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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080197833 A1 Stoop et al. (hereinafter “Stoop”) in view of US 20020147595 A1 Baumgarte (hereinafter “Baumgarte”) in view of M. Nouri, A. Ahmadi, S. Alirezaee, G. Karimi, M. Ahmadi and D. Abbott, "A Hopf Resonator for 2-D Artificial Cochlea: Piecewise Linear Model and Digital Implementation," in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1117-1125, April 2015. (hereinafter “Nouri”) in view of Patterson, David A., and John L. Hennessy. Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface (5th Edition). Morgan Kaufmann, 2013. (hereinafter “Patterson”) and in view of M. Reit, W. Mathis and R. Stoop, "Time-Discrete Nonlinear Cochlea Model Implemented on DSP for Auditory Studies," NDES 2012; Nonlinear Dynamics of Electronic Systems, Wolfenbuettel, Germany, 2012, pp. 1-4. (hereinafter “Reit”) in further view of Kuansan Wang and S. Shamma, "Self-normalization and noise-robustness in early auditory representations," in IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 421-435, July 1994, doi: 10.1109/89.294356. (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Stoop teaches a system, comprising:
at least one memory that stores computer-executable instructions ([0081-0082] general-purpose computer by nature contains memory to execute the software implementation);
a filter bank (Fig. 1, [0053], biomorphic electronic device) composed of a plurality of resonators cascaded in series (Fig. 1, S1, S2, S3…S(n-1), Sn, [0054] amplification/filtering stages, [0008]), wherein a number of the plurality or resonators is chosen ([0011], [0079], [0089]) to achieve a peak normalization ([0089], [0012], [0072], -30 dB from maximum);
a controller to drive the filter bank, wherein the controller is configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to:
inject a first signal (Fig. 1, 502 or 503, [0056]) into a first resonator (Fig. 1, S1, [0057]) of the plurality of resonators (Fig. 1, S1, S2, S3…S(n-1), Sn, [0054] amplification/filtering stages, [0008]);
utilize a first characteristic frequency ([0072], stage having different stage frequencies
ω
s
, for first resonator in S1, [0011], [0052], [0079]
ω
s
,
i
-
1
,
ω
s
,
i
where i = 1,…,n and n is the number of stages) of the first resonator (Fig. 1, S1, [0057]) to drive the first resonator using the first signal (Fig. 1, 502 or 503, [0056]);
generate a first output signal of the first resonator (Fig. 1, output of S1, [0057]);
utilize the first output signal of the first resonator as a second input signal into a second resonator (Fig. 1, inputs to 100b in S2, [0057], [0054]) using a second characteristic frequency ([0072], stage having different stage frequencies
ω
s
, for second resonator in S2, [0011], [0052], [0079]
ω
s
,
i
-
1
,
ω
s
,
i
where i = 1,…,n and n is the number of stages), wherein the second characteristic frequency is smaller than the first characteristic frequency ([0072], [0079]); and
continue to inject a preceding resonator output as input into a subsequent resonator (Fig. 1, outputs from S2 being input to S3, [0057], [0054]) of the plurality of resonators in series in order to get spectral decomposition with peak normalized characteristics ([0089], [0012], [0072], -30 dB from maximum).
Although Stoop generally teaches the collection of stages of which contain filters as illustrated in Fig. 1, and describes past models utilizing filter banks, they are silent with explicitly disclosing such collection as a filter bank. Further, they are silent with disclosing a controller to drive the filter bank, wherein the controller is configured to access, and to get spectral decomposition. Further, they are silent with explicitly disclosing the second characteristic frequency is smaller than the first characteristic frequency. Further, while Stoop generally teaches the peak normalization, it appears they are silent with disclosing it as peak self-normalization.
Baumgarte teaches a filter bank (Fig. 1, 11k-1, 11k, 11k+1, [0023]) and to get spectral decomposition ([0003-0007], [0008], [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stoop’s electronic cochlea with Baumgarte’s filter bank configuration and spectral decomposition feature because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of audio signal processing ([0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the filter bank configuration as this model advantageously provides computationally efficient implementation of auditory filters since critical down sampling is supported and the filter orders can be low without sacrificing accuracy ([0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to get spectral decomposition as spectral decomposition is a crucial part of processing ([0003]). Spectral decomposition is used to mimic the properties of the human auditory system, however, currently used decomposition schemes do not achieve the non-uniform time and frequency resolution provided by the human cochlea ([0004]). Conventional standards, the time-to-frequency transform or the “Advanced Model” have their own drawbacks, such as inaccurate modeling of masking ([0005]) and aliasing distortions in high frequency bands ([0006]), respectively. It would be desirable in any electronic cochlea device to provide a decomposition scheme that improves modeling for perceptual audio coding application and simulates psychophysical data closely related to cochlear spectral decomposition properties ([0007]). Thus, by “getting” the spectral decomposition in Stoop’s device would lead to improved accuracy of the calculations as the data would closely resemble how the human cochlea operates. Making this modification would be beneficial, as Stoop’s electronic cochlea now has a more computationally efficient implementation through the filter bank incorporation and more accurate data computation through getting the spectral decomposition.
Although, Baumgarte generally teaches a controller as part of a computing system ([0050]), they are silent with disclosing it to drive the filter bank, wherein the controller is configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions, and the second characteristic frequency is smaller than the first characteristic frequency; and peak self-normalization.
Stoop in view of Baumgarte are silent with disclosing a controller to drive the filter bank, wherein the controller is configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions, and the second characteristic frequency is smaller than the first characteristic frequency; and peak self-normalization.
Nouri teaches a controller to drive the filter bank (Fig. 6, CU; Pg. 5, Col. 2, IV-C, control unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stoop in view of Baumgarte’s electronic cochlea system with Nouri’s controller because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of audio signal processing (Pg. 1, I, Col. 2, Para 1-2). The Stoop in view of Baumgarte’s electronic cochlea system currently receives audio input signals provided to the Hilbert transformer (Stoop, Fig. 1, 501 audio signals, 500 Hilbert transformer, [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the controller for the inputs as this advantageously provides more precise selection of inputs as controlled by the user (Pg. 5, Col. 2, IV-C, Para. 1). Making this modification would be beneficial, as Stoop in view of Baumgarte’s electronic cochlea system now has the capability of precisely selecting its inputs as controlled by the user which results in more configurable results.
Although Nouri teaches a controller, they are silent with disclosing it accessing the memory, and the second characteristic frequency is smaller than the first characteristic frequency; and peak self-normalization.
Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri are silent with disclosing the controller is configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions, and the second characteristic frequency is smaller than the first characteristic frequency; and peak self-normalization.
Patterson teaches the controller is configured to access (Pg. 547, 2. Memory Affinity) the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri’s electronic cochlea system with Patterson’s controller because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of computer architecture (Pg. 545, Comparing Two Generation of Opterons section, Para. 1). The Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri’s electronic cochlea system currently uses a controller to drive inputs (Nouri, Fig. 6, CU; Pg. 5, Col. 2, IV-C, control unit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the controller for accessing the memory as this advantageously utilizes the full extent of the memory’s capabilities and leads to improved performance (Pg. 547, 2. Memory Affinity). Making this modification would be beneficial, as Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri’s electronic cochlea system now has the capability of using the controller to access data from memory and utilize it in computations.
Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri in view of Patterson are silent with disclosing the second characteristic frequency is smaller than the first characteristic frequency; and peak self-normalization.
Reit teaches the second characteristic frequency is smaller than the first characteristic frequency (Pg. 2, II-B, Col. 2,
ω
s
i
+
1
/
ω
s
i
<
1
, when simplified the relationship is
ω
s
i
+
1
<
ω
s
i
, where
ω
s
i
is the frequency of the current stage [first characteristic frequency] and
ω
s
i
+
1
is the frequency of the next stage [second characteristic frequency]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri in view of Patterson’s electronic cochlea system with Reit’s mathematical relationship because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of audio signal processing (Pg. 1, Abstract; Pg. 2, Col. 1, Para. 1). Stoop generally teaches these the frequency of a current stage and of the next stage ([0079],
ω
s
,
i
-
1
,
ω
s
,
i
) and the amplifier frequency ([0079],
ω
c
h
,
i
). Although Stoop discloses the relationship with the amplifier frequency and a stage frequency ([0079]
ω
s
,
i
/
ω
c
h
,
i
< 1), they are silent with disclosing the current stage and of the next stage frequency similarly as such. Thus, they are silent with disclosing this mathematical relationship. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Reit’s relationships for these frequencies as it would have been obvious to try, given the practically finite amount of comparison relationships (<,
≤
, >,
≥
=) to use for the ratio. Given Stoop already discloses the < relationship with other frequency variables, it would have been obvious to apply the same relationship with the current stage and of the next stage frequency.
Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri in view of Patterson in view of Reit are silent with disclosing peak self-normalization.
Wang teaches peak self-normalization (Abstract; Pg. 426, Col. 1, Para. 3; Pg. 427, Col. 1, Sec. IV, Para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri in view of Patterson in view of Reit’s electronic cochlea system with Wang’s self-normalization feature because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of audio signal processing (Pg. 1, Abstract; Pg. 2, Col. 1, Para. 1). Although Martin discloses peak normalization ([0089], [0012], [0072], -30 dB from maximum), they are silent with disclosing this normalization as self-normalization. Wang teaches self-normalization of sound signals yields spectral shape enhancement (Abstract; Pg. 429, Col. 1, Para. 1), robustness against scaling (Abstract; Pg. 429, Sub. D, Col. 1, Para. 1), and robustness against noise corruption (Abstract; Pg. 429, Sub. E, Col. 2, Para. 1). It would have been obvious to modify as a person skilled in the art would have recognized these benefits associated with the self-normalization feature as a factor of the spectral decomposition (Pg. 432, Col. 1, Sub. 2); Pg. 434, Col. 2, Sec. VI, Sub. A) as advantageous over normalization.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis,
the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Stoop teaches wherein:
wherein the relationship ([0052], [0072], [0079]) between the plurality of resonators cascaded in series (Fig. 1, S1, S2, S3…S(n-1), Sn, [0054] amplification/filtering stages, [0008]) is ω_0^((j))>ω_0^((j+1)) moving from a high-frequency (HF) to a low-frequency (LF) ([0008]), where ω_0^((j)) is a characteristic frequency of the jth resonator in ([0079]
ω
s
,
i
-
1
,
ω
s
,
i
where i = 1,…,n and n is the number of stages) the filter bank, where j is a positive integer ([0054] indexing of stages, 1 to n).
Although Stoop generally teaches the collection of stages as illustrated in Fig. 1 and describes past models utilizing filter banks, they are silent with explicitly disclosing a filter bank. They are also silent with disclosing is ω_0^((j))>ω_0^((j+1)), mathematically.
Baumgarte teaches a filter bank (Fig. 1, 11k-1, 11k, 11k+1, [0023]) and to get spectral decomposition ([0003-0007], [0008], [0028]).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 1 equally applies.
Stoop in view of Baumgarte are silent with disclosing is ω_0^((j))>ω_0^((j+1)).
Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri in view of Patterson are silent with disclosing is ω_0^((j))>ω_0^((j+1)).
Reit teaches is ω_0^((j))>ω_0^((j+1)) (Pg. 2, II-B, Col. 2,
ω
s
i
+
1
/
ω
s
i
<
1
, when simplified the relationship is
ω
s
i
+
1
<
ω
s
i
, where
ω
s
i
is the frequency of the current stage and
ω
s
i
+
1
is the frequency of the next stage).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 1 equally applies.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis,
the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Stoop teaches wherein:
each of the plurality of resonators (Fig. 1, S1, S2, S3…S(n-1), Sn, [0054] amplification/filtering stages, [0008]) in the filter bank comprise a Hopf amplifier (Fig. 1, 100a, 100b, 100c, [0054], [abstract]) coupled to a butterworth lowpass filter (Fig. 1, 200a/200a’, 200b/200b’, 200c/200c’, [0054], [abstract]).
Although Stoop generally teaches the collection of stages as illustrated in Fig. 1 and describes past models utilizing filter banks, they are silent with explicitly disclosing a filter bank.
Baumgarte teaches a filter bank (Fig. 1, 11k-1, 11k, 11k+1, [0023]).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 1 equally applies.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 3 analysis,
the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and Stoop teaches wherein:
the butterworth lowpass filter is a 6th order butterworth lowpass filter ([0054]).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis,
the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Stoop teaches wherein:
a first sensitivity factor ([0066], [0068]
F
C
) is used with driving the first resonator (Fig. 1, S1, [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis,
the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Stoop teaches wherein:
the first resonator (Fig. 1, S1, [0057]) in the plurality of resonators cascaded in series (Fig. 1, S1, S2, S3…S(n-1), Sn, [0054] amplification/filtering stages, [0008]) amplifies ([0008], [0057] amplification) or compresses ([0066], compression) weak or loud (Fig. 10, top and middle graphs, [0089] nine different input amplitudes of constant input amplitude spacings of 10dB) signals ([0006], [0055] audio signal).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis,
the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Stoop teaches wherein:
as the number of the plurality of resonators ([0079], [0089]) increases, the peak normalization ([0089], [0012], [0072], -30 dB from maximum) becomes tighter ([0089] amplitude at the output as a function of normalized frequency).
Claims 9-12, 14-16 are directed to a computer program product that would be executed by the device of claims 1-4, 6-8. The claims 1-4, 6-8 analysis similarly applies, and claims 9-12, 14-16 are similarly rejected.
Claims 17-20 are directed to a method that would be practiced by the device of claims 1-4. The claims 1-4 analysis similarly applies, and claims 17-20 are similarly rejected.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri in view of Patterson in view of Reit in view of Wang as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US 20060129256 A1 Melanson et al. (hereinafter “Melanson”).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 3 analysis,
the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and Stoop teaches wherein:
the butterworth lowpass filter has a cutoff ([0012]).
Although Stoop teaches a cutoff frequency ([0012], [0072]), they are silent with disclosing the value as at 1.05ω_0.
Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri in view of Patterson in view of Reit in view of Wang are silent with disclosing 1.05ω_0.
Melanson teaches 1.05ω_0 ([0047], [0059]
2
*
ω
c
, [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stoop in view of Baumgarte in view of Nouri in view of Patterson in view of Reit in view of Wang’s electronic cochlea system with Melanson’s mathematical relationship because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of audio signal processing ([Abstract], [0017]). Melanson presently teaches a factor of
2
≈
1.41421
for the angular cutoff frequency, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try 1.05 given the finite values of numbers to select with it, being relatively close to the approximation of 1.41 as the frequency is tunable ([0047]), and is selected based on desired outcomes. Making this modification would be beneficial as Melanson’s mathematical relationships advantageously provide easier tuning capabilities, and thus greater control of the computations and results yielded ([0047-0048]).
Claim 13 is directed to a computer program product that would be executed by the device of claim 5. The claim 5 analysis similarly applies, and claim 13 is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103.
Argument 1. Applicant asserts no reference includes a feature offering "a filter bank composed of a plurality of resonators cascaded in series, wherein a number of the plurality or resonators is chosen to achieve a peak self-normalization" (see Remarks, Pg. 9, Para. 3).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, as necessitated by the amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang.
Argument 2. Applicant asserts that while Stoop’s paragraphs discuss a cutoff frequency of the filter module and figures showing "the amplitude at the output of the respective fifth stage as a function of normalized frequency for nine different input amplitudes of constant input amplitude spacings of 10 dB", nowhere does Stoop discuss "continue to inject a preceding resonator output as input into a subsequent resonator of the plurality of resonators in series in order to get spectral decomposition with peak normalized characteristics" as recited in claim 1 (see Remarks, Pg. 9, Para. 5 bridging to Pg. 10, Para. 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stoop teaches continu[ing] to inject a preceding resonator output as input into a subsequent resonator (Stoop, Fig. 1, outputs from S2 being input to S3, [0057], [0054]) of the plurality of resonators in series (Stoop, Fig. 1, S1, S2, S3…S(n-1), Sn, [0054] amplification/filtering stages, [0008]) in order to get spectral decomposition with peak normalized characteristics (Stoop, [0089], [0012], [0072], -30 dB from maximum).
Stoop is silent with explicitly disclosing obtaining spectral decomposition of the inputs and outputs. However, Stoop is modified in view of Baumgarte as Baumgarte teaches getting the spectral decomposition of acoustic signals (Baumgarte, [0003-0007], [0008], [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to get spectral decomposition as spectral decomposition is a crucial part of processing (Baumgarte, [0003]). Spectral decomposition is used to mimic the properties of the human auditory system, however, currently used decomposition schemes do not achieve the non-uniform time and frequency resolution provided by the human cochlea (Baumgarte, [0004]). Conventional standards, the time-to-frequency transform or the “Advanced Model” have their own drawbacks, such as inaccurate modeling of masking (Baumgarte, [0005]) and aliasing distortions in high frequency bands (Baumgarte, [0006]), respectively. It would be desirable in any electronic cochlea device to provide a decomposition scheme that improves modeling for perceptual audio coding application and simulates psychophysical data closely related to cochlear spectral decomposition properties (Baumgarte, [0007]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Baumgarte to make the modification as by “getting” the spectral decomposition in Stoop’s device would lead to improved accuracy of the calculations as the data would closely resemble how the human cochlea operates.
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 MARKUS A VILLANUEVA whose telephone number is (703)756-1603. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. 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.
/MARKUS ANTHONY VILLANUEVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2182
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182