DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 21-40 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
US 9159327
C. 4, ll. 30-60
Modify existing audio fingerprint to generate multiple adjusted fingerprints
US 20230252074
Pars. 32-39
Determine whether audio file segment and the stored audio segment correspond to alternate versions of a same song based on fingerprints
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12393629 and claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-14, and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12056185. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims encompass the instant claims.
Instant claims
Patent US 12393629 claims
Patent US 12056185 claims
21
8
17
22
9
18
23
10
19
24
11
20
25
12
14
26
13
13
27
14
16
28
1
9
29
2
10
30
3
11
31
4
12
32
5
14
33
6
13
34
7
16
35
15
1
36
17
2
37
18
4
38
18
6
39
19
5
40
20
8
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 21-40 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 21, 28, 35, the applying, generate, determine, indicate, match cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receiving, transmission limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, the generate, compare cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 22, 23, 29, 30, 36 comprises song title/audio signal, are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodhead et al., Pub. No.: US 20160132600 A1, hereinafter Woodhead, in view of Bilobrov et al., Pub. No.: US 20160300579 A1, hereinafter Bilobrov.
As per claim 21, Woodhead discloses A computer-implemented method comprising: in response to receiving a query comprising one or more suspected alterations applied to a media signal associated with a sample fingerprint from a client device, applying one or more adjustments to the sample fingerprint to generate one or more adjusted sample fingerprints, wherein the one or more suspected alterations corresponds to at least one of a suspected pitch shift applied to the media signal, a suspected time shift applied to the media signal, or a suspected resample ratio applied to the media signal (pars. 29, 89, 113, 114, 121-124 disclose receiving, from a client device, a content recognition query with a media sample, determining a common distortion such as suspected time stretch or pitch shift, modifying a fingerprint to be “time stretched or shifted” or “pitch shifted”, and “pre-warp content inserted into the micro database is to apply the time and/or frequency stretch ratios to the raw media file (e.g., resampling and/or pitch-bending)”);
determining a match between at least one of the one or more adjusted sample fingerprints and at least one reference fingerprint (pars. 40, 45-46, 80-82 disclose that the “query comparator” matches the adjusted fingerprint to a reference fingerprint); and
causing transmission of a communication to the client device, wherein the communication indicates an identification of the media signal (pars. 36, 106-107 disclose returns identity of content, information identifying the media recording to the client) Woodhead does not expressly disclose however Bilobrov, in the related field of endeavor of media analysis, discloses and at least one of the one or more adjustments that, when applied to the sample fingerprint, caused the at least one of the adjusted sample fingerprints to match the at least one reference fingerprint (Bilobrov, pars. 52, 55, 56, claims 9, 10 disclose “determines the degree of pitch shifting” that produced the match and sends identifying information to the requesting client).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Bilobrov would have allowed Woodhead’s system that reports, to a client device, a media signal identification to also report identifying information about the pitch shift degree that produced a match. This would provide a client with more relevant information in a simultaneous manner. Transmitting multiple known pieces of data in a single communication to a client device is an obvious, predictable combination of the known data; such a combination of known elements yields predictable results.
As per claim 22, Woodhead as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the identification of the media signal comprises a title of a song (Bilobrov, par. 27, Woodhead, par. 24, 33, 53).
As per claim 23, Woodhead as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the media signal comprises an audio signal (Woodhead, par. 28, 34, 42, Bilobrov, par. 27).
As per claim 24, Woodhead as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the applying the one or more adjustments to the sample fingerprint comprises:
when the one or more suspected alterations corresponds to a suspected pitch shift, generating a pitch shifted sample fingerprint to accommodate for the suspected pitch shift (Woodhead, pars. 121-124);
when the one or more suspected alterations corresponds to a suspected time shift, generating a time shifted sample fingerprint to accommodate for the suspected time shift (Woodhead, pars. 113-114, 122, 124); and
when the one or more suspected alterations corresponds to a suspected resample ratio, generating a resampled sample fingerprint to accommodate for the suspected resample ratio (Woodhead, par. 124).
As per claim 25, Woodhead as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 24, wherein the determining the match comprises: when the one or more suspected alterations corresponds to a suspected pitch shift, comparing the pitch shifted sample fingerprint to the at least one reference fingerprint; when the one or more suspected alterations corresponds to a suspected time shift, comparing the time shifted sample fingerprint to the at least one reference fingerprint; and when the one or more suspected alterations corresponds to a suspected resample ratio, comparing the resampled sample fingerprint to the at least one reference fingerprint (Woodhead, pars. 40, 45-46, 80-82 wherein the same “query comparator” matches each adjusted fingerprint type against a reference fingerprint).
As per claim 26, Woodhead as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more adjusted sample fingerprints are generated in parallel (Woodhead, pars. 86, 102, 111, note that par. 111 says, with respect to fig. 10 “…blocks 1002-1008. Although the blocks are illustrated in a sequential order, these blocks may also be performed in parallel...”).
As per claim 27, Woodhead as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the determining the match comprises: comparing the at least one of the one or more adjusted sample fingerprints and the at least one reference fingerprint based on at least one comparison criteria, wherein the at least one comparison criteria comprises one or more of a cross-correlation value between the at least one of the one or more adjusted sample fingerprints and the at least one reference fingerprint or a Hamming distance between the at least one of the one or more adjusted sample fingerprints and the at least one reference fingerprint (Woodhead, par. 46 discloses histogram based scoring and that other algorithms may be substituted; Bilobrov, pars. 5, 47-52, 59-61 disclose Hamming distance-based comparisons, and correlation values).
As per claims 28-40, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights