DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 10/14/2025. Claims 1-11, 13 are pending and have been examined. Claims 12, 14 are cancelled.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
2. With respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 101 abstract idea, the applicant’s amendments and arguments are carefully considered, and based on the claims reciting practical audio/speech coding application with classified vector quantization (with pre-trained codebooks) and specific quantization bits allocation, the 35 USC 101 rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to 35 USC 103 rejections, the examiner and the applicant held an interview on 10/23/2025 based on the amended claims filed on 10/14/2025, however, there are still ambiguities that are not clarified for examination. For example, as recorded in the Interview Summary and furthermore, for Claim 1: (1) "the first encoding" and "the second encoding" are not defined or explained; (2) perform second encoding of "a number of unused bits"? Variable-rate coding such as Huffman coding is not mentioned in the Specification, making this a puzzle! (3) Drawings - Fig. 1: Codebook Number 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... Where is codebook number 1? and for codebook Q2, why does the codebook indicator uses 2 bits? That would mean there are 4 codebooks for the (single) codebook Q2; For Q5, the number of bits used for codevector index is 20, meaning there are 2**20 codevectors to search the best match! (4) Claim 8: wherein the control circuitry adds a value obtained by subtracting a remainder of the number of available bits, divided by five, from five, to the number of available bits; (5) Claim 9: wherein the targeted sub-vector is a third sub-vector in ascending order in the frequency domain (based on what?) or a third sub-vector in order starting with an earliest in a time domain, among eight sub-vectors .... Plus several other confusing features and limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. Claims 1-11, 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, et al. (US 20150025879; hereinafter LIU) in view of Reznik (US 20090240491; hereinafter REZNIK).
As per claim 1, LIU (Title: Audio and speech coding device, audio and speech decoding device, method for coding audio and speech, and method for decoding audio and speech) discloses “An encoding apparatus for encoding an audio or speech signal, the encoding apparatus comprising: time-frequency converting circuitry, which, in operation, converts an input signal in a time domain into a signal in a frequency domain (LIU, Title and [0004], FIG. 1, the time domain signal S(n) is transformed into frequency domain signal S(f) using time to frequency transformation method); quantization circuitry, which, in operation, divides the signal in the frequency domain into a plurality of sub-vectors (LIU, [0054], The input spectrum normally doesn't have same energy in every sub-vector, but concentrates energy in some of the sub-vectors); and in operation, generates quantization parameters including a codebook index and a code vector index for each of the plurality of sub-vectors, the codebook index indicating a codebook for vector quantization, and the code vector index indicating one of a plurality of code vectors included in the codebook (LIU, [0063], Compute the codebook indications for all sub-vectors; [0041], Each codebook consists of a number of code vectors. The code vector index in the codebook is represented by a number of bits); and
control circuitry, which, in operation calculates a number of available bits for encoding the quantization parameters for a targeted sub-vector by subtracting a total number of bits used for encoding the quantization parameters for sub-vectors except the targeted sub-vector among the plurality of sub-vectors from a number of allocated bits that are allocated for vector-quantization of a subframe that includes the plurality of sub-vectors (LIU, [Abstract], the position of the sub-vector whose codebook indication consumes the most bits is firstly located, and then the value of the codebook is estimated based on the total number of bits available and the bits usage information for other sub-vectors <where ‘subframe’ includes the targeted sub-vector and all other sub-vectors>);
determines whether to perform first encoding of the quantization parameters for the targeted sub-vector or [ to perform second encoding of a number of unused bits ] obtained by subtracting a number of bits necessary for encoding the quantization parameters for the targeted sub-vector from the number of the available bits for encoding the quantization parameters for the targeted sub-vector, a determination being made based on the number of the available bits for encoding the quantization parameters for the targeted sub-vector; and performs the first encoding or the second encoding for the targeted sub-vector depending on the determination, and performs the first encoding for the sub-vectors except for the targeted sub-vector (LIU, [0063], encode the codebook indications for all sub-vectors <read on part of ‘first encoding’>; [0041], Each codebook consists of a number of code vectors. The code vector index in the codebook is represented by a number of bits <read on the other part of ‘first encoding’>. Examiner’s Note: the portion of the limitation ‘obtained by subtracting a number of bits necessary for encoding the quantization parameters for the targeted sub-vector from the number of the available bits for encoding the quantization parameters for the targeted sub-vector, a determination being made based on the number of the available bits for encoding the quantization parameters for the targeted sub-vector’ must be further clarified for examination).”
LIU does not explicitly disclose “to perform second encoding of a number of unused bits ..” However, this limitation is taught by REZNIK (Title: Technique for encoding/decoding of codebook indices for quantized mdct spectrum in scalable speech and audio codecs).
In the same field of endeavor, REZNIK teaches: [0037] “The codebook indices may be further encoded using a set of context-selectable Huffman codes ..” where Huffman codes reads on “second encoding of a number of unused bits” which is subject to BRI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of REZNIK in the system taught by LIU to apply variable-rate codes such as Huffman code to further reduce the data bits to represent vector quantizer codebook indices.
As per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), LIU in view of REZNIK further discloses “wherein the control circuitry classifies the plurality of the sub-vectors into a first group not including the targeted sub-vector and a second group including the targeted sub-vector, encodes the quantization parameters of each sub-vector included in the first group, and determines whether to perform the first encoding or to perform the second encoding based on the number of bits available in the second group (Examiner’s Note: There is no sufficient explanation in the SPEC for the logic of classification into two groups, and the determination on the first or the second encoding; LIU, [0063], encode the codebook indications for all sub-vectors <read on part of ‘first encoding’>; [0041], Each codebook consists of a number of code vectors. The code vector index in the codebook is represented by a number of bits <read on the other part of ‘first encoding’>; REZNIK, [0037], The codebook indices may be further encoded using a set of context-selectable Huffman codes <read on “second encoding” which is subject to BRI>).”
As per claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), LIU in view of REZNIK further discloses “wherein the control circuitry sets a sub-vector having a highest frequency in the second group as the targeted sub-vector when the number of bits available in the second group is less than a first threshold (<There is no definition/explanation of ‘highest frequency’ in the SPEC. Also see Claim 2 for ‘second group’>. LIU, [0271], Calculate the unused bits .. and distribute the unused bits to the sub-vectors having the largest energy (the selected sub-vectors)).”
As per claim 4 (dependent on claim 3), LIU in view of REZNIK further discloses “wherein the control circuitry determines to perform the first encoding when the number of bits available for the targeted sub-vector is less than a second threshold or exceeds a third threshold, and determines to perform the second encoding when the number of bits available for the targeted sub-vector is greater than or equal to the second threshold and less than or equal to the third threshold (see Claim 1 for first and second encoding. Claims 4 and 5 appear to be contradictory).”
As per claim 5 (dependent on claim 2), LIU in view of REZNIK further discloses “wherein the control circuitry determines to perform the first encoding when the number of bits available for the targeted sub-vector exceeds a threshold and determines to perform the second encoding when the number of bits available for the targeted sub-vector is less than the threshold (see Claim 1 for first and second encoding. Claims 4 and 5 appear to be contradictory).”
As per claim 6 (dependent on claim 2), LIU in view of REZNIK further discloses “wherein the control circuitry sets a position of the targeted sub-vector in encoding order to a last one of the sub-vectors included in the second group in the second encoding (LIU, [Abstract], the position of the sub-vector whose codebook indication consumes the most bits is firstly located <The applicant is requested to clarify ‘to a last one of the sub-vectors included in the second group in the second encoding’>).”
As per claim 7 (dependent on claim 5), LIU in view of REZNIK further discloses “wherein the control circuitry updates the number of available bits in accordance with a number of consecutive sub-vectors of which the quantization parameters indicate a null vector, among the sub-vectors different from the targeted sub-vector in the second group (LIU, [0266], The idea is to fully utilize the allocated bits in the vector quantization. One possible way is to utilize the unused bits to increase the codebook number for the sub vectors which have largest energies; another possible way is to utilize the unused bits to encode the sub vectors which are encoded as null vectors <The applicant is requested to clarify ‘consecutive sub-vectors .. among the sub-vectors different from the targeted sub-vector in the second group’>).”
As per claim 8 (dependent on claim 6), LIU in view of REZNIK further discloses “wherein the control circuitry adds a value obtained by subtracting a remainder of the number of available bits, divided by five, from five, to the number of available bits (see Response to Amendments and Arguments).”
As per claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), LIU in view of REZNIK further discloses “wherein the targeted sub-vector is a third sub-vector in ascending order in the frequency domain, among eight sub-vectors (see Response to Amendments and Arguments).”
As per claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), LIU in view of REZNIK further discloses “wherein the targeted sub-vector is a sub-vector having a highest frequency, among the plurality of the sub-vectors (see Claim 3. LIU, [0271], Calculate the unused bits .. and distribute the unused bits to the sub-vectors having the largest energy (the selected sub-vectors)).”
As per claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), LIU in view of REZNIK further discloses “wherein the targeted sub-vector is a sub-vector of which energy of an adaptive codebook vector is highest, among the plurality of the sub-vectors (LIU, [0271], Calculate the unused bits .. and distribute the unused bits to the sub-vectors having the largest energy (the selected sub-vectors) <read on ‘energy of an adaptive codebook vector is highest’ where strong voiced speech with the largest pitch gain, i.e., adaptive codebook vector gain, has the highest energy, as in an AVQ/CELP speech coder>).”
Claim 13 (similar in scope to claim 1) is rejected under the same rationale as applied above for claim 1.
Conclusion
4. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FENG-TZER TZENG whose telephone number is 571-272-4609. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30-5:00). The fax phone number where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-4609.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paras Shah (SPE) can be reached on 571-270-1650.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FENG-TZER TZENG/ 1/13/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653