DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments, filed 07/21/2025, have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are pending. Claim 13 is cancelled, and as a result, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the reasons sets forth below.
Applicant states, “the present application describes that data-driven advance “means that when new data arrives, data already in the filter buffer advance by position. i.e., when no new data arrive, those already in the filter buffer remain in their current position.” Specification, pg. 4, lines 14-16. In contrast, as disclosed in Anderson, providing feedback to effectively adjust the estimated samples rate by the filter management unit in order to avoid buffer overflow does not align with the meaning of data-driven advance.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Anderson discloses samples of an audio data stream are received and stored in FIFO buffer. The function of “when new data arrives, data already in the filter buffer advance by position. Le., when no new data arrive, those already in the filter buffer remain in their current position” is a characteristics of FIFO buffer. The data that is entered into the buffer first, will be out first when new data arrives. If there is no new data, the data that is already entered in the FIFO buffer remains in the buffer. Therefore, Anderson discloses the present application’s “data driven advance” as recited.
Applicant states, “Anderson describes that data in the filter buffer are transferred to a convolution unit to convolve the interpolated polyphase filter coefficients with the data samples to produce re-sampled data. As such, filtering is not carried out in the input buffer, but rather in a separate unit (i.e., the convolution unit). Thus, Anderson fails to disclose a filter buffer in which the filter buffer data are directly combined to produce output data as a part of low-pass filtering, as required by the independent claims.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it should be noted that Anderson discloses “rate estimator, data interface and buffer may be incorporated into the sample rate converter” (see col. 5 lines 1-2). Hence, Anderson is capable of incorporating the buffer into the sample rate convertor. Furthermore, Anderson discloses the conversion of the audio data comprises storing the received audio data in a buffer, up sampling the audio data to an intermediate sample rate and down sampling the audio data to the output sample rate” (see col. 2 lines 44-48), i.e., the prior art discloses upsampling and downsampling the audio data in the buffer. In addition, Anderson in col. 2 lines 33-38 discloses “the input sample rate is determined by counting a number of samples received in a time interval. Hence, the rate is determined by the total number of samples in a specific time interval. Furthermore, the prior art discloses ‘the count may be low-pass filtered to reduce variations.” Therefore, the Examiner believes Anderson discloses ‘carrying out filtering in the input buffer.’
Therefore, in view of the above, the Examiner believes the applied prior art still teaches the invention because of the reasons stated above and as stated in the detail office action below.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US Pat. No. 7, 738, 613 hereinafter referred as Anderson).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a method for conversion of data, the method comprising:
receiving a number of asynchronously incoming data packets, wherein the data packets include input data with a first sample rate (see col. 2 lines 29-48 receiving audio data as a packetized data on a first input line and receiving data, such as pulses or bits, on a second input line; an input sample rate is estimated for the received audio data; see col. 4 lines 16-23 receiving data packets in intervals);
assigning the input data to positions in a filter buffer based on the first sample rate (see col. 2 lines 44-48 storing the received audio data in a buffer, see col. 4 lines 58-64 bursts of data forwarded to input buffer; see col. 7 lines 16-25 audio data stored in an input FIFO); and
combining the input data based on respective positions of the input data in the filter buffer to form output data with a defined second sample rate in course of a low-pass filtering, wherein the input data in the filter buffer advance on a position-by-position and data- driven basis (see col. 7 lines 3-7 achieving different sampling rate; see col. 7 line 48-col. 8 line 14 reading the data out of the buffer at appropriate rate; reconstruct the timing of the received audio data; see col. 8 lines 38-48 adjust sample rate; see col. 8 line 59-col. 9 line 15). See also the response above.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses the input data include samples according to the first sample rate, wherein the samples of input data are assigned based on the first sample rate to a respective position in the filter buffer; and combining the input data is based on the respective positions of the samples in the filter buffer (see abstract, col. 2 lines 48-66 and col. 7 lines 3-47).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson discloses the input data and output data include audio data or video data (see col. 4 lines 24-31).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson discloses the audio data include sample rates of
44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz or 192 kHz (see col. 4 lines 24-31).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses assigning adjustable filter coefficients to the positions of the filter buffer for low-pass filtering (see col. 8 lines 38-48).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson discloses the low-pass-filtering is performed using a finite impulse response (FIR) filter (see col. 6 lines 59-65).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson discloses the buffer filter is dimensioned to buffer at least 20 ms of the input (see col. 7 lines 14-38 and col. 5 lines 33-47).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses the input data are temporarily buffered in a pre-sorted before entering the filter buffer, wherein the pre-buffer is smaller than the filter buffer in memory size (see col. 2 lines 49-63; col. 7 lines 16-25 and col. 8 lines 38-48).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson discloses the filter buffer is designed to be simultaneously read from and written to (see col. 7 lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson discloses a conversion device for the conversion of data comprising an input interface configured to recive a number of asynchronously incoming data packets, wherein the data packets include input data with a first sample rate (see col. 2 lines 29-48 receiving audio data as a packetized data on a first input line and receiving data, such as pulses or bits, on a second input line; an input sample rate is estimated for the received audio data; see col. 4 lines 16-23 receiving data packets in intervals);
a filter buffer configured to assign the input data to positions in the filter buffer based on the first sample rate, wherein the input data advance on a position-by-position and data-driven basis (see col. 2 lines 44-48 storing the received audio data in a buffer, see col. 4 lines 58-64 bursts of data forwarded to input buffer; see col. 7 lines 16-25 audio data stored in an input FIFO); and
a low-pass filter configured to combine the input data based on respective positions of the input data in the filter buffer to form output data with a defined second sample rate (see col. 7 lines 3-7 achieving different sampling rate; see col. 7 line 48-col. 8 line 14 reading the data out of the buffer at appropriate rate; reconstruct the timing of the received audio data; see col. 8 lines 38-48 adjust sample rate; see col. 8 line 59-col. 9 line 15).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson discloses a system for the transmission of data, the system comprising: an asynchronous data network; and a conversion device according to claim 11, wherein the conversion device receives and converts data packets from the data network (see the rejection of claim 11, see abstract, figures 4, 5 and col. 2 lines 31-48).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson discloses assigning filter coefficients to the positions of the filter buffer for low-pass filtering (see col. 8 lines 38-48).
Regarding claim 15, Anderson discloses wherein the low-pass-filtering is performed using an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter (see col. 8 lines 59-66).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson discloses the filter buffer is dimensioned to buffer at least 5 ms of the input data (see col. 5 lines 33-62 and col. 7 lines 14-38).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson discloses the filter buffer is dimensioned to buffer at least 10 ms of the input data (see col. 5 lines 33-62 and col. 7 lines 14-38).
Regarding claim 18, Anderson discloses the filter buffer is dimensioned to buffer at least 15 ms of the input data (see col. 5 lines 33-62 and col. 7 lines 14-38).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson discloses the input data, before entering the filter buffer, are temporarily buffered in a pre-buffer, wherein the pre-buffer is smaller than the filter buffer (see col. 2 lines 49-63; col. 7 lines 16-25 and col. 8 lines 38-48).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Pat. No. 7, 738, 613).
Regarding claim 5, although Anderson discloses the data comprise sample rates of 25 Hz, 50 Hz, 59.94 Hz, 100 Hz, or 119.88 Hz; Anderson fails to specifically disclose the data is video data.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of video and audio reproduction to input packetized video data and the video data having sample rates of 25 Hz, 50 Hz, 59.94 Hz, 100 Hz, or 119.88 Hz. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include video data with those sample rates in order to define how many individual frames are displayed per second and to identify the smoothness of motion in video.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571 272 7382. 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 October 29, 2025