DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s second preliminary amendment filed on June 18, 2025. As set forth therein, claims 1-33 are canceled and claims 34-54 are newly 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 Amendment
The amendment filed April 15, 2025 proposes and amendment to the specification 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 a strikethrough is not permitted for the indication of subject matter to be removed. As set forth in 37 CFR 1.173(d)(1), brackets must be used for the indication of subject matter to be removed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 15, 2025 and April 21, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The Examiner notes that the Applicant states that the error is directed to:
Claims 1,9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 of the Original Patent published with error by reciting "attribute information indicating an attribute of the particular group of encoded data" and therefore did not describe a metafile including attribute information that indicates each attribute of the encoded data of the plurality of groups. This reissue application seeks to broaden at least one of those claims.
The Examiner notes that none of the current claims recite “a metafile including attribute information that indicates each attribute of the encoded data of the plurality of groups”. Thus, stating that the error is based on not describing “a metafile including attribute information that indicates each attribute of the encoded data of the plurality of groups” is not an error that has been corrected in the current claim set.
Claims 34-54 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Recapture
Claims 34-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
The Examiner notes that as set forth in MPEP 1412.02(II), in Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth a three step test for recapture analysis. In North American Container, 415 F.3d at 1349, 75 USPQ2d at 1556, the court restated this test as follows:
We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process:
first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
The Examiner notes that claim 34 is directed “[a]n information processing apparatus comprising: a first processing circuitry configured to receive a plurality of audio streams; and a decoder circuitry configured to perform a decoding process on the plurality of audio streams and acquire a plurality of audio data…”
The Examiner notes that this reissue claim is broader in scope than the original patent claims since it does not recite at least reception circuitry configured to receive 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, the metafile including attribute information for a particular group of encoded data of the plurality of groups of encoded data that indicates 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 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; and processing circuitry configured to control acquiring 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 as recited in claim 10 of US Patent 10,878,828.
In addition, claim 11 of the ‘828 patent recites “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to selectively perform a decoding process on an audio stream including a group of encoded data having an attribute compatible with a speaker configuration and user selection information, on the basis of the attribute information and the stream correspondence relation information.” Current claim 34 is also broader with respect to the decoding process of the ‘828 patent since it excludes encoded data having an attribute compatible with a speaker configuration and user selection information.
Therefore, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims.
next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
The Examiner notes that in accordance with MPEP 1412.02, a SGL or surrendered subject matter can be created by presentation of new/amended claims to define the invention over the art or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) (including a limitation in an original claim) defines the invention over the art. A patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1271, 103 USPQ2d 1951, 1958 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
The Examiner finds that in view of the non-final office action filed on September 13, 2018 during the prosecution of the underlying patent, the Applicant amended claim 11 as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
109
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
318
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Applicant argued that the prior art Dressler does not describe a metadata that includes, for a particular audio object, an attribute of the audio object and preset identification information identifying a preset collection of audio objects with which the particular audio object is associated”. The Applicant states that Dressler fails to describe at least “[inserting], to the metafile for a particular group of encoded data of the plurality of groups of encoded data, attribute information indicating an attribute of the particular group of encoded data and present identification information identifying a preset collection of groups of encoded data with the particular group of encoded data is associated”.
The Applicant, in addressing Independent claim 11 (patent claim 10) states that the claim includes at least:
reception circuitry configured to receive 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 that indicates an attribute of the particular group of encoded data and preset identification information identifying a preset collection of groups of encoded data with which the particular group of encoded data is associated.
In response to the Final Office Action, filed on April 1, 2019, the Applicant further amended claim 11 as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
135
585
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
412
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Applicant argued that Oh does not describe inserting, in the preset metadata, preset identification information that includes a preset identifier in association with a particular object identifier, where the preset identifier identifying a preset collection of objects with which a particular object is associated, and the particular object identifier identifying the particular object. Instead, Oh merely describes that the preset metadata includes relevant information for display and that the preset information can be applied to an object to adjust a level or panning. Nowhere in Oh describes or suggests including in the preset metadata preset identification information that includes a preset identifier in association with a particular object identifier in order to specify a preset collection of objects.
In response to the non-final office action of September 11, 2019, the Applicant states that Oh fails to disclose or suggest that the external preset information is included in a metafile or that the present identification information “includes a preset identifier in association with particular group identifier.
In response to the Final Office Action of February 20, 2020 and Advisory Action of June 10, 2020, the claim was further amended as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
22
355
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
346
754
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
217
701
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
259
753
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the above, the Examiner finds that the surrendered generating limitations pertain to:
A reception device comprising:
reception circuitry configured to receive 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 that indicates 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 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; and
processing circuitry configured to control acquiring 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.
The Examiner notes that based on the prosecution history of the underlying patent each of the above underlined limitations was added as an amendment and each bolded limitation was specifically argued with respect to the prior art of record.
As set forth above, surrendered subject matter can be created by presentation of new/amended claims to define the invention over the art or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) (including a limitation in an original claim) defines the invention over the art.
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
The Examiner determines that claim 34 is written broadly as to generally recite a plurality of “audio streams”. In addition, the claim recites “decoder circuity configured to perform a decoding process on the plurality of audio streams. However, this is limitation does not materially narrow the surrendered subject matter since doesn’t pertain to the surrendered generating limitations set forth above and in addition, decoding is already part of patent claim 11. The Examiner notes that specific arguments where made with respect to a metafile including preset identification information, preset identifiers in associated with a particular group identifier and the present identifier identifying a preset collection of groups of encoded data with which the particular group of encoded data is associated. The instant claim does not materially the reissue claim relative to at least any metafile with preset identification information or identifying a preset collection of groups of encoded data with which the particular group of encoded data is associated.
In addition, the limitation “each audio data of the plurality of audio data being configured to drive a speaker of a speaker system also does not materially narrow the surrendered subject matter since it does not relate to the reception of a metafile, attribute information and preset identification information and preset identifier identifying a preset collection of groups of encoded data as recited in the surrendered generating limitations.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the reissue clams are not materially narrowed to avoid the recapture rule.
Based on the above, the Examiner finds that the reissue claims are subject to recapture.
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 51; “second processing circuitry” in claim 54; and “third processing circuitry” in claims 52 and 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.
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 and 52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No RE50383. 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 circuity configured to receive a plurality of audio streams; and
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,
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 circuity 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 recites broader limitations which correspond to a reception device and a receiving unit. With respect to “decoder circuitry”, claim 16 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 reconfigured 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 is will be driven based on the audio data.
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 10 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.
Claim 54 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No RE50383 in view of Seo US Patent Pub. 2006/0087585.
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 are comprises 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 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 persons 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 includes 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 34-37, 52 and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiang et al. US Patent Pub. 2014/0023197.
Regarding claim 34:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
Xiang discloses an MPEG coder (coder/decoder). See Figure 1 and paragraph [0075] which discloses “MPEG encoder MP10 encodes audio sources 4 to generate an encoded version of the audio sources 4, where the encoded version of the audio sources 4 are sent via transmission channel 6 to MPEG decoder MD10.”
a first processing circuity configured to receive a plurality of audio streams; and
With reference to Figure 2A and object encoder receives a plurality of spatial audio objects 12A-12N and downmixes the signals. See paragraph [0081]. The signals may include either a mono or a stereo stream. See also paragraph [0083]. See also the abstract and paragraphs [0074-00375].
a decoder circuity configured to perform a decoding process on the plurality of audio streams and acquire a plurality of audio data,
With reference to Figure 2A, Xiang discloses of an object decoder (decoder circuity) which decodes the plurality of audio streams. See also paragraph [0083] and Figure 3.
each audio data of the plurality of audio data being configured to drive a speaker of a speaker system.
As set forth in paragraph [0081], the decoder generates channels 14A-14M (audio data) which is rendered via a number of loud speakers. See also paragraphs [0107]-[0111], and Figure 7A-7C
Regarding claim 35:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 34, wherein a codec of the plurality of audio streams is MPEG-H 3D Audio.
See paragraph [0120] which discloses that the audio coding may use MPEG-H 3D Audio.
Regarding claim 36:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 34, wherein the audio streams are comprised of a plurality of MPEG audio stream packets.
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.
Regarding claim 37:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 36, wherein the MPEG audio stream packets are comprised of a header and a payload.
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].
Regarding claim 52:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
Xiang discloses an MPEG coder (coder/decoder). See Figure 1 and paragraph [0075] which discloses “MPEG encoder MP10 encodes audio sources 4 to generate an encoded version of the audio sources 4, where the encoded version of the audio sources 4 are sent via transmission channel 6 to MPEG decoder MD10.”
a first processing circuity configured to receive a plurality of audio streams, the plurality of audio streams being encoded;
With reference to Figure 2A and object encoder receives a plurality of spatial audio objects 12A-12N and downmixes the signals. See paragraph [0081]. The signals may include either a mono or a stereo stream. See also paragraph [0083]. As also set forth in Figure 2A, the Object Decoder receives the plurality of encoded audio streams. See paragraphs [0081-0083].
a decoder circuity configured to decode the plurality of audio streams into a plurality of audio data,
With reference to Figure 2A, Xiang discloses of an object decoder (decoder circuity) which decodes the plurality of audio streams. See also paragraph [0083] and Figure 3.
each audio data of the plurality of audio data being configured to drive a speaker of a speaker system; and a third processing circuity configured to combine the plurality of audio streams.
As set forth in paragraph [0081], the decoder generates channels 14A-14M (audio data) which is rendered via a number of loud speakers. See also paragraphs [0107]-[0111], and Figure 7A-7C
Regarding claim 53:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 52, wherein a codec of the plurality of audio streams is MPEG-H 3D Audio.
See paragraph [0120] which discloses that the audio coding may use MPEG-H 3D Audio.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 38-43 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang in view of Seo US Patent Pub. 2006/0087585.
Regarding claim 38:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 37, wherein the header includes a packet type, a packet label, and a packet length.
The Examiner notes that as set forth above, Xiang discloses a header. However, Xiang does not specifically 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. As disclosed by Xiang, it was already well known to include a header with the transmission of a packets. Seo discloses that it was further 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 persons of ordinary skill in the art since it can be used for decoding each packet.
Regarding claim 39:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 37, wherein the payload includes Sync information corresponding to a synchronization start code, Frame information which is actual data of the corresponding audio stream, and Config information indicating a configuration of the Frame information.
The Examiner notes that as set forth above, Xiang discloses a payload. However, Xiang does not specifically disclose wherein the payload includes Sync information corresponding to a synchronization start code, Frame information which is actual data of the corresponding audio stream, and Config information indicating a configuration of the Frame information.
Nonetheless, 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. As disclosed by Xiang, it was already well known to include a payload. 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 includes 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.
Regarding claim 40:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 39, wherein the Frame information includes channel encoded data or object encoded data, the channel encoded data or the object encoded data configuring the audio stream with which the Frame information is associated.
As set forth by Xiang, both channel and object data may be encoded (see paragraph [0170] and Figure 2A).
As set forth above, 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 discloses 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. As disclosed by Xiang, it was already well known to include a payload. 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 includes 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.
Regarding claim 41:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 40, wherein the object encoded data is comprised of encoded sample data of a Single Channel Element and metadata for mapping and rendering the encoded sample data to a speaker.
See paragraph [0079] of Xiang which discloses that the object-based coding is based on individual (single) spatial audio objects and are used to generated single channel elements (see paragraph [0081]). See also paragraph [0074] and [0077] which discloses the mapping and rendering of the data to the speakers.
Regarding claim 42:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 41, wherein the metadata is included as an extension element.
As set forth in paragraph [0077], the metadata is included as an extension element to the audio object. See also paragraph [0080].
Regarding claim 43:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 40, wherein the object encoded data includes speech dialog object encoded data, the speech dialog object encoded data being directed to a speech language.
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.
Regarding claim 54:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
Xiang discloses an MPEG coder (coder/decoder). See Figure 1 and paragraph [0075] which discloses “MPEG encoder MP10 encodes audio sources 4 to generate an encoded version of the audio sources 4, where the encoded version of the audio sources 4 are sent via transmission channel 6 to MPEG decoder MD10.”
a first processing circuity configured to receive a plurality of audio streams, the plurality of audio streams being encoded;
With reference to Figure 2A and object encoder receives a plurality of spatial audio objects 12A-12N and downmixes the signals. See paragraph [0081]. The signals may include either a mono or a stereo stream. See also paragraph [0083].
As also set forth in Figure 2A, the Object Decoder receives the plurality of encoded audio streams. See paragraphs [0081-0083].
a second processing circuity configured to decode the plurality of audio streams into a plurality of audio data,
With reference to Figure 2A, Xiang discloses of an object decoder (decoder circuity) which decodes the plurality of audio streams. See also paragraph [0083] and Figure 3.
each audio data of the plurality of audio data being configured to drive a speaker of a speaker system; and
As set forth in paragraph [0081], the decoder generates channels 14A-14M (audio data) which is rendered via a number of loud speakers. See also paragraphs [0107]-[0111], and Figure 7A-7C
a third processing circuity configured to combine the plurality of audio streams,
As set forth in paragraph [0077], Xiang discloses that the at the rendering end, the meta data is combined with the PCM data to recreate the 3D sound field.
wherein the audio streams are comprised of a plurality of MPEG audio stream packets,
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.
wherein the MPEG audio stream packets are comprised of a header and a payload,
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 header includes a packet type, a packet label, and a packet length,
The Examiner notes that as set forth above, Xiang discloses a header. However, Xiang does not specifically 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. As disclosed by Xiang, it was already well known to include a header with the transmission of a packets. Seo discloses that it was further 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 persons of ordinary skill in the art since it can be used for decoding each packet.
wherein the payload includes Sync information corresponding to a synchronization start code, Frame information which is actual data of the corresponding audio stream, and Config information indicating a configuration of the Frame information.
The Examiner notes that as set forth above, Xiang discloses a payload. However, Xiang does not specifically disclose wherein the payload includes Sync information corresponding to a synchronization start code, Frame information which is actual data of the corresponding audio stream, and Config information indicating a configuration of the Frame information.
Nonetheless, Seo 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. As disclosed by Xiang, it was already well known to include a payload. 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 includes 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(s) 44 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang in view of Seo US Patent Pub. 2006/0087585 and further in view of Nakashika et al. US Patent Pub. 2012/0008913.
Regarding claim 44:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 40, wherein the audio streams include a group ID, the group ID being configured to identify a data group of a plurality of the object encoded data.
Xiang, as set forth in paragraph [0074] explains that the audio can be part of the same track and thus discloses that it was known for the audio stream to be part of the same data group. However, Xiang 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. As explained by Xiang it was already known to group audio streams and therefore, including a reference or group identifier for the group of audio data would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. As explained by Xiang, a soundtrack can be used for the audio data. See paragraph [0074]. Likewise, 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.
Regarding claim 45:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 44, wherein the audio streams include attribute information indicating an attribute of the group of the plurality of the object encoded data.
As explained above, in claim 44, Nakashika discloses that the audio streams include attribute information. See paragraphs [0356-0359].
Claim(s) 46-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang in view of Seo US Patent Pub. 2006/0087585 and further in view of Hannuksela et al. US Patent Pub. 2010/0153395.
Regarding claim 46:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 40, wherein the plurality of the object encoded data are registered in a switch group and encoded.
Xiang 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 groups. Hannuksela explains that different switch groups represents 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.
Regarding claim 47:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 46, wherein the plurality of the object encoded data include a switch group ID, the switch group ID being configured to identify the switch group.
Hannuksela as set forth in paragraph [0134] explains that it was known for a switch group to have an associated ID. “switch_group_id”. As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a switch group.
Regarding claim 48:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 44, wherein the plurality of the object encoded data include a preset group in which a plurality of the data groups are grouped together.
Xiang as set forth above, does not specifically disclose of including a preset group.
Nonetheless, Hannuksela discloses of preset groups (set of multi-track groups). See Figure 9 and paragraphs [0220-0222]. See also Figure 10 and paragraph [0223].
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 preset group as disclosed by Hannuksela. As explained in paragraph [0119] of Hannuksela, the distinction between tracks for selection is addressed by assigned tracks to groups. Hannuksela explains that different groups represents 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 preset group in order to group similar tracks together and to differentiate tracks from other tracks with different operation points.
Regarding claim 49:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 48, wherein the plurality of the object encoded data include a preset group ID, the preset group ID being configured to identify the preset group.
Hannuksela discloses of preset groups (set of multi-track groups). See Figure 9 and paragraphs [0220-0222]. As illustrated in Figure 9, each preset group (set of multi-track group) is identified with its own ID number. See also Figure 10 and paragraphs [0223] and [0240].
Regarding claim 50:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 40, wherein the plurality of the object encoded data include stream correspondence information indicating a correspondence between an object encoded data of the plurality of the object encoded data and an audio stream of the plurality of audio streams.
As set forth in paragraph [0082], Xiang discloses that corresponding side-information is included which allows the synthesis of the channels at the renderer.
Regarding claim 51:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 34, further comprising a second processing circuity configured to combine the plurality of audio streams.
As set forth in paragraph [0077], Xiang discloses that the at the rendering end, the meta data is combined with the PCM data to recreate the 3D sound field.
Conclusion
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