DETAILED ACTION
I. Introduction
This Office action addresses U.S. reissue application number 18/238,102 (“’102 reissue application” or “instant application”), having a filing date of 25 August 2023. Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a reissue of U.S. Patent 8,547,255 (“’255 patent”) titled “METHOD FOR ENCODING A SYMBOL, METHOD FOR DECODING A SYMBOL, METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING A SYMBOL FROM A TRANSMITTER TO A RECEIVER, ENCODER, DECODER AND SYSTEM FOR TRANSMITTING A SYMBOL FROM A TRANSMITTER TO A RECEIVER”, which issued to Markus Multrus et al. on 1 October 2013 with claims 1-18 (“issued claims”). The application resulting in the ‘255 patent was filed on 11 January 2011 and assigned U.S. patent application number 13/004,374 (“’374 application”).
II. Other Proceedings
After review of Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application, and the examiner's independent review of the ‘255 patent itself and its prosecution history, the examiner has failed to locate any current ongoing litigation. The examiner has likewise failed to locate any previous reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or other post issuance proceedings.
III. Priority
The ‘374 application is a continuation of application PCT/EP2009/004718 (“the PCT application”), filed 30 June 2009.
The ‘374 application also claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application 61/079,853, filed 11 July 2008.
As a reissue application, the instant application is entitled to the priority date of the ‘255 patent, the patent being reissued. Thus, the instant reissue application has a priority date of at least 30 June 2009, the filing date of the PCT application. The priority date could be as early as 11 July 2008, depending upon the specific subject matter of the claim. The priority date will be determined on a claim-by-claim basis, as necessary.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is prior to March 16, 2013, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions of the AIA do not apply. Instead, the earlier ‘First to Invent’ provisions will apply.
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.
IV. Claim Construction
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
Upon review of the original specification and prosecution history, the examiner has found no instances of lexicographic definitions, either express or implied, that are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the respective terms. Therefore, for the purposes of claim construction, the examiner concludes that there are no claim terms for which applicant is acting as their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
If applicant intended lexicographic definitions that have not been identified as such by the examiner, they are asked to note the term and the location in the specification or prosecution history supporting the lexicographic definition in response to this Office action.
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds no instances where the claim terms explicitly include functional language which invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
V. Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs), filed 25 August 2023 and 2 June 2026, have been received and entered into the record. Since the Information Disclosure Statements comply with the provisions of MPEP § 609, the references cited therein have been considered by the examiner.
It is noted that several foreign language documents were included in the 2023 IDS. In these cases, the Office has annotated the entries in the form 1449 where applicable to indicate the degree to which the document has been considered (limited to English language disclosures).
See attached form PTO-1449.
VI. Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 25 August 2023, has been received and entered into the record. The preliminary amendment included amendments to the specification and claims.
Specifically, claims 7, 11, and 18 have been amended, and claims 1-6 and 12-17 have been canceled. Claims 7-11 and 18 are now pending.
The amendment is objected to, however.
It is noted that besides the instant reissue application, five additional reissue applications of U.S. Patent 8,547,255 have been filed and are currently pending.
In the case where multiple reissue applications to the same issued patent are filed, all of the original patented claims must be presented in all reissue applications in some form (i.e., original, amended, or canceled). Any added claims must be numbered beginning with the next higher number following the last patented claim.
Importantly, the same patented claim cannot be presented for examination in more than one of the reissue applications of the “family” in either original or amended versions.
If a patented claim is to be presented in one of the reissue applications of the “family” as a pending claim, then that patented claim must be presented as a canceled claim in all other reissue applications of that family. Multiple versions of the same patented claims are subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), since having the same claim of differing scope in different applications would be inconsistent, and thus indefinite. They are also subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 251, because the reissue application is not correcting an error in the original patent, since the original claims would be superseded by the reissuance of the analogous claims in the other reissue applications.
In order to present different versions of a patented claim (e.g., claim 7) in multiple reissue applications of a family, applicant should present a first version as claim 7 in the first reissue application, and in the second (and all subsequent) reissue application include claim 7 as canceled, while including each subsequent version as a new claim having a claim number starting with the next claim after the highest patented claim (in this case, claim 19).
For additional guidance, see the example presented in MPEP §§ 1451(I) and (II).
VII. Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The reissue declaration filed with the instant reissue application indicates that the application for the original patent was filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest. However, the original patent issued from an application having a filing date of 11 January 2011 (pre-AIA ), and so was not (and could not have been) filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Applicant is advised to file a corrected reissue declaration that does not have the box checked indicating that the original patent was filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 by assignee.
In addition, applicant’s error statement in the reissue oath/declaration includes a statement of support for changes made to the claims. Such a statement should properly be presented as a separate paper, and not as part of the error statement of the reissue oath/declaration.
VIII. Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the newly amended cross-reference to related applications, the serial numbers of the related reissue applications have not been included.
Additionally, the cross-reference includes the statement that the co-pending reissue applications are all divisional reissues of patent 8,547,255. However, upon review of the related reissue applications, all of the related applications have been designated on their respective Application Data Sheets as reissues of the ‘255 patent, and not divisional reissue applications.
Appropriate correction is required.
IX. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 251
Claims 7-11 and 18 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claims 7-11 and 18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 because of the presence of multiple versions of issued claims in multiple reissue applications, because the reissue application is not correcting an error in the original patent, since the original claims would be superseded by the reissuance of the analogous claims in the other reissue applications.
X. 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 7-11 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-11 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/238,089 (reference application).
The reference claims include all of the limitations of the claims under examination, and so is at least rendered obvious by said claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7-11 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-11 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/238,111 (reference application) in view of U.S. Patent 7,106,943 to Takashi Katayama et al. (“Katayama”).
The reference claims include all of the limitations of the claims under examination, with the exception of the receipt of the bitstream representing an encoded audio signal.
Katayama, however, discloses a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program, comprising:
a) receiving a bitstream representing an encoded audio signal (see disclosure of input stream signal 221, col. 8, lines 19-30, and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to input a bitstream representing an encoded audio signal, since applying the bitstream to a spectral audio decoder would necessarily require the bitstream to represent an encoded audio signal.
Such a combination would involve no more than combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7-11 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-11 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/238,126 (reference application) in view of U.S. Patent 7,106,943 to Takashi Katayama et al. (“Katayama”).
The reference claims include all of the limitations of the claims under examination, with the exception of the post-processing and the output of the decoded audio signal.
Katayama, however, discloses a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program, comprising:
d) performing one or more of a joint stereo processing, a surround processing, and a bandwidth extension processing on a signal output by the spectral audio decoder (see disclosure that time domain downmix section 212 performs downmix processing on the time axis data signal 224 such that the number of channels on the time axis data signal 224 is the same as the number of channels of the output stream signal 228, col. 8, lines 47-56 and Fig. 2); and
e) outputting one or more of a mono signal, a stereo signal, and a multi-channel signal (see disclosure of the output of time domain signal 225, col. 8, lines 56-59 and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to perform post-processing of the audio signal since this would allow the multi-channel audio signals to be converted to the number of channels appropriate to the rendering equipment of the receiver. Outputting the audio signal would have been likewise obvious in order to make it possible to render the audio signal for the user.
Such a combination would involve no more than combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7-11 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-11 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/238,136 (reference application) in view of U.S. Patent 7,106,943 to Takashi Katayama et al. (“Katayama”).
The reference claims include all of the limitations of the claims under examination, with the exception of the receipt of the bitstream representing an encoded audio signal, and the post-processing and the output of the decoded audio signal.
Katayama, however, discloses a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program, comprising:
a) receiving a bitstream representing an encoded audio signal (see disclosure of input stream signal 221, col. 8, lines 19-30, and Fig. 2);
d) performing one or more of a joint stereo processing, a surround processing, and a bandwidth extension processing on a signal output by the spectral audio decoder (see disclosure that time domain downmix section 212 performs downmix processing on the time axis data signal 224 such that the number of channels on the time axis data signal 224 is the same as the number of channels of the output stream signal 228, col. 8, lines 47-56 and Fig. 2); and
e) outputting one or more of a mono signal, a stereo signal, and a multi-channel signal (see disclosure of the output of time domain signal 225, col. 8, lines 56-59 and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to input a bitstream representing an encoded audio signal, since applying the bitstream to a spectral audio decoder would necessarily require the bitstream to represent an encoded audio signal.
It would also have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to perform post-processing of the audio signal since this would allow the multi-channel audio signals to be converted to the number of channels appropriate to the rendering equipment of the receiver. Outputting the audio signal would have been likewise obvious in order to make it possible to render the audio signal for the user.
Such a combination would involve no more than combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7-11 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-11 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/238,143 (reference application) in view of U.S. Patent 7,106,943 to Takashi Katayama et al. (“Katayama”).
The reference claims include all of the limitations of the claims under examination, with the exception of the spectral audio decoder, the post-processing, and the output of the decoded audio signal.
Katayama, however, discloses a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program, comprising:
b) applying the bitstream to a spectral audio decoder (see disclosure of stream analysis section 202 that analyzes and decodes the input stream signal 221, and dequantization section 208 that generates a spectrum signal in the form of sorted channels sorted by frequency bands, col. 8, lines 31-44 and Fig. 2);
d) performing one or more of a joint stereo processing, a surround processing, and a bandwidth extension processing on a signal output by the spectral audio decoder (see disclosure that time domain downmix section 212 performs downmix processing on the time axis data signal 224 such that the number of channels on the time axis data signal 224 is the same as the number of channels of the output stream signal 228, col. 8, lines 47-56 and Fig. 2); and
e) outputting one or more of a mono signal, a stereo signal, and a multi-channel signal (see disclosure of the output of time domain signal 225, col. 8, lines 56-59 and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to apply the bitstream to a spectral audio decoder, since rendering of the audio signal would not be possible without first decoding the encoded audio signal.
It would also have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to perform post-processing of the audio signal since this would allow the multi-channel audio signals to be converted to the number of channels appropriate to the rendering equipment of the receiver. Outputting the audio signal would have been likewise obvious in order to make it possible to render the audio signal for the user.
Such a combination would involve no more than combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
XI. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 7-11 and 18 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.
Regarding claims 7-11 and 18, these claims are also included in five other reissue applications of U.S. Patent 8,547,255. Multiple versions of the same issued claims in different reissue applications renders the claims indefinite, since there can only be one version of an issued claim (as discussed above with respect to the preliminary amendment).
Further regarding claims 7 and 18, these claims include the term “an original symbol” in the respective preambles, but subsequently refer to “the symbol” and “the original symbol” elsewhere in the claims. Presumably applicant intends both of these terms to refer to “an original symbol” as their antecedent. This renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 8-11 depend on claim 7, and are likewise rejected.
Further regarding claims 7 and 18, these claims recite that the symbol can be represented by the values associated with a combination of the codeword selected from the first codebook and the plurality of codewords selected from the second codebook.
However, the claim recites that a codeword is selected from the first codebook only in the case (“case 1”) where the first codeword can completely represent the symbol, while the plurality of codewords are selected from the second codebook only in the case (“case 2”) where the first codeword cannot completely represent the symbol. In other words, a codeword is selected from the first codebook only in case 1, and codewords are selected from the second codebook only in case 2. Since case 1 and case 2 are mutually exclusive, there can never be codewords selected from both the first codebook and the second codebook for a single symbol.
This renders the claims indefinite.
Further regarding claims 7 and 18, these claims include the term “the codeword selected from the first codebook.” There is no antecedent basis for this term. Applicant may be referring to the earlier-cited symbol selected from the first codebook using the first codeword.
Also with respect to claims 7 and 18, these claims include the term “the plurality of codewords selected from the second codebook.” There is no antecedent basis for this term. Applicant may be referring to the earlier-cited entries selected for each of the first sub-symbols from the second codebook using a second codeword.”
In addition, claims 7 and 18 include the step of selecting an entry for each of the first sub-symbols from the second codebook using a second codeword. However, if entries are selected for each of the first sub-symbols using “a second codeword,” each of the first sub-symbols would have to be identical, since using the same codeword to select entries in the codebook would always result in the selection of the same entry (i.e., one codeword uniquely corresponds to a single entry in the codebook).
Similarly, claim 8 includes the step of selecting an entry for each of the second sub-symbols from the third codebook using a third codeword. However, if entries are selected for each of the second sub-symbols using “a third codeword,” each of the second sub-symbols would have to be identical, since using the same codeword to select entries in the codebook would always result in the selection of the same entry (i.e., one codeword uniquely corresponds to a single entry in the codebook).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, these claims include the limitation that “the first codebook indicates for the first codeword that the symbol cannot be decoded from the first codebook.” It is unclear, however, how a codebook could “indicate” such a condition (or any other condition).
Similarly, claim 9 also includes the limitation that “the second codebook indicates for a second codeword of a first sub-symbol that the first sub-symbol cannot be decoded by the second codebook.” It is unclear how a codebook can indicate such a condition (or any other condition).
With respect to claim 10, this claim includes the limitation that the first codebook indicates “which of the first sub-symbols comprises a predefined combination of values.” It is unclear how a codebook can indicate such a condition (or any other condition).
It is further noted that parent claim 7 (which includes step (c)) includes the limitation that “each of the first sub-symbols comprises a predefined number of values of the original symbol.” There is no limitation that any of the first sub-symbols comprises a predefined combination of values. Since there is no antecedent basis for this limitation, claim 10 is rendered indefinite.
Similarly claim 10 also includes the limitation “for those sub-symbols not comprising the predefined combination of values an entry is selected from the second codebook.” Again, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation “the predefined combination of values”, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, this claim includes the terms “codewords” and “code-words.” The use of different terms to refer to the same element renders the claim indefinite.
Further regarding claim 11, this claim variously refers to values represented by the codewords of a codebook, and values represented by a codebook. It is noted that values can be represented by codewords, but not by codebooks. This renders the claim indefinite.
XII. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 7-11 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,106,943 to Takashi Katayama et al. (“Katayama”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0106870 to Peter A. Franaszek et al. (“Franaszek”).
With respect to claim 7, Katayama teaches a method for decoding an original symbol comprising a plurality of values, the method comprising:
a) receiving a bitstream representing an encoded audio signal (see disclosure of input stream signal 221, col. 8, lines 19-30, and Fig. 2);
b) applying the bitstream to a spectral audio decoder (see disclosure of stream analysis section 202 that analyzes and decodes the input stream signal 221, and dequantization section 208 that generates a spectrum signal in the form of sorted channels sorted by frequency bands, col. 8, lines 31-44 and Fig. 2);
d) performing one or more of a joint stereo processing, a surround processing, and a bandwidth extension processing on a signal output by the spectral audio decoder (see disclosure that time domain downmix section 212 performs downmix processing on the time axis data signal 224 such that the number of channels on the time axis data signal 224 is the same as the number of channels of the output stream signal 228, col. 8, lines 47-56 and Fig. 2); and
e) outputting one or more of a mono signal, a stereo signal, and a multi-channel signal (see disclosure of the output of time domain signal 225, col. 8, lines 56-59 and Fig. 2).
Katayama does not explicitly teach a method for decoding an original symbol utilizing codewords and codebooks.
Franaszek, however, teaches a method for decoding an original symbol comprising a plurality of values and being encoded by one or more codewords, the method comprising:
a) determining whether a first codeword can completely represent the symbol using a first codebook (see disclosure of testing whether a full 8-byte match is found in the 8-byte dictionary, ¶ [0031]);
b) in case the first codeword can completely represent the symbol using the first codebook, selecting the symbol from the first codebook using the first codeword (see disclosure that if the match is found, a pointer is retrieved from the 8-byte dictionary, ¶ [0031]);
c) in case the first codeword cannot completely represent the symbol using the first codebook, selecting a second codebook for decoding first sub-symbols of the symbol, wherein each of the first sub-symbols comprises a predefined number of values of the original symbol (see disclosure that if there is no match in the 8-byte dictionary, the encoder searches the 4-byte dictionary for each of the 4-byte subblocks, ¶ [0032]); and
d) selecting an entry for each of the first sub-symbols from the second codebook using a second codeword (see disclosure that for every 4-byte subblock that has a match in the 4-byte dictionary, a pointer is retrieved from the 4-block dictionary, ¶ [0032]);
e) wherein the symbol is represented by the values associated only with the codeword from the first codebook (see disclosure that if a full 8-byte match is found in the 8-byte dictionary, a pointer is retrieved from the 8-byte dictionary, ¶ [0031]), or associated with a combination of the codeword selected from the first codebook and the plurality of codewords selected from the second codebook.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize the codewords and multiple codebooks disclosed by Franaszek in the decoder disclosed by Katayama, because this would enable lossless compression and decompression in a low-cost design that can be implemented very efficiently in hardware (see ¶ [0024]).
With respect to claim 8, Franaszek additionally teaches the method of claim 7 further comprising:
f) in case the second codebook cannot completely represent one of the first sub-symbols, selecting a third codebook for decoding second sub-symbols of the one first sub-symbol, wherein each of the second sub-symbols comprises a predefined number of values from the first sub-symbol (see disclosure that if one or both 4-byte subblocks are not found in the 4-block dictionary, encoder searches the 2-byte dictionary for each of the 2-byte subblocks, ¶ [0033]); and
g) selecting an entry for each of the second sub-symbols from the third codebook using a third codeword (see disclosure that for every subblock that has a match, a key is retrieved from the 2-byte dictionary, ¶ [0033]).
With respect to claim 9, Franaszek additionally teaches the method of claim 8 wherein:
at step (c) the first codebook indicates for a first codeword that the symbol cannot be decoded from the first codebook and for each of the first sub-symbols an entry is selected from the second codebook (see disclosure that if there is no match in the 8-byte dictionary, the encoder searches the 4-byte dictionary for each of the 4-byte subblocks, and that for every 4-byte subblock that has a match in the 4-byte dictionary, a pointer is retrieved from the 4-block dictionary, ¶ [0032]); and
at step (d) the second codebook indicates for a second codeword of a first sub-symbol that the first sub-symbol cannot be decoded by the second codebook, and for each of the second sub-symbols an entry is selected from the third codebook (see disclosure that if one or both 4-byte subblocks are not found in the 4-block dictionary, encoder searches the 2-byte dictionary for each of the 2-byte subblocks, and that for every subblock that has a match, a key is retrieved from the 2-byte dictionary, ¶ [0033]).
With respect to claim 10, Franaszek additionally teaches the method of claim 7 wherein:
at step (c) the first codebook indicates for a first codeword that the symbol cannot be decoded from the first codebook and which of the first sub-symbols comprises a predefined combination of values (see disclosure that if there is no match in the 8-byte dictionary, the encoder searches the 4-byte dictionary for each of the 4-byte subblocks, and that for every 4-byte subblock that has a match in the 4-byte dictionary, a pointer is retrieved from the 4-block dictionary, ¶ [0032]); and
at step (c) for those sub-symbols not comprising the predefined combination of values an entry is selected from the second codebook (see disclosure that if one or both 4-byte subblocks are not found in the 4-block dictionary, encoder searches the 2-byte dictionary for each of the 2-byte subblocks, and that for every subblock that has a match, a key is retrieved from the 2-byte dictionary, ¶ [0033]).
With respect to claim 11, Franaszek additionally teaches the method of claim 7 wherein:
a) the second codebook comprises codewords having the same dimensionality as the codewords in the first codebook, wherein the range of values represented by the code-words of the second codebook is larger than the range of values represented by the first codebook; or
b) the second codebook comprises codewords having a lower dimensionality than the codewords in the first codebook, wherein the range of values represented by the codewords of the second codebook and the first codebook is the same; or
c) the second codebook comprises codewords being of lower dimensionality than the codewords in the first codebook, wherein the range of values represented by the second codebook is larger than the range of values represented by the first codebook (see illustrations of 8-byte, 4-byte, and 2-byte dictionaries, Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 18, Katayama teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program (see col. 16, lines 33-50) for performing a method for decoding an original symbol comprising a plurality of values, the method comprising:
a) receiving a bitstream representing an encoded audio signal (see disclosure of input stream signal 221, col. 8, lines 19-30, and Fig. 2);
b) applying the bitstream to a spectral audio decoder (see disclosure of stream analysis section 202 that analyzes and decodes the input stream signal 221, and dequantization section 208 that generates a spectrum signal in the form of sorted channels sorted by frequency bands, col. 8, lines 31-44 and Fig. 2);
d) performing one or more of a joint stereo processing, a surround processing, and a bandwidth extension processing on a signal output by the spectral audio decoder (see disclosure that time domain downmix section 212 performs downmix processing on the time axis data signal 224 such that the number of channels on the time axis data signal 224 is the same as the number of channels of the output stream signal 228, col. 8, lines 47-56 and Fig. 2); and
e) outputting one or more of a mono signal, a stereo signal, and a multi-channel signal (see disclosure of the output of time domain signal 225, col. 8, lines 56-59 and Fig. 2).
Katayama does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program for performing a method for decoding an original symbol utilizing codewords and codebooks.
Franaszek, however, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program for performing a method for decoding an original symbol comprising a plurality of values and being encoded by one or more codewords, the method comprising:
a) determining whether a first codeword can completely represent the symbol using a first codebook (see disclosure of testing whether a full 8-byte match is found in the 8-byte dictionary, ¶ [0031]);
b) in case the first codeword can completely represent the symbol using the first codebook, selecting the symbol from the first codebook using the first codeword (see disclosure that if the match is found, a pointer is retrieved from the 8-byte dictionary, ¶ [0031]);
c) in case the first codeword cannot completely represent the symbol using the first codebook, selecting a second codebook for decoding first sub-symbols of the symbol, wherein each of the first sub-symbols comprises a predefined number of values of the original symbol (see disclosure that if there is no match in the 8-byte dictionary, the encoder searches the 4-byte dictionary for each of the 4-byte subblocks, ¶ [0032]); and
d) selecting an entry for each of the first sub-symbols from the second codebook using a second codeword (see disclosure that for every 4-byte subblock that has a match in the 4-byte dictionary, a pointer is retrieved from the 4-block dictionary, ¶ [0032]);
e) wherein the symbol is represented by the values associated only with the codeword from the first codebook (see disclosure that if a full 8-byte match is found in the 8-byte dictionary, a pointer is retrieved from the 8-byte dictionary, ¶ [0031]), or associated with a combination of the codeword selected from the first codebook and the plurality of codewords selected from the second codebook.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to utilize the codewords and multiple codebooks disclosed by Franaszek in the decoder disclosed by Katayama, because this would enable lossless compression and decompression in a low-cost design that can be implemented very efficiently in hardware (see ¶ [0024]).
XIII. Conclusion
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘255 patent. Applicants are reminded that a listing of the information cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘255 patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant(s) are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which ‘255 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, other post-grant proceedings in the Office, and litigation.
Applicant(s) are further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant(s) are also reminded that any amendments to the claims must comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, having clear support and antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke S. Wassum whose telephone number is (571) 272-4119. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM, alternate Fridays off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
In addition, INFORMAL or DRAFT communications may be faxed directly to the examiner at 571-273-4119. Such communications must be clearly marked as INFORMAL, DRAFT or UNOFFICIAL.
Patent Center
Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. For more information, please visit the Patent Center information page at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center.
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Michael Fuelling /MF/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3992
lsw
4 June 2026
Prosecution Insights