Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 for 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 for 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive since limitation reciting a comparison of a bit error rate iat a matching location is not abstract idea. The rejection of 35 U.S.C 101 has been withdrawn.
With respect to obvious double patenting, the Applicant stated that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are deemed allowable. Therefore, the double patenting is firmed rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (U.S,. Pub. 2014/0280303 A1) in view of Bilobrov. (U.S. Pub. U.S. 2015/0104023 A1)
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 18, Jain et al. discloses a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and
a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising:
removing, from a potential candidate reference identification list, one or more candidate reference identifications (IDs) that appear less than a threshold number of times (i.e., it is not efficient to replace references to all content items that are to be deleted from the digital content library. For example, some content items may be very seldom accessed by users. According, the computer system may update user play lists only for content items have a predetermined level of usage. For example, the computer system may omit from consideration content items that are provided to users at less that a threshold frequency over a certain period of time (e.g., the last three months, the last year, etc.).”(0022) and “receive an indication of the frequency at which at least a portion of the plurality of content items is provided to users of the content provider service; and based on the indication, remove from the plurality of content items at least one content item that is provided to users of the content provider service at below a threshold frequency.”(claim 3));
generating a first comparison of query audio content to each representative audio of a plurality of representative audio content associated with a remaining set of candidate reference IDs (i.e., “the computer system may update user play lists only for content items have a predetermined level of usage. For example, the computer system may omit from consideration content items that are provided to users at less that a threshold frequency over a certain period of time (e.g., the last three months, the last year, etc.).”(0022) and “ The computer system may query a user database to identify a plurality of user play lists comprising a reference to a first content item selected from the plurality of content items”(abstract)), wherein the remaining set of candidate reference IDs does not include the removed candidate reference IDs, and wherein the first comparison is generated using a first matching criteria ((i.e., “the computer system may update user play lists only for content items have a predetermined level of usage. For example, the computer system may omit from consideration content items that are provided to users at less that a threshold frequency over a certain period of time (e.g., the last three months, the last year, etc.).”(0022) and “the system comprising: a computer system comprising at least one processor and operatively associated memory, wherein the computer system is programmed to: receive indications of a plurality of content items to be removed from a digital content library of the content provider service; query a user database to identify a plurality of user play lists comprising a reference to a first content item selected from the plurality of content items,”(claim 1) and playlist is remaining set of candidate reference IDs does not including the remove candidate reference ID as claimed invention); and
matching the query audio content to at least one representative audio content of the plurality of representative audio content based on the generated first comparison (i.e., “identify a second content item that is equivalent to the first content item; and update at least one user play list selected from the plurality of user play lists to replace references to the first content item with references to the second content item”(claim 1)). But Jain et al. does not disclose wherein the first comparison comprises a comparison of a bit error rate at a matching location. However, Bilobrov discloses wherein the first comparison (i.e., “the audio identification system 100 retrieves information related to the event, such as artists, titles of songs played at the event, an event name, a date associated with the event, event location, or other information associated with the matching reference audio fingerprint 130.”(0027)) comprises a comparison of a bit error rate at a matching location (i.e., “ a phase correlation method is applied to the generated audio fingerprints to temporally align the identified samples 104 based on the feature vectors for each frame 103 in the identified samples 104. As another example, bit error rates for various pairings of the audio fingerprints are determined by comparing feature vectors for frames 103 in different audio fingerprints the audio fingerprints are aligned with each other based in part on the bit error rates for the various pairings. For example, the audio fingerprints are aligned so that the bit error rates between adjacent audio fingerprints are minimized.’(0052)).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Bilobrov’s features to get accurately identify an audio signal for an event based on audio fingerprints because of their ability to generate a reference audio fingerprint that represent the complete audio signal associated with event the stated purpose has been well known in the art as evidenced by teaching of Bilobrov. Futher, both references teach the same field such as search the audio.
With respect to claims 2, 12 and 19, Jain et al. discloses wherein the first comparison comprises a comparison of at least one of: (i) a content duration ratio (i.e., “ an audio track may be described by a digital fingerprint, a track name, an artist, an album, a live flag, an explicit flag, a hash value, a duration, a disk number and/or a sequence number. A video content item, for example, may be described by a digital fingerprint, a name, one or more artists, an explicit flag, a hash value, a duration, etc.”(0018)); (ii) a bit error rate at a matching location; and (iii) or a length of matching positions (i.e., “Search engines allow users 103 to locate content items according to any suitable searching methodology such as, for example, key word searches, searches by genre, searches by content item type, etc. ”(0027)).
With respect to claims 3, 13 and 20, Jain et al. discloses wherein matching the query audio content to at least one representative audio content comprises comparing fingerprint data of the query audio content with fingerprint data of each representative audio content using the first matching criteria (i.e.,” an audio track may be described by a digital fingerprint, a track name, an artist, an album, a live flag, an explicit flag, a hash value, a duration, a disk number and/or a sequence number. A video content item, for example, may be described by a digital fingerprint, a name, one or more artists, an explicit flag, a hash value, a duration, etc. ”(0018) and “Example content item characteristics include digital fingerprint values, content item names, an artist or artists associated with the content item, a live flag value, an explicit flag value, a hash value, a duration, a disk number, a sequence number, etc. In some example embodiments, there may be more than one predetermined pattern of equivalent characteristics that indicate overall content item equivalence. For example, content items having equivalent digital fingerprints may be considered equivalent regardless of other characteristics.”(0039)).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Jain et al. discloses wherein each representative audio content of the plurality of representative audio content comprises a song (i.e., “distinct audio tracks may be or contain versions of the same song. In some instances, the same song may appear on multiple releases (e.g., a single, an original album, a greatest hits album or other compilation, a re-mastered version, etc.). ”(0017)).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Jain et al. discloses wherein each representative audio content comprises representative audio content for a cluster (i.e., “The first content item and any content items found to be equivalent to the first content item (e.g., the equivalent tracks) may be associated with one another as a group. If one or more of the equivalent tracks are already part of a previously existing group, then the equivalent tracks may be added to the preexisting group.’(0020)).
With respect to claim 6 , Jain et al. discloses the computing device of claim 5, wherein the cluster comprises at least two audio contents (i.e., “The first content item and any content items found to be equivalent to the first content item (e.g., the equivalent tracks) may be associated with one another as a group. If one or more of the equivalent tracks are already part of a previously existing group, then the equivalent tracks may be added to the preexisting group.’(0020)).
With respect to claim 7, Jain et al. discloses the computing device of claim 6, wherein the set of operations further comprises determining a corresponding cluster of the matched at least one representative audio content (i.e., “The first content item and any content items found to be equivalent to the first content item (e.g., the equivalent tracks) may be associated with one another as a group. If one or more of the equivalent tracks are already part of a previously existing group, then the equivalent tracks may be added to the preexisting group.”(0020)).
With respect to claims 8 and 16, Jain et al. discloses wherein the set of operations further comprises generating an index comprising the plurality of representative audio content, wherein each representative audio content of the plurality of representative audio content is stored in association with a hash value (i.e.,” Example content item characteristics include digital fingerprint values, content item names, an artist or artists associated with the content item, a live flag value, an explicit flag value, a hash value, a duration, a disk number, a sequence number, etc. In some example embodiments, there may be more than one predetermined pattern of equivalent characteristics that indicate overall content item equivalence.”(0039) and content item characteristic is index as claimed invention ), and further, claim 16 recites wherein the hash value is associated with a candidate reference ID (i.e., “ A hash characteristic for a digital content item is obtained by applying a hash algorithm to the digital content item”(0044)).
With respect to claim 9, Jain et al. discloses the computing device of claim 8, wherein the hash value is associated with a candidate reference ID (i.e.,” A hash characteristic for a digital content item is obtained by applying a hash algorithm to the digital content item”(0044)).
Wit respect to claim 21, Bilobrov discloses wherein the bit error rate is configured to determine whether the audio content comprises explicit content (i.e., “ a similarity score between the test audio fingerprint and each candidate reference audio fingerprint is computed. In one embodiment, the similarity score may be a bit error rate (BER) computed for the test audio fingerprint and a candidate reference audio fingerprint. ”(0041))
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (U.S,. Pub. 2014/0280303 A1), Bilobrov. (U.S. Pub. U.S. 2015/0104023 A1) and further in view of Eck et al. (U.S. Pat.. 9,367,612 B1)
With respect to claims 10 and 17, Jain et al. and Bilobrov. disclose all limitations recited in claim 8 except for wherein the hash value is based on permutations of a binary vector formed using a spectral representation of the representative audio content. However, Eck et al. disclose wherein the hash value is based on permutations of a binary vector formed using a spectral representation of the representative audio content (i.e., “The hashes corresponding to different permutations can be combined into an output hash vector. In one embodiment, the codebook generator 207 considers a set of groups of spectral dimension that is generated from random permutations. ” (col. 7, lines 1-5)). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Eck et al. feature in order to code all content for long timescale information with accurate without fail for the stated purpose has been well known in the art as evidenced by teaching of Eck et a. (col. 1, lines 25-30l.
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 obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims xxx of Patent No. 12/346373. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 12/346373 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. (see table below).
Instant Application claim 1
Patent No. 12/346373 claim 1
A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising:
removing, from a potential candidate reference identification list, one or more candidate reference identifications (IDs) that appear less than a threshold number of times;
generating a first comparison of query audio content to each representative audio of a plurality of representative audio content associated with a remaining set of candidate reference IDs, wherein the remaining set of candidate reference IDs does not include the removed candidate reference IDs, and wherein the first comparison is generated using a first matching criteria; and
matching the query audio content to at least one representative audio content of the plurality of representative audio content based on the generated first comparison.
A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising:
generating an index comprising a plurality of representative audio content, wherein each representative audio content of the plurality of representative audio content is stored in association with a hash value, and wherein the hash value is associated with a candidate reference identifier;
removing candidate reference identifiers that appear less than a threshold number of times; in response to removing the candidate reference identifiers that appear less than a threshold number of times,
generating a first comparison of query audio content to each representative audio content associated with a remaining set of candidate reference identifiers, wherein the remaining set of candidate reference identifiers does not include the removed candidate reference identifiers, and wherein the first comparison is generated using a first matching criteria; and
matching the query audio content to at least one representative audio content of the plurality of representative audio content based on the generated first comparison.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11/954149. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 11/954149contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. (see table below).
Instant Application claim 1
Patent No. 11/954149 claim 1
A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising:
removing, from a potential candidate reference identification list, one or more candidate reference identifications (IDs) that appear less than a threshold number of times;
generating a first comparison of query audio content to each representative audio of a plurality of representative audio content associated with a remaining set of candidate reference IDs, wherein the remaining set of candidate reference IDs does not include the removed candidate reference IDs, and wherein the first
comparison is generated using a first matching criteria; and
matching the query audio content to at least one representative audio content of the plurality of representative audio content based on the generated first comparison.
A computer-implemented method comprising: determining, by at least one hardware processor, a representative audio content for a cluster, wherein the cluster comprises at least two audio contents; loading, by the at least one hardware processor, the representative audio content into an index, wherein the representative audio content is stored in association with a hash value, and wherein the hash value is associated with a candidate reference identifier; removing, by the at least one hardware processor, candidate reference identifiers that appear less than a threshold number of times; in response to removing the candidate reference identifiers that appear less than a threshold number of times,
generating a first comparison, by the at least one hardware processor, of a query audio content to each representative audio content associated with a remaining set of candidate reference identifiers, wherein the remaining set of candidate reference identifiers does not include the removed candidate reference identifiers, and wherein the first comparison is generated using a first matching criteria; and matching, by the at least one hardware processor, the query audio content to one of the representative audio content based on the generated first comparison.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11/487,814. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 11/487,814 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. (see table below).
Instant Application claim 1
Patent No. 11/487,814 claim 1
A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising:
removing, from a potential candidate reference identification list, one or more candidate reference identifications (IDs) that appear less than a threshold number of times;
generating a first comparison of query audio content to each representative audio of a plurality of representative audio content associated with a remaining set of candidate reference IDs, wherein the remaining set of candidate reference IDs does not include the removed candidate reference IDs, and wherein the first
comparison is generated using a first matching criteria; and
matching the query audio content to at least one representative audio content of the plurality of representative audio content based on the generated first comparison.
A computer-implemented method comprising: determining, by at least one hardware processor, a plurality of clusters based on a comparison of a plurality of audio contents using a first matching criteria, each cluster of the plurality of clusters comprising at least two audio contents from the plurality of audio contents; for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, determining, by the at least one hardware processor, a representative audio content for the cluster from the at least two audio contents of the cluster; loading, by the at least one hardware processor, the corresponding representative audio content of each cluster in the plurality of clusters into an index, the index including the representative audio content stored in association with a hash value, wherein the hash value is associated with a candidate reference identifier;
removing, by the at least one hardware processor, candidate reference identifiers that appear less than a threshold number of times, a remaining set of candidate reference identifiers retained for comparison; generating a first comparison, by the at least one hardware processor, of a query audio content to each one of the representative audio contents associated with the remaining set of candidate reference identifiers, the first comparison generated using the first matching criteria, the first comparison including a comparison of at least one of a content duration ratio, a bit error rate at a matching location, or a length of matching positions; and matching, by the at least one hardware processor, the query audio content to one of the representative audio contents based on the generated first comparison; wherein the determining the plurality of clusters comprises comparing fingerprint data of each of the plurality of audio contents using the first matching criteria, the comparison including a granular comparison based on a sub-cluster of each of the plurality of clusters.
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 HUNG T VY whose telephone number is (571)272-1954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at (571)272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUNG T VY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 October 9, 2026
