are comprised of a plurality of MPEG audio stream packets which comprise of a header and payload as well as packet type, packet label and a packet length. In addition, the claim recites where the payload includes Sync information corresponding to a synchronization start code, Frame information and Config information.
The Examiner finds that these additional features would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and thus are not patentably distinct.
For example, Seo discloses that it was known for an MPEG based audio stream to include a packet with a payload and wherein the header includes a stream ID (packet label), Packet Length and packet type. See paragraphs [0090], [0094] and Tables 1 (paragraph [0030]) and 2 (paragraph [0094]). See also Figure 7B (which discloses that both audio data and video is included) and paragraph [0090] which disclose that the data field ay contain audio data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a packet type, packet label and packet length in the header. Seo discloses that it was known for the header to include information pertaining to its contents. As explained by Seo, this information is used to help decode the packets received. See paragraph [0090]. See also paragraph [0092] which discloses that information within a header contains information for decoding each packet. Thus, including various information within the packet including type, label and length would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it can be used for decoding each packet.
Seo also discloses that the payload includes a start code (see paragraph [0094] and Table 2), Frame information (see paragraph [0095] which discloses that the received data includes the frame information) and Config information (see paragraph [0098] which discloses that frame rate adjustment is indicated for the frame information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Sync information, Frame information and Config information as disclosed by Seo. Seo discloses that for an audio payload it was known to include Sync information, Frame information and Config information. As explained by Seo with respect to Table 2, the various payload fields include additional information which is used by the decoder when decoding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include the information related to synchronization start code, frame information and config information so that the decoder can be able to decode each packet based on the specific information provided within the packet.
Claim 44 is are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No RE50383 in view of Xiang et al. US Patent Pub. 2014/0023197 and Nakahshika et al. US Patent Pub. 2012/0008913.
Claim 16 of RE50383 does not specifically disclose of a group ID for the audio streams. Nonetheless, Nakashika discloses that it was known for audio streams to include a group ID if they belong to the same audio stream group. See paragraphs [0251-0253] and [0467-0471]. As explained in paragraph [0154], the contents of stream information can include audio streams (see also paragraph [0356-0357] which disclose of MPEG audio streams with attribute information). See also paragraph [0442].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a group ID configured to identify a data group of a plurality of the object encoded data. Nakahika discloses in paragraph [0295] that data can be recorded and broadcast together. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to group packets together that are part of the same audio group in order to get packets which belong to the same track together and processed together for final rendering.
Claim 46-51 is are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No RE50383 in view of Xiang et al. US Patent Pub. 2014/0023197 and Hannuksela et al. US Patent Pub. 2010/0153395.
Claim 16 of RE50383 does not specifically disclose of registering the encoded data in a switch group.
Nonetheless, Hannuksela disclose tht it was known to assign tracks to a switch group (see paragraph [0119]). See also paragraph [0121-0123].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to register the encoded audio data in a switch group. As explained in paragraph [0119] of Hannuksela, the distinction between tracks for selection is addressed by assigned tracks to switch group an alternative group. Hannuksela explains that different switch groups represent different operation points such as frame size and high/low quality. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have registered the object encoded data in a switch group in order to group similar tracks together and to differentiate tracks from other tracks with different operation points.
Claim 55-56 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No RE50383 in view of Xiang et al. US Patent Pub. 2014/0023197.
19/179,871
RE50383
55. (New) An information processing method, the method comprising:
15. A reception method comprising:
receiving a metafile and a plurality of audio streams, the metafile having meta information used to acquire one or more groups of encoded data of a plurality of groups of encoded data carried by the plurality of audio streams,
each audio stream of the plurality of audio streams including a respective subset of the plurality of groups of encoded data,
the metafile including attribute information that indicates each attribute of the encoded data of the plurality of groups of encoded data,
receiving, by reception circuitry of a reception device, a metafile having meta information used to acquire one or more groups of encoded data of a plurality of groups of encoded data carried by a predetermined number of audio streams from a source outside the reception device,
each audio stream of the predetermined number of audio streams including a respective subset of the plurality of groups of encoded data,
the metafile including attribute information for a particular group of encoded data of the plurality of groups of encoded data indicating an attribute of the particular group of encoded data,
the metafile including preset identification information that includes a preset identifier in association with a particular group identifier,
the metafile including preset identification information that includes a preset identifier in association with a particular group identifier,
the preset identifier identifying a preset collection of groups of encoded data with which the particular group of encoded data is associated, and the particular group identifier identifying the particular group of encoded data, and the metafile including stream correspondence relation information indicating in which audio stream, of the plurality of audio streams, each group of the plurality of groups of encoded data are included;
the preset identifier identifying a preset collection of groups of encoded data with which the particular group of encoded data is associated, and the particular group identifier identifying the particular group of encoded data, and the metafile including stream correspondence relation information indicating in which audio stream, of the audio streams, each group of the plurality of groups of encoded data are included;
controlling an acquiring of the one or more groups of encoded data on a basis of the attribute information, the preset identification information, or the stream correspondence relation information; and
selectively acquiring, by processing circuitry of the reception device, the one or more groups of encoded data on the basis of the attribute information, the preset identification information, or the stream correspondence relation information;
performing a decoding process on the plurality of audio streams and acquiring a plurality of audio data, each audio data of the plurality of audio data being configured to drive a speaker of a speaker system.
reconfiguring, by the processing circuitry of the reception device, an audio stream including the one or more groups of encoded data; and transmitting, by transmission circuitry of the reception device, the reconfigured audio stream to an external device.
As set forth above, claim 55 is similar to claim 15 of RE50383. The Examiner finds that claim 55 is broader since it does not recites that the plurality of groups of encoded data is caried by a predetermined number of audio streams from a source outside the reception device. In addition, the Examiner finds that the claim does not require acquiring the one or more groups of encoded data on the basis of the attribute information, the present identification information or the stream correspondence relation information. Therefore, the claim is not patentably distinct,
In addition, the Examiner finds that claim 55 is narrower in that it recites, performing a decoding process on the plurality of audio streams and acquiring a plurality of audio data, each audio data of the plurality of audio data being configured to drive a speaker of a speaker system. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that this is not a patentable distinction.
With reference to Figure 2A, Xiang discloses an object decoder (decoder circuity) which
decodes the plurality of audio streams. See also paragraph [0083] and Figure 3. As set forth in paragraph [0081], the decoder generates channels 14A-14M (audio data) which is
rendered via a number of loudspeakers. See also paragraphs [0107]-[0111], and Figure 7A-7C
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a decoding process on the plurality of audio streams and acquiring a plurality of audio data, each audio data of the plurality of audio data being configured to drive a speaker of a speaker system. As already claimed by claim 15 of RE50383 it was already known to reconfigure an audio stream including one or more groups of encoded data and transmit the reconfigured audio stream to an external device. Therefore, it would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to decode the encode data for transmission to a speaker (external device). As explained above, Xiang discloses both decoding and transmission to loudspeakers. Thus, decoding audio would have been obvious and yielded a predictable result. In addition, RE50383 recites other claim sets which include a decoding process. See dependent claim 11 and claim 16. Thus, performing a decoding process would have been obvious in view of the same invention as described in claim 15 of RE50383
Claim 57 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No RE50383 in view of Xiang et al. US Patent Pub. 2014/0023197 and Seo.
The Examiner notes that claim 57 is similar to claim 55 and therefore, for the limitations that are the same, claim 57 is not patentably distinct from claim 15 of RE50383 as explained above with respect to claim 55. The Examiner notes however, that claim 57 additionally recites where the audio streams are comprised of a plurality of MPEG audio stream packets which are comprised of a header and payload as well as packet type, packet label and a packet length. In addition, the claim recites where the payload includes Sync information corresponding to a synchronization start code, Frame information and Config information.
The Examiner finds that these additional features would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and thus are not patentably distinct.
See paragraph [0120] of Xiang which discloses that the audio coding may use MPEG-H 3D Audio. See paragraph [0120] which discloses that the audio coding may use MPEG-H 3D Audio. See also paragraph [0075] which described the code as a MPEG codec which encodes the audio sources and an MPEG decoder which decodes the audio sources. As set forth in paragraphs [0164-0170], the audio includes a metadata portion (e.g. a header). In addition, as to payload, the Examiner notes that Xiang disclose that the audio data stream is included and therefore includes a payload. See paragraph [0074].
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use MPEG Audio. As explained by Siang, MPEG is well known in the art and using MPEG provides a goal of a uniform listing experience regardless of the particular setup used for reproduction. See paragraph [0075].
In addition, Seo discloses that it was known for an MPEG based audio stream to include a packet with a payload and wherein the header includes a stream ID (packet label), Packet Length and packet type. See paragraphs [0090], [0094] and Tables 1 (paragraph [0030]) and 2 (paragraph [0094]). See also Figure 7B (which discloses that both audio data and video is included) and paragraph [0090] which disclose that the data field ay contain audio data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a packet type, packet label and packet length in the header. Seo discloses that it was known for the header to include information pertaining to its contents. As explained by Seo, this information is used to help decode the received packets. See paragraph [0090]. See also paragraph [0092] which discloses that information within a header contains information for decoding each packet. Thus, including various information within the packet including type, label and length would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it can be used for decoding each packet.
Seo also discloses that the payload includes a start code (see paragraph [0094] and Table 2), Frame information (see paragraph [0095] which discloses that the received data includes the frame information) and Config information (see paragraph [0098] which discloses that frame rate adjustment is indicated for the frame information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Sync information, Frame information and Config information as disclosed by Seo. Seo discloses that for an audio payload it was known to include Sync information, Frame information and Config information. As explained by Seo with respect to Table 2, the various payload fields include additional information which is used by the decoder when decoding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include the information related to synchronization start code, frame information and config information so that the decoder can be able to decode each packet based on the specific information provided within the packet.
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 Ovidio Escalante whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday - 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights