DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered.
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 03/17/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 6-14, and 16-41 are pending and have been examined.
All previous objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the examiner.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 regarding the 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pg 17 that the claims recite specific processing operations applied to a physical audio signal rather than abstract mathematical concepts, such that a human being cannot practically perform the processes on a continuous audio stream in real-time, nor across 64 frequency bands. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these assertions, as the BRI of the claim language does not limit the claims to the interpretation described in the assertion. The claims recite an audio signal, but not the format of the audio signal. As such, the BRI of the “audio signal” includes numerical data representative of the features of any audio waves. The subsequent processes, including MDCT/MDST transformations, sum of magnitudes, and calculating scale parameters, pre-emphasis factors, and harmonicity measures, are mathematical calculations that can be performed on numerical data. Therefore, the claims are part of the mathematical calculations grouping, as they describe mathematical calculations in prose. Further, there is no claim language reciting that the data is processed in real-time, or that the data covered by the 64 frequency bands is inherently too much for a human to handle. Under the BRI of the claims as a whole, the claims are mathematical calculations in prose, where a human is capable of performing a specified series of mathematical calculations on numerical data using pen and paper, and thus are directed to the Mental Process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of Abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion on pg 18 that the claims achieve a technological improvement, the Examiner notes that the technological problem of “how to efficiently shape quantization noise without relying on computationally heavy time domain Linear Predictive Coding (LPC)” does not appear to be stated as such in the as-filed disclosure. Should the support for such an improvement be described in the disclosure, the Examiner welcomes the opportunity to further review it, and respectfully requests that the locations of any support for a technological improvement be cited in the response filed to assist in consideration of the information. In addition, there is language throughout the claims that indicates an intended result, i.e. “so that”. Removing the intended result language to make those limitations more required/explicitly claimed would strengthen the claim language as a whole when considering if the claims recite a technological improvement that integrates the claims into a practical application.
Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: converter, scale parameter, spectral processor, and scale parameter encoder in claim 1, a downsampler in claims 19 and 20, and a transmitter in claim 41.
Regarding the terms converter, scale parameter, spectral processor, scale parameter encoder, downsampler, and transmitter, the terms are generic placeholders. There is no evidence that one or ordinary skill in the art would understand the structure by looking at the terms. Further, the terms are modified by functional language, but are not modified by a sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The converter, scale parameter, spectral processor, scale parameter encoder, downsampler, and transmitter, are embodied as a processor, as per the specifications pg 54 line 13 – pg 56 line 11.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 4, 6-14, and 16-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 39, and 40, the limitation(s) of performing a transformation, calculating, processing, generating, and generate, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, as well as mathematical calculations in prose. More specifically, the mental process of performing mathematical calculations using pen and paper including a time-to-spectrum conversion calculation of numerical data, calculating a set of variables based on the numerical data, performing a calculation on the spectral domain data using the variables, where the variables are calculated using a series of specific calculations with specific input data, and writing down the spectral domain data and variables in a specific format to show to another person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, as well as mathematical calculations in prose, then it falls within the --Mental Processes—and –Mathematical Concepts-- groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of an apparatus, converter, scale parameter, spectral processor, scale parameter encoder, and output interface in claim 1, and storage unit and processor in claim 40, reads to generalized computer components, based upon the claim interpretation wherein the structure is interpreted using pg 54 line 13 – pg 56 line 11 in the specification. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generalized computer components to convert, calculate, process, generate, and generate, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4, 6-14, and 16-38, the claim(s) recite(s) different types of calculations or variables having specific features, which reads on further mathematical calculations in prose and a human performing the specified calculations using specific input values and/or resulting in specific output values. The downsampler of claims 19 and 20 reads to generalized computer components as per pg 54 line 13 – pg 56 line 11 in the specification. No additional limitations are present in the other claims.
With respect to claim(s) 41, the claim(s) recite(s) generating an encoded audio signal comprising specific information, which reads on writing out specific information for another person to read. The transmitter reads to generalized computer components as per pg 54 line 13 – pg 56 line 11 in the specification.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6-14, and 16-41 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of Ravelli (US 2020/0294518) performing MDCT processing on frames to obtain a sequence of frames corresponding to spectral representations, using a set of scale parameters or scale factors to process the spectral representations, and the scale factor calculator calculates an amplitude-related measure per band and performing a pre-emphasis operation that includes gtilt, and scale factors are quantized and packed into the bitstream. However, Ravelli does not teach a scale parameter calculator controls the pre-emphasis factor by a tilt value that increases at the increase of the frequency and by a harmonicity measure of the audio signal, where a higher value of the harmonicity measure causes a higher pre-emphasis factor than a low value of the harmonicity measure for the same frequency band, and where the harmonicity measure of the audio signal is obtained from a normalized autocorrelation measurement of the audio stream.
Subasingha (US 2015/0228288) teaches determining a harmonicity factor based on normalized autocorrelation functions for an audio frame, where a mixer determines a proportion of noise and extended signals based on the harmonicity factor. However, Subasingha does not teach a scale parameter calculator controls the pre-emphasis factor by a tilt value that increases at the increase of the frequency and by a harmonicity measure of the audio signal, where a higher value of the harmonicity measure causes a higher pre-emphasis factor than a low value of the harmonicity measure for the same frequency band, and where the harmonicity measure of the audio signal is obtained from a normalized autocorrelation measurement of the audio stream.
Markovic 1 teaches the pre-emphasis of an audio signal, however, Markovic 1 does not teach a scale parameter calculator controls the pre-emphasis factor by a tilt value that increases at the increase of the frequency and by a harmonicity measure of the audio signal, where a higher value of the harmonicity measure causes a higher pre-emphasis factor than a low value of the harmonicity measure for the same frequency band, and where the harmonicity measure of the audio signal is obtained from a normalized autocorrelation measurement of the audio stream.
Ryu teaches processing audio using MDCT and MOST coefficients, however, Ryu does not teach a scale parameter calculator controls the pre-emphasis factor by a tilt value that increases at the increase of the frequency and by a harmonicity measure of the audio signal, where a higher value of the harmonicity measure causes a higher pre-emphasis factor than a low value of the harmonicity measure for the same frequency band, and where the harmonicity measure of the audio signal is obtained from a normalized autocorrelation measurement of the audio stream.
Markovic 2 (US 2017/0133029) teaches long-term prediction and temporal flatness may be a harmonicity measure of the harmonics of the audio signal, where harmonicity may be part of a pre-filter attenuate the audio signal's spectrum at the harmonics in addition to a spectral shaper. However, Markovic 2 does not teach a scale parameter calculator controls the pre-emphasis factor by a tilt value that increases at the increase of the frequency and by a harmonicity measure of the audio signal, where a higher value of the harmonicity measure causes a higher pre-emphasis factor than a low value of the harmonicity measure for the same frequency band, and where the harmonicity measure of the audio signal is obtained from a normalized autocorrelation measurement of the audio stream.
None of Ravelli, Subasingha, Markovic 1, Ryu, and Markovic 2, either alone or in combination, teaches or makes obvious a scale parameter calculator controls the pre-emphasis factor by a tilt value that increases at the increase of the frequency and by a harmonicity measure of the audio signal, where a higher value of the harmonicity measure causes a higher pre-emphasis factor than a low value of the harmonicity measure for the same frequency band, and where the harmonicity measure of the audio signal is obtained from a normalized autocorrelation measurement of the audio stream. Therefore, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination, teaches or makes obvious the combination of limitations as recited in the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE A K SCHMIEDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571) 272-7799. 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.
/NICOLE A K SCHMIEDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659