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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 11, 20 recite a “configuration bitstream separate,” from a “payload bitstream.” The claim and specification lack clear disclosure of what separates, disconnects, or distinguishes these bitstreams. Indeed the specification does not mention a separate bitstream. At best the specification discusses material which may be germane to the recited “separate,” bitstream in ¶ 198: “The payload bitstream and the configuration bitstream may be bitstreams independent of each other, or may be included in a same bitstream. In other words, the payload bitstream and the configuration bitstream may be different parts of a same bitstream.” This does not remedy the particular issue as the recited “separate,” bitstreams are essentially disclosed as being independent, or the same. What does Applicant intend the recitation of “separate” to claim? Are the payload and configuration bitstreams received as different portions or cadences of a multiplexed bitstream? This seems to be the case made in the Abstract of the specification. For the purpose of the art rejection infra the recitation will be considered to claim that the bitstreams may be independent bitstreams or different parts of a same bitstream. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-10, 12-19 do not remedy and are rejected at least for dependence from indefinite claims 1, 11.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-7, 11-17, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa: 20150162010 hereinafter Ish further in view of Koshida: 20090006103 hereinafter Kos in view of well-known in the art payload data delivery systems and methods as evidenced by Peters: 20160213803 for incorporation of configuration and payload bitstreams in separate portions of a same data structure; and/or Carakel: 20140310819 for receipt of configuration data and payload data from separate servers or network location (further there exists plural other possible and well-known interpretations of the “separate” recitation—please see the 35 USC 112 rejection supra).
Regarding claim 1
Ish teaches:
A method, comprising:
encoding a plurality of frames (Ish: ¶ 40-42, 153, 154, etc.; Fig 10, 11: system operates on input audio divided by an encoder into a plurality of frames);
obtaining a current frame of an audio signal, wherein the current frame comprises a high frequency band signal and a low frequency band signal (Ish: ¶ 86-90, 92-94, Fig 3-5: an input signal obtained at a particular sample index subsequently divided into low frequency, narrowband, low-band, etc. portion and a high frequency, high-band, etc. portions);
performing bandwidth extension processing based on the high frequency band signal, the low frequency band signal, and preset configuration information of a bandwidth extension to obtain a parameter of the bandwidth extension of the current frame (Ish: ¶ 86-90, 92-94, 197-209; Fig 3-5, 12, 13: at a coder bandwidth extension parameter(s) are determined, said parameters in the form of a core parameter based on the low frequency portion, tone and floor parameter based on high frequency portion and a preset configuration in the form of predetermined start, crossover, etc. frequency; further in the decoder the core, low band; and tone/floor, high band parameters are de-multiplexed from a system and thus parameters of bandwidth extension are determined again based on the low and high frequency signals, metadata thereof, and the low and high band, metadata, etc. parameters are used to produce a bandwidth extended signal and output same);
obtaining frequency information, indicating a first frequency range in which tonal component detection needs to be performed on the high frequency band signal (Ish: ¶ 86-90, 92-94, Fig 3-5: high frequency signal divided into parameter slots and bands for the purpose of calculating and performing operations on a tone parameter and floor parameter);
performing the tonal component detection in the first frequency range to obtain first information about a tonal component of the high frequency band signal (Ish: ¶ 86-90, 92-95, Fig 3-5: tonal components detected or derived with respect to high frequency tone and floor parameters in a manner sufficient to perform bandwidth extension using the detected parameters); and
performing bitstream multiplexing with reference to the parameter of the bandwidth extension and the first information to obtain a payload bitstream (Ish: ¶ 71-73, 78-81, 86-90, 92-95, 98-112: Fig 3-5: bitstream multiplexed and output including frequency extension parameters of bandwidth extension and a narrowband payload) for each of the plurality of frames (Ish: 152, 153, 164; Fig 8: such as illustrated in the figure which operates upon a series of frames and multiplexes parameters resultant therefrom);
performing bitstream multiplexing with reference to the bandwidth extension information to obtain a configuration bitstream (Ish: ¶ 71-73, 78-81, 86-90, 92-95, 98-112: Fig 3-5: bitstream multiplexed and output including frequency extension parameters), wherein the configuration bitstream is separate from the payload bitstream (Ish: ¶ 100, etc.; Fig 5: configuration parameters above the crossover frequency are separate from the narrowband data below the crossover frequency) and comprises configuration information shared by the plurality of frames (Ish: ¶ 100, etc.; Fig 5: configuration information consistent among sets of frames based on parameters slot and time slot relationships); and
sending the information to a decoding device by using the configuration bitstream (Ish: ¶ 71-73, 78-81, 86-90, 92-95, 98-112: Fig 3-5: bitstream de-multiplexed, processed, output etc. with respect to the frequency extension parameters).
Ish strongly suggests obtaining tile information, indicating a first frequency range in which tonal component detection needs to be performed on the high frequency band signal but does not explicitly teach the tile information directing detection in the manner claimed. Further it may be that Ish does not meet a broadly reasonable interpretation of the recited “separate” bitstream.
In a related field of endeavor Kos teaches audio coding/decoding system comprising:
encoding a plurality of frames (Kos: ¶ 59, 82, 83, etc.; Fig 4: such as by receiving input audio and partitioning same into a plurality, sequence, etc. of frames ;
performing bitstream multiplexing with reference to the parameter of the bandwidth extension and the first information to obtain a payload bitstream (Kos: ¶ 88, 172, 173, 350-354; Fig 4, etc.: system encodes side information, metadata, etc. including band configuration information with respect to each/any tile in the encoded audio data and provides same to a multiplexor) for each of the plurality of frames (Kos: ¶ 82-88, 99; frames partition into channel data; said channel data additionally comprising bandwidth, spectral, frequency, etc. extension data);
performing bitstream multiplexing with reference to the tile information to obtain a configuration bitstream comprising the tile information (Kos: ¶ 88, 172, 173, 350-354; Fig 4, etc.: encoder provides band configuration information per tile to the multiplexor); wherein the configuration bitstream is separate from the payload bitstream (Kos: ¶ 93; Fig 4: multiplexor combines separate side information with entropy encoded audio data) quantizer and entropy encoder receive : Fig 5: configuration parameters above the crossover frequency are separate from the narrowband data below the crossover frequency) and comprises configuration information shared by the plurality of frames (Kos: ¶ 93; Fig 4: side information is considered metadata shared by a plurality of frames); and
sending the tile information to a decoding device by using the configuration bitstream (Kos: ¶ 88, 172, 173, 350-354; Fig 4, etc.: encoder provides band configuration information per tile to the multiplexor which provides tile information and band extension signaling data to the decoder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize detection of high frequency bands in need of extension in a tile based manner as taught or suggested by Kos within the Ish system and method for at least the purpose of performing bandwidth extension on high frequencies of a plurality of channels in a computationally parsimonious manner; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
While Ish in view of Kos is considered to teach the inclusion of configuration data and payload data in separate portions of a multiplexed bitstream the method of doing so is not made explicitly clear. Examiner considers such an implementation to be well-known.
As evidence of a configuration bitstream comprising a separate portion of a received payload bitstream consider Peters which teaches receipt of a complex bitstream (Peters: Abstract) wherein metadata comprising configuration data shared by the frames (Peters: ¶ 188, 189; Fig 7B, 7C: configuration data borne in a frame header bears information for decoding frames subsequent thereto; wherein the header, configuration information, etc. is multiplexed or appended upon, within, etc. a payload of audio data bitstream frames). As evidence of a configuration data bitstream received separately from an audio data bitstream consider Carakel which teaches a method for enhancing a media stream comprising a metadata server operable to provide metadata for a media received from a media server (Carakel: ¶ 37, 39, etc.; Fig 1). In either case it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to delineate or separate media configuration data from media payload data as is well known in the art to thereby decode the payload data of Ish in view of Kos in keeping with, under direction of, etc. the information in the configuration data for at least the purpose of allowing for selective delivery of media in keeping with user configuration data, media metadata, etc. thereby improving playout quality, reducing playout compute or bandwidth, playing out in keeping with user preference or a user delivery system or subsystem, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Ish in view of Kos in view of Peters and/or Carakel teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein the tile information comprises at least one of:
a first quantity of tiles in the first frequency range (Ish: Fig 8); (Kos: Fig 6, 8, 9, 12), or identification information indicating whether the first frequency range is the same as a second frequency range corresponding to the bandwidth extension indicated by the preset configuration information. The claim is considered obvious over Ish as modified by Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel to the modified device of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Ish in view of Kos in view of Peters and/or Carakel teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 2, wherein the tile information comprises the first quantity of tiles (Ish: Fig 8); (Kos: Fig 6, 8, 9, 12),
wherein the preset configuration information comprises a bandwidth extension upper limit or a second quantity of tiles in the second frequency range (Ish: ¶ 121: system detects configuration information indicating processing based on thresholding a high frequency range); (Kos: ¶ 135, 136: system determines high frequency bands in need of processing based on a threshold and adapts said bands with respect to an upper limit for high frequency bands to process), and
wherein the method further comprises identifying the first quantity of tiles based on one or more of an encoding rate of the current frame (Kos: ¶ 3, 58 etc.: processing performed based on blocks, frames, etc. of audio samples, said samples at particular sampling rate and bit depth), a quantity of channels of the audio signal (Ish: ¶ 33-37: disclosed bandwidth extension operable in concert with multichannel extension tool); (Kos: ¶ 81-88, etc.: system directs the performance of processing based on correlations among frequency tiles within plural channels, counts thereof, correspondences thereamong), a sampling frequency of the audio signal (Kos: ¶ 3, 58 etc.: processing performed based on blocks of audio samples, said samples at particular sampling rate and bit depth), the bandwidth extension upper limit (Ish: ¶ 121: processing based on thresholding a high frequency range); (Kos: ¶ 135, 136: processing based on a threshold and with respect to an upper limit for high frequency bands to process), or the second quantity of tiles. The claim is considered obvious over Ish as modified by Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel to the modified device of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Ish in view of Kos in view of Peters and/or Carakel teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 3, wherein the bandwidth extension upper limit comprises one or more of: a highest frequency in the second frequency range, a highest bin index in the second frequency range, a highest frequency band index in the second frequency range, or a highest tile index in the second frequency range (Ish: ¶ 121: system detects configuration information indicating processing based on thresholding a high frequency range in this way the limit comprises a highest frequency band, index thereof in a series of first, second, etc. frames); (Kos: ¶ 135, 136: system determines high frequency bands in need of processing based on a threshold and adapts said bands with respect to an upper limit for high frequency bands to process; in this way the limit comprises a highest frequency band, index thereof in a series of first, second, etc. frames). The claim is considered obvious over Ish as modified by Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel to the modified device of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Ish in view of Kos in view of Peters and/or Carakel teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 3, wherein identifying the first quantity of tiles comprises:
identifying a first determining identifier of a current channel in the current frame based on the encoding rate (Kos: ¶ 3, 58, 65 etc.: processing performed based on blocks, frames, etc. of audio samples, said samples at particular sampling rate and bit depth); (Peters: ¶ 66, etc.) and the quantity of channels (Peters: ¶ 80, etc.: system determines number of signals, channels, etc. within a frame), and
identifying a first quantity of current channels based on the first determining identifier and the second quantity of tiles (Ish: ¶ 33-37: disclosed bandwidth extension operable in concert with multichannel extension tool); (Kos: ¶ 81-88, etc.: system directs the performance of processing based on correlations among frequency tiles within plural channels, counts thereof, correspondences thereamong); or
identifying a second determining identifier of the current channel based on the sampling frequency (Kos: ¶ 3, 58, 65 etc.: processing performed based on blocks of audio samples, said samples at particular sampling rate and bit depth) and the bandwidth extension upper limit (Ish: ¶ 121: processing based on thresholding a high frequency range); (Kos: ¶ 135, 136: processing based on a threshold and with respect to an upper limit for high frequency bands to process), and identifying the first quantity of current channels based on the second determining identifier and the second quantity of tiles (Ish: ¶ 121: system detects configuration information indicating processing based on thresholding a high frequency range in this way the limit comprises a highest frequency band, index thereof in a series of first, second, etc. frames); (Kos: ¶ 135, 136: system determines high frequency bands in need of processing based on a threshold and adapts said bands with respect to an upper limit for high frequency bands to process; in this way the limit comprises a highest frequency band, index thereof in a series of first, second, etc. frames). Examiner has taken official notice which Applicant has failed to timely and explicitly traverse and it thus accepted as Admitted Prior Art (APA: please see MPEP 2144.03) that determining a numerical quantity of a plurality of channels of an audio stream would have been obvious to include such as for at least the purpose of determining coding frames, coding cadences, etc. such as by reading a metadata or analyzing the incoming stream; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. The claim is thus considered obvious over Ish as modified by Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel to the modified device of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Ish in view of Kos in view of Peters and/or Carakel teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 5, wherein identifying the first determining identifier comprises: comprises obtaining an average encoding rate of each channel in the current frame based on the encoding rate and the quantity of channels, and obtaining the first determining identifier based on the average encoding rate and a first threshold. Examiner takes official notice that decoding a plurality of channels based on an average decoding rate with respect to an encoding rate and a plurality of channels was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of determining an overall processing rate, processing cadence thereof, multi-core stream path with respect thereto, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. The claim is thus considered obvious over Ish as modified by Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel to the modified device of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Ish in view of Kos in view of Peters and/or Carakel teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 5, wherein identifying the second determining identifier comprises: comparing whether a first highest frequency in the second frequency range comprised in the bandwidth extension upper limit is the same as a second highest frequency of the audio signal to identify the second determining identifier when the bandwidth extension upper limit comprises the first highest frequency (Kos: ¶ 119-123, 241: system compares, classifies, etc. spectral peaks in a plurality ranges to determine appropriate processing, coding, packing, etc., spectral peaks are considered groupings of first, second, etc. highest, higher, etc. frequencies wherein the peaks are compared among baseband and higher frequency frames); and
comparing whether a first highest frequency band index in the second frequency range comprised in the bandwidth extension upper limit is the same as a second highest frequency band index of the audio signal to identify the second determining identifier when the bandwidth extension upper limit comprises the first highest frequency band index, wherein the second highest frequency band index is based on the sampling frequency (Kos: ¶ 119-123, 241: system compares, classifies, etc. spectral peaks in a plurality ranges to determine appropriate processing, coding, packing, etc., spectral peaks are considered groupings of first, second, etc. highest, higher, etc. frequencies wherein the peaks are compared among baseband and higher frequency frames).
Regarding claim 11, 20 – the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12
Ish in view of Kos teaches or suggests:
The method of claim 1, wherein the tile information comprises at least one of:
relationship information indicating a value relationship between the first frequency range and the second frequency range when the first frequency range is different from the second frequency range (Ish: ¶ 86-90, 92-94, 197-209; Fig 3-5, 12, 13: ton, core, and floor parameters differ in value relationships over time across the duration of the media);
wherein the second frequency range corresponds to the bandwidth extension indicated by the preset configuration information (Ish: ¶ 86-90, 92-94, 197-209; Fig 3-5, 12, 13: tone, floor, core parameters comprise the bandwidth extension parameters); or
a quantity of changed tiles in which there is a difference between the first frequency range and the second frequency range when the first frequency range is different from the second frequency range (Ish: ¶ 80-95, 98-111, 178: boundary of slots, parameters, frequencies, etc. determined based upon preset or dynamically generated parameters). The claim is thus considered obvious over Ish as modified by Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel to the modified device of Ish, Kos, Peters, and/or Carakel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 13 – the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claims, 2 and 3 supra and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14 – the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15 – the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16 – the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17 – the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 10/09/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 11-14 under 35 USC 103 over Ishikawa and Koshida have been fully considered and are not persuasive, nevertheless and with respect to compact prosecution Examiner has amended the rejection supra to address the amended claimed subject matter.
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 PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692