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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 190 in Figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.74, which requires the detailed description to refer to the different parts of the figures by use of reference letters or reference numerals. Implicit in this rule is that the detailed description correctly reference the figures. In this application the figures and detailed description are inconsistent as explained below.
In paragraph [0058] line 2, “FIG. 11” should read “FIG. 10” instead.
In paragraph [0059] line 1, “FIG. 11” should read “FIG. 10” instead.
C. In paragraph [0061] line 4, “the first partial filter 263” should read “the first partial filter 362” instead.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4-9 and 14-16 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.71(a) which requires “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. The following should be corrected.
A. In claim 2 line 1, “first number of taps” should read “the first number of taps” instead because first number of taps is already introduced in claim 1 from which the claim depends.
B. In claim 4 line 1, “comprising” should read “further comprising” instead for better clarity. Claims 5, 7 recite a similar limitation and are objected to for the same reason. Claims 5-9 inherit the same deficiency as claim 4 by reason of dependence. Claim 6 inherit the same deficiency as claim 5 by reason of dependence. Claims 8-9 inherit the same deficiency as claim 7 by reason of dependence.
C. In claim 14 line 2, “comprise” should read “further comprise” instead for better clarity. Claims 15-16 inherit the same deficiency as claim 14 by reason of dependence.
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 5-6, 13-16 and 18-20 are 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.
Claim 5 recites “comprising a first output comprising an output of the second partial filter and an output of the third partial filter are summed and scaled by a first scaling constant” in lines 1-3. This limitation is grammatically unclear. It is unclear whether the first output comprises an output of the second partial filter and an output of the third partial filter or whether an output of the second partial filter and an output of the third partial filter are summed and scaled by a first scaling constant. For purposes of examination, the first output is interpreted as a scaled output of the sum of the output of the second partial filter and the output of the third partial filter.
Further, this limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (that an output of the second partial filter and an output of the third partial filter must somehow be summed and scaled by a first scaling constant) that is not performed by any structure recited in the claim. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the first partial filter, the second partial filter and the third partial filter, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner. Further clarification is required. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Claim 6 inherit the same deficiency as claim 5 by reason of dependence.
Claim 13 recites “wherein an output from the first sub-filter and an output from the second sub-filter are summed” in lines 1-2. This limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (that an output from the first sub-filter and an output from the second sub-filter must somehow be summed) that is not performed by any structure recited in the claim. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the first sub-filter and the second sub-filter, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner. Further clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites “wherein an output of the second sub-filter is summed with an output of the third sub-filter to create a summed output” in lines 3-4. This limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (that an output of the second sub-filter must somehow be summed with an output of the third sub-filter to create a summed output) that is not performed by any structure recited in the claim. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the first sub-filter, the second sub-filter and the third sub-filter, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner. Further clarification is required. Claims 15-16 inherit the same deficiency as claim 14 by reason of dependence.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the summed output is scaled by a second scaling constant” in lines 1-2. This limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (that the summed output must somehow be scaled by a second scaling constant) that is not performed by any structure recited in the claim. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the first sub-filter, the second sub-filter and the third sub-filter, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner. Further clarification is required. Claim 16 inherit the same deficiency as claim 15 by reason of dependence.
Claim 18 recites “a sample” in lines 5 and 8. It is unclear whether these samples are different than the sample recited in line 3 or whether these are supposed to be interpreted as the same sample recited in line 3. For purposes of examination, these are interpreted as the same sample recited in line 3. Claims 19-20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 18 by reason of dependence.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are drawn to software, per se.
Claim 11 recites “An integrated circuit comprising: a finite impulse response filter of a higher bit-width formed from multiple sub-filters of a lower bit-width, wherein the multiple sub-filters comprise: a first sub-filter, wherein the first sub-filter comprises a first plurality of coefficients with a first bit-width, and a second sub-filter, wherein the second sub-filter comprises a second plurality of coefficients with a second bit-width.” As claimed, there is no hardware structural recitations for the “integrated circuit”. Claims 12-17 recite further functional limitations and/or further details of the sub-filters but fail to recite any hardware structural recitations for the “integrated circuit”. Therefore, the claims may be reasonably interpreted as software alone, which lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or manufacture within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category and are therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 18 recites “Digital processing circuitry, comprising: a first sub-filter comprising a first number of taps corresponding to coefficients of a first bit depth and configurable to receive a first portion of a sample to generate a first output; a second sub-filter comprising a second number of taps corresponding to coefficients of a second bit depth and configurable to receive a second portion of a sample to generate a second output; and a third sub-filter comprising a third number of taps corresponding to coefficients of a third bit depth and configurable to receive a third portion of a sample to generate a third output.” As claimed, there is no hardware structural recitations for the “digital processing circuitry”. Claims 19-29 recite further details of the coefficients and number of taps but fail to recite any hardware structural recitations for the “digital processing circuitry”. Therefore, the claims may be reasonably interpreted as software alone, which lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or manufacture within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category and are therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Petrovic et al. (US 20230341449 A1), hereinafter Petrovic.
Regarding claim 1, Petrovic teaches
digital filter circuitry comprising (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraph [0086] digital filter circuitry – digital filter 20):
a first partial filter comprising a first number of taps corresponding to coefficients of a first bit depth (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraph [0082] first partial filter – first one of the N filter parts; taps/coefficients – h); and
a second partial filter comprising a second number of taps corresponding to coefficients of a second bit depth (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraph [0082] second partial filter – second one of the N filter parts; taps/coefficients – h).
Regarding claim 2, Petrovic teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Petrovic teaches wherein first number of taps is greater than the second number of taps (Petrovic paragraph [0090] “the different FIR filters 26 in other embodiments may also have different filter lengths”).
Regarding claim 4, Petrovic teaches all the limitation of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Petrovic teaches comprising a third partial filter comprising a third number of taps corresponding to coefficients of a third bit depth (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraph [0081] third partial filter – third one of the N filter parts; taps/coefficients – h).
Regarding claim 7, Petrovic teaches all the limitation of claim 4 as stated above. Further, Petrovic teaches comprising a fourth partial filter comprising a fourth number of taps corresponding to coefficients of a fourth bit depth (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0053, 0081] fourth partial filter – fourth one of the N filter parts; taps/coefficients – h).
Regarding claim 9, Petrovic teaches all the limitation of claim 7 as stated above. Further, Petrovic teaches wherein an output of the fourth partial filter is summed with an output of the first partial filter, an output of the second partial filter, and an output of the third partial filter (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0092-0094] “the joint output interface 28 is configured to combine output signals of the different filter parts, thereby obtaining at least one combined output signal, i.e. an overall output signal of the digital filter 20 … the at least one adder sub-circuit 30 is configured to sum the output signals of the different filter parts, thereby obtaining the overall output signal of the digital filter 20”).
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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovic in view of Langhammer et al. (US 7698358 B1), hereinafter Langhammer.
Regarding claim 11, Petrovic teaches
a finite impulse response filter (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraph [0086] “the digital filter 20 is established as a finite impulse response (FIR) filter”; finite impulse response filter – digital filter 20):
a first sub-filter, wherein the first sub-filter comprises a first plurality of coefficients with a first bit-width (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraph [0081] first sub-filter – first one of the N filter parts; first plurality of coefficients – h), and
a second sub-filter, wherein the second sub-filter comprises a second plurality of coefficients with a second bit-width (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraph [0081] second sub-filter – second one of the N filter parts; second plurality of coefficients – h).
Petrovic does not explicitly teach a finite impulse response filter of a higher bit-width formed from multiple sub-filters of a lower bit-width.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Langhammer discloses a MAC/DSP block for performing multiplication operation of a higher bit-width formed from multiple sub-blocks of a lower bit-width (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 7 lines 4-67).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrovic using Langhammer and configure the filter to implement higher-precision filter coefficients by decomposing the coefficients and into multiple lower-precision coefficients and providing the lower-precision coefficients to the N filter parts such as decomposing 24-bit coefficients into 18-bit and 6-bit coefficients and using one of the N filter parts to perform the MAC operation using the 18-bit coefficients and another one of the N filter parts to perform the MAC operations using the 6-bit coefficients in order to provide a FIR filter that can be used to perform filtering operations of different input and/or coefficient sizes and/or for performing perform filtering operations of wider precision using lower-precision circuitry (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 1 line 6-9).
Therefore, the combination of Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches a finite impulse response filter of a higher bit-width formed from multiple sub-filters of a lower bit-width.
Regarding claim 12, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above, Further, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein the first bit-width is above a threshold bit-width and the second bit-width is below the threshold bit-width (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 7 lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 13, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above, Further, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein an output from the first sub-filter and an output from the second sub-filter are summed, and wherein the summed output is equivalent to an output of the finite impulse response filter (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0092-0094] “the joint output interface 28 is configured to combine output signals of the different filter parts, thereby obtaining at least one combined output signal, i.e. an overall output signal of the digital filter 20 … the at least one adder sub-circuit 30 is configured to sum the output signals of the different filter parts, thereby obtaining the overall output signal of the digital filter 20”).
Regarding claim 14, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above, Further, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein the first sub-filter of the multiple sub-filters comprises a first scaling constant (Langhammer Fig. 2; col 2 lines 63-67; and col 5 lines 4-67; first scaling constant – bit shift performed by 518), wherein the multiple sub-filters comprise a third sub-filter of the multiple sub-filters comprising a third plurality of coefficients, wherein an output of the second sub-filter is summed with an output of the third sub-filter to create a summed output (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraph [0081] third sub-filter – third one of the N filter parts; third plurality of coefficients – h; paragraphs [0092-0094]).
Regarding claim 15, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as stated above.
Further, Petrovic does not explicitly teach wherein the summed output is scaled by a second scaling constant, and wherein the second scaling constant is different from the first scaling constant.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Langhammer discloses a decomposed multiplication operation wherein a first output is scaled using different scaling constant than a scaling constant used for a second and third output (Langhammer col 5 lines 34-36).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrovic and generalize the teaching of Langhammer by configuring the N filter parts to add the outputs of the DA and BC and left shift the result by 18 bits and shift the output of BA by 36 bits before adding it to the left-shifted result of DA + BC in order to account for bit significance in the overall output in order to provide a FIR filter for performing perform filtering operations of wider precision using lower-precision circuitry (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 1 line 6-9).
Therefore, the combination of Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein the summed output is scaled by a second scaling constant, and wherein the second scaling constant is different from the first scaling constant.
Regarding claim 16, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as stated above, Further, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein the first plurality of coefficients is the same as the second plurality of coefficients (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 7 lines 11-19; 501 and 507 (or 514 and 516) receive the same coefficient d1 (or b1)).
Regarding claim 17, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Further, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein a summed output from the multiple sub-filters is equivalent to an output of the finite impulse response filter (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0092-0094]).
Regarding claim 18, Petrovic teaches
a first sub-filter comprising a first number of taps corresponding to coefficients of a first bit depth and configurable to receive (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0081, 0088] first sub-filter – first one of the N filter parts; taps/coefficients – h; sample –input data);
a second sub-filter comprising a second number of taps corresponding to coefficients of a second bit depth and configurable to receive (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0081, 0088] second sub-filter – second one of the N filter parts; taps/coefficients – h; sample –input data); and
a third sub-filter comprising a third number of taps corresponding to coefficients of a third bit depth and configurable to receive (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0081, 0088] third sub-filter – third one of the N filter parts; taps/coefficients – h; sample –input data).
Petrovic does not explicitly teach a first sub-filter configurable to receive a first portion of a sample; a second sub-filter configurable to receive a second portion of a sample to; and a third sub-filter configurable to receive a third portion of a sample.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Langhammer discloses a MAC/DSP block for performing multiplication operation of input data of a higher bit-width formed from multiple sub-blocks of a lower bit-width wherein each sub-block is configured to receive portions of the input data (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 7 lines 4-67).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrovic using Langhammer and configure the filter to implement higher-precision filter coefficients and input data by decomposing the coefficients and input data into multiple lower-precision coefficients and input data respectively and providing the lower-precision coefficients and input data to the N filter parts such as decomposing 24-bit coefficients and input data into 18-bit and 6-bit coefficients and input data respectively and using one of the N filter parts to perform the MAC operation using the 18-bit coefficients and the 18-bit input data, another one of the N filter parts to perform the MAC operations using the 6-bit coefficients and 6-bit the input data, a third one of the N filter parts to perform the MAC operations using the 18-bit coefficients and 6-bit the input data, and a fourth one of the N filter parts to perform the MAC operations using the 6-bit coefficients and 18-bit the input data in order to provide a FIR filter that can be used to perform filtering operations of different input and/or coefficient sizes and for performing perform filtering operations of wider precision using lower-precision circuitry (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 1 line 6-9).
Therefore, the combination of Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches a first sub-filter configurable to receive a first portion of a sample; a second sub-filter configurable to receive a second portion of a sample to; and a third sub-filter configurable to receive a third portion of a sample.
Regarding claim 19, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as stated above.
Petrovic does not explicitly teach wherein the coefficients of the first bit depth and the coefficients of the second bit depth are above a threshold bit depth, and wherein the coefficients of the third bit depth are below the threshold bit depth.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Langhammer discloses decomposing the coefficients such that a set of coefficients are larger than a second set of coefficients (Langhammer Figs. 4-5 and col 7 lines 4-8; 18-bits is the maximum which can be interpreted as above a threshold bit width and 6-bit can be interpreted as below the threshold bit width).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrovic using Langhammer and provide the higher bit-width coefficients to the first and second sub-filters and the lower bit-width coefficients to the third sub-filter. Langhammer discloses that the largest available multiplier is 18-bits. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that 18-bits is the maximum limit (which can be fairly suggests as being above a threshold bit width) since it is the maximum bit width that can be provided to the available multiplier while 6-bit coefficients are below the threshold bit width. The motivation to combine is the same as claim 18.
Therefore, the combination of Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein the coefficients of the first bit depth and the coefficients of the second bit depth are above a threshold bit depth, and wherein the coefficients of the third bit depth are below the threshold bit depth.
Regarding claim 20, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Further, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein the third number of taps of the third sub-filter is greater than the first number of taps of the first sub-filter (Petrovic paragraph [0090]).
Claims 3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovic as applied to claims 1, 4 and 7 above, and further in view of Langhammer.
Regarding claim 3, Petrovic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Petrovic does not explicitly teach wherein the first bit depth is less than the second bit depth.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Langhammer discloses decomposing coefficients such that a second set of coefficients are larger than a first set of coefficients (i.e., a bit depth of first set of coefficients is less than a bit depth of the second set of coefficients) (Langhammer Figs. 4-5 and col 7 lines 4-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrovic using Langhammer and configure the filter to implement higher-precision filter coefficients decomposing the coefficients providing the lower-precision coefficients to the N filter parts such as decomposing 24-bit coefficients into 18-bit and 6-bit coefficients and providing the 6-bit coefficients to the one of the N filter parts and the 6-bit coefficients to the second one of the N filter parts in order to provide a FIR filter that can be used to perform filtering operations of different input and/or coefficient sizes and for performing perform filtering operations of wider precision using lower-precision circuitry (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 1 line 6-9).
Therefore, the combination of Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein the first bit depth is less than the second bit depth.
Regarding claim 5, Petrovic teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Further, Petrovic teaches comprising a first output comprising an output of the second partial filter and an output of the third partial filter are summed (Petrovic Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0092-0094]).
Petrovic does not explicitly teach comprising a first output comprising an output of the second partial filter and an output of the third partial filter are summed and scaled by a first scaling constant.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Langhammer discloses summing a first partial output and a second partial output and scaling the summed output (Langhammer Figs. 4-5 and col 7 lines 44-62; first scaling constant – 18-bit shift performed by 520; first output – 521).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrovic using Langhammer and configure the filter to implement higher-precision filter coefficients and input data by decomposing the coefficients and input data into multiple lower-precision coefficients and input data respectively and providing the lower-precision coefficients and input data to the N filter parts and scaling a summed output of the second and third N filter parts using shift operations to account for bit significance in the overall output in order to provide a FIR filter for performing perform filtering operations of wider precision using lower-precision circuitry (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 1 line 6-9).
Therefore, the combination of Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches comprising a first output comprising an output of the second partial filter and an output of the third partial filter are summed and scaled by a first scaling constant.
Regarding claim 6, Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as stated above.
Petrovic does not explicitly teach wherein an output of the first partial filter is scaled by a second scaling constant and summed with the first output, wherein the first scaling constant and the scaling constant are different.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Langhammer discloses a decomposed multiplication operation wherein a first output is scaled using different scaling constant than a scaling constant used for a second and third output (Langhammer col 5 lines 34-36).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrovic and generalize the teaching of Langhammer by configuring the N filter parts to add the outputs of the DA and BC and left shift the result by 18 bits and shift the output of BA by 36 bits before adding it to the left-shifted result of DA + BC in order to account for bit significance in the overall output in order to provide a FIR filter for performing perform filtering operations of wider precision using lower-precision circuitry (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 1 line 6-9).
Therefore, the combination of Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein an output of the first partial filter is scaled by a second scaling constant and summed with the first output, wherein the first scaling constant and the scaling constant are different.
Regarding claim 8, Petrovic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Petrovic does not explicitly teach wherein the fourth bit depth is the same as the third bit depth, and wherein the first bit depth is the same as the second bit depth.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrovic using Langhammer and configure the filter to implement higher-precision filter coefficients and input data by decomposing the coefficients and input data into multiple lower-precision coefficients and input data respectively and providing the lower-precision coefficients and input data to the N filter parts such as decomposing 24-bit coefficients and input data into 18-bit and 6-bit coefficients and input data respectively and using the first and second one of the N filter parts to perform MAC operations using the 18-bit coefficients and a third and fourth one of the N filter parts to perform the MAC operations using the 6-bit coefficients in order to provide a FIR filter that can be used to perform filtering operations of different input and/or coefficient sizes and for performing perform filtering operations of wider precision using lower-precision circuitry (Langhammer Fig. 5 and col 1 line 6-9).
Therefore, the combination of Petrovic as modified in view of Langhammer teaches wherein the fourth bit depth is the same as the third bit depth, and wherein the first bit depth is the same as the second bit depth.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mauer et al. (US 9379687 B1), hereinafter Mauer.
Regarding claim 10, Petrovic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Petrovic does not explicitly teach wherein the first partial filter and the second partial filter are symmetric finite impulse response filters.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Mauer discloses a symmetric finite impulse response filter (Mauer Fig. 1 and col 3 lines 9-10 “FIG. 1 shows an example of a basic, known, four-tap even-symmetric FIR filter 100”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Petrovic using Mauer and configure the first and second filter parts as symmetric FIR filters in order to reduce the circuit size by reducing the number of multipliers half (Mauer Fig. 1).
Therefore, the combination of Petrovic as modified in view of Mauer teaches wherein the first partial filter and the second partial filter are symmetric finite impulse response filters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fleizach et al. (US 8,615,538 B1) discloses a digital FIR filter comprising a plurality of sub-filters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlo Waje whose telephone number is (571)272-5767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2151 (571)272-5767
Prosecution Insights