DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 17 October 2025. Claims 1 and 4-22 are pending and have been examined. The Applicants’ amendment and remarks have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. Hence, this Action has been made FINAL.
All previous objections and rejections directed to the Applicant’s disclosure and claims not discussed in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Compact Prosecution
The examiner attempted to reach attorney Ishir Mehta but was only able to leave a voice message in a general mailbox for the law office. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner suggests incorporating steps related to “residue” into the independent claim language. The refinement stages are with respect to residue.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. The examiner also notes that the applicant’s amendments are not substantive, and the current prior art (Kandhadai et al.) reads on them. In particular the amendment “associate each partition of the plural partitions with refinement stages, each refinement stage comprising plural audio components for arranging the audio components in packets in the an order defined by magnitudes” describes nothing more than arranging the audio components in packets according to frequency magnitudes. Kandhadai et al., para [00075], explains that a speech encoder encodes a frame of speech signal as a speech packet. And, Kandhadai et al., para [00076], describes a speech encoder to calculate the ordered sequence of spectral values such that each value indicates an amplitude or magnitude of the signal at a corresponding frequency or over a corresponding spectral region.
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 1 and 4-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatuatory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20, respectively, of U.S. 11682406. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatuatory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. patent 11682406, in view of CA 2663904, hereinafter referred to as Krishnan et al. U.S. patent 11682406 does not teach “wherein the order is from highest to lowest amplitude”. Krishnan et al. is cited to disclose wherein the order is from highest to lowest amplitude (Krishnan et al., para [0029] and [0038]). Krishnan et al. incorporates a sparseness detector of the input signal to determine the best encoder option (Krishnan et al., para [0006]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to include the teachings of Krishnan et al. to arrive at the applicant’s disclosure for a wideband encoding and decoding system.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error “the an”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al.
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Kandhadai et al. discloses a device comprising:
at least one computer storage (Kandhadai et al., para [000118]) that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable (Kandhadai et al., para [000117]) by at least one processor (Kandhadai et al., para [000118]) to:
identify audio information comprising audio components (Kandhadai et al., para [0008]. Kandhadai et al. is focused on wideband encoding/decoding of speech frames, which is in the human audible range.);
generate plural partitions based on frequency components of the audio information (“FIG. 6A shows one example of a nonoverlapping frequency band scheme that may be used by a split-band speech encoder to encode wideband speech content across a range of from 0 Hz to 8 kHz. This scheme includes a first frequency band that extends from 0 Hz to 4 kHz (also called a narrowband range) and a second frequency band that extends from 4 to 8 kHz (also called an extended, upper, or high band range),” Kandhadai et al., para [00086]. Here, the first frequency band is one partition of the audio, and the second frequency band is another partition of the audio.);
associate each partition of the plural partitions with refinement stages, each refinement stage comprising plural audio components for arranging the audio components in packets in the an order defined by magnitudes (Kandhadai et al., para [00075], explains that a speech encoder encodes a frame of speech signal as a speech packet. And, Kandhadai et al., para [00076], describes a speech encoder to calculate the ordered sequence of spectral values such that each value indicates an amplitude or magnitude of the signal at a corresponding frequency or over a corresponding spectral region.); and
arrange the audio components in packets in the order defined by magnitudes (Kandhadai et al., para [0009], describes a packet encoder and a frame formatter. Kandhadai et al., para [00075], explains that a speech encoder encodes a frame of speech signal as a speech packet. Kandhadai et al., para [00076], describes a speech encoder to calculate the ordered sequence of spectral values such that each value indicates an amplitude or magnitude of the signal at a corresponding frequency or over a corresponding spectral region.)
Claim 2 and 3 canceled.
Regarding claim 4 (original), Kandhadai et al. discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:
determine at least one envelope of a spectrum of the audio information (Kandhadai et al., para [0008]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 8 (original), Kandhadai et al. discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the audio components are frequency components (Kandhadai et al., para [00076]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al., in view of US 20210398547, hereinafter referred to as Beack et al.
Regarding claim 5 (currently amended), Kandhadai et al. discloses the device of Claim 4, but not wherein the instructions are executable to:
subtract the envelope from the spectrum to establish a residue; and
partition the residue by frequency to establish the plural partitions.
Beack et al. is cited to disclose subtract the envelope from the spectrum to establish a residue (“In Equation 6, A(k) denotes an index of audio samples of an original block corresponding to the k-th sub-band. Also, the encoder 101 determines an absolute value of an audio signal X.sub.f[A(k):A(k+1)] corresponding to the k-th sub-band in the combined block converted into the frequency domain. The encoder 101 may calculate a difference between the determined absolute value and a frequency envelope env.sub.fd(k) corresponding to the k-th sub-band, thereby obtaining an absolute value of a first residual signal res.sub.tdlp,f(A(k):A(k+1)) of the frequency domain corresponding to the k-th sub-band,” Beack et al., para [0080].);
partition the residue by frequency to establish plural partitions (Beack et al., para [0080].). Beack et al. benefits Kandhadai et al. by providing a method for reducing noise in the quantization process (Beack et al., para [0005]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kandhadai et al. with those of Beack et al. to improve the wideband encoding and decoding of Kandhadai et al.
Regarding claim 7 (original), Kandhadai et al. discloses the device of Claim 5, wherein the instructions are executable to: identify in the packets the respective audio components by respective partition identification (Beack et al., para [0080].).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al., in view of CA 2663904, hereinafter referred to as Krishnan et al.
Regarding claim 6 (currently amended), Kandhadai et al. discloses the device of Claim 1, but not wherein the order is from highest to lowest magnitude. Krishnan et al. is cited to disclose wherein the order is from highest to lowest magnitude (Krishnan et al., para [0029], explains that a frame may also be referred to as a packet. And, Krishnan et al., para [0038], specifies that unit 214 may sort the N residual energy values in descending order.). Krishnan et al. benefits Kandhadai et al. by incorporating a sparseness detector of the input signal to determine the best encoder option (Krishnan et al., para [0006]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kandhadai et al. with those of Krishnan et al. to improve the wideband encoding and decoding of Kandhadai et al.
Claim(s) 9-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al., in view of WO2011121782A1, hereinafter referred to as Fujitsu.
Regarding claim 9 (currently amended), Kandhadai et al. discloses a device comprising:
at least one computer storage (Kandhadai et al., para [000118]) that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable (Kandhadai et al., para [000117]) by at least one processor (Kandhadai et al., para [000118]) to:
receive audio information in packets, the audio information comprising audio components (Kandhadai et al., fig. 26A, shows the receipt of audio information contained in packets.);
generate plural partitions based on frequency components of the audio information (“FIG. 6A shows one example of a nonoverlapping frequency band scheme that may be used by a split-band speech encoder to encode wideband speech content across a range of from 0 Hz to 8 kHz. This scheme includes a first frequency band that extends from 0 Hz to 4 kHz (also called a narrowband range) and a second frequency band that extends from 4 to 8 kHz (also called an extended, upper, or high band range),” Kandhadai et al., para [00086]. Here, the first frequency band is one partition of the audio, and the second frequency band is another partition of the audio.);
associate each partition of the plural partitions with refinement stages, each refinement stage comprising plural audio components for arranging the audio components in packets in the an order defined by magnitudes (Kandhadai et al., para [00075], explains that a speech encoder encodes a frame of speech signal as a speech packet. And, Kandhadai et al., para [00076], describes a speech encoder to calculate the ordered sequence of spectral values such that each value indicates an amplitude or magnitude of the signal at a corresponding frequency or over a corresponding spectral region.).
Kandhadai et al., though, does not disclose processing audio components in the first packets with amplitudes above a threshold; and not processing audio components in the first packets with amplitudes below the threshold.
Fujitsu is cited to disclose processing audio components in the first packets with amplitudes above a threshold (“For example, by generating a folded signal of a digitally converted signal and switching the low pass filter with a low cut-off frequency in the voiced interval and a high cut-off frequency in the unvoiced interval, band limitation of the return signal is performed, thereby enabling higher frequencies in the unvoiced sound interval There is a technology that extends the bandwidth to In addition, a sound source waveform is generated from a narrowband signal, a low-frequency signal obtained by low-pass filter processing using the lower limit frequency of the narrowband as a cutoff frequency, and the period and amplitude information of the narrowband signal, and obtained by high-pass filter processing. There is a technique for obtaining a wideband audio signal by adding a high frequency band signal and an unvoiced high frequency component signal. In addition, the fundamental frequency of the narrowband signal is extracted, a linear prediction residual signal is obtained by linear prediction analysis of the narrowband signal, and this linear prediction residual signal is shifted in the frequency axis direction by an integral multiple of the fundamental frequency to obtain a linear prediction residual signal. There is a technique for obtaining a wideband audio signal by obtaining a band-expanded signal by predictive synthesis and adding the narrowband signal and the band-expanded signal,” Fujitsu, Description, 1st para. Here, the audio components above the high-pass cut-off (threshold) are processed.); and
not process audio components in the first packets with magnitudes amplitudes below the threshold (Fujitsu, Description, 1st para. The audio components below the high-pass cut-off (threshold) are not processed.). Fujitsu benefits Kandhadai et al. by removing undesirous frequencies from the bandwidth extension (Fujitsu, Description, 1st para), thereby enabling high-quality sound to be reproduced. Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kandhadai et al. with those of Fujitsu to improve the wideband encoding and decoding of Kandhadai et al.
Regarding claim 10 (original), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu, discloses the device of Claim 9, comprising the at least one processor (Kandhadai et al., para [000118]).
Regarding claim 11 (original), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu, discloses the device of Claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is implemented in a receiver of audio (Kandhadai et al., para [000117] and [000154].).
Regarding claim 12 (original), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu, discloses the device of Claim 9, wherein the audio components are frequency components (Kandhadai et al., para [00076]).
Regarding claim 13 (currently amended), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu, discloses the device of Claim 9, wherein the threshold has a first value for of the packets and a second value for a second packet of the packets different from the first packet and comprising audio components of the audio information (Fujitsu, Description, 1st para. The speech includes voiced and unvoiced speech characteristics which are encoded as frames/packets accordingly. Thus, a packet comprising an unvoiced high frequency component will be processed using the highpass filter cut-off, while a packet comprising a voice lower frequency component will be processed using the lowpass filter cut-off.).
Regarding claim 14 (currently amended), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu, discloses the device of Claim 9, wherein the instructions are executable to:
not process audio components in the magnitudes below the threshold by not decoding the audio components in the magnitudes below the threshold (Fujitsu, Description, 1st para. If the audio components of the first packets are below the cut-off (threshold), they are not decoded.).
Regarding claim 18 (original), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu, discloses the device of Claim 9, wherein the instructions are executable to:
establish the threshold based at least in part on an attenuation zone of at least one low pass filter (“For example, by generating a folded signal of a digitally converted signal and switching the low pass filter with a low cut-off frequency in the voiced interval and a high cut-off frequency in the unvoiced interval, band limitation of the return signal is performed, thereby enabling higher frequencies in the unvoiced sound interval There is a technology that extends the bandwidth to In addition, a sound source waveform is generated from a narrowband signal, a low-frequency signal obtained by low-pass filter processing using the lower limit frequency of the narrowband as a cutoff frequency, and the period and amplitude information of the narrowband signal, and obtained by high-pass filter processing,” Fujitsu, Description, 1st para.).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al., in view of WO2011121782A1, hereinafter referred to as Fujitsu, and further in view of US 20220180881, hereinafter referred to as Xiao et al.
Regarding claim 15 (currently amended), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu, discloses the device of Claim 9, but not wherein the instructions are executable to: not process audio components in the magnitudes below the threshold by not rendering on at least one audio speaker the audio components in the magnitudes below the threshold.
Xiao et al. is cited to disclose not processing audio components in the first packets with magnitudes amplitudes below the threshold by not rendering on at least one audio speaker the audio components in the first packets with magnitudes amplitudes below the threshold (Xiao et al., fig. 3, shows that the encoder encodes low-frequency and high-frequency subband signals, thus not processing the cut-off audio component frequencies into packets.). Xiao et al. benefits Kandhadai et al. by not processing extraneous frequencies at the encoder (Xiao et al., fig. 3), thereby saving processing load. Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kandhadai et al. with those of Xiao et al. to improve the wideband encoding and decoding of Kandhadai et al.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al., in view of WO2011121782A1, hereinafter referred to as Fujitsu, and further in view of US 20090097676, hereinafter referred to as Steefeldt.
Regarding claim 16 (original), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu, discloses the device of Claim 9, but not wherein the instructions are executable to: establish the threshold based at least in part on a demanded loudness of audio.
Seefeldt is cited to disclose establishing the threshold based at least in part on a demanded loudness of audio (“As mentioned above, in each of the FIG. 1-4 examples, the modification parameters M, when applied to the audio signal by the Audio Signal Modifier 2, reduce the difference between the specific loudness or the partial specific loudness of the resulting modified audio and the target specific loudness. Ideally, the specific loudness of the modified audio signal closely approximates or is the same as the target specific loudness. The modification parameters M may, for example, take the form of time-varying gain factors applied to the frequency bands derived from a filterbank or to the coefficients of a time-varying filter. Accordingly, in all of the FIG. 1-4 examples, Modify Audio Signal 2 may be implemented as, for example, a plurality of amplitude scalers, each operating in a frequency band, or a time-varying filter (e.g., a multitapped FIR filter or a multipole IIR filter),” Seefeldt, para [0089].). Seefeldt benefits Kandhadai et al. by controlling perceived sound loudness (Seefeldt, Abstract), thereby enhancing the user listening experience. Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kandhadai et al. with those of Seefeldt to improve the wideband encoding and decoding quality of Kandhadai et al.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al., in view of WO2011121782A1, hereinafter referred to as Fujitsu, and further in view of US RE40281, hereinafter referred to as Tzannes et al.
Regarding claim 17 (original), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu, discloses the device of Claim 9, but not wherein the instructions are executable to: establish the threshold based at least in part on a workload of the at least one processor.
Tzannes et al. is cited to disclose 22establishing the threshold based at least in part on a workload of the at least one processor (“It should also be noted that the computational workload inherent in decompressing a particular piece of audio material varies during the material. For example, the high-frequency filtered sampled may only have a significant amplitude during pans of the sound track. When the high-frequency components are not present or sufficiently small to be replaced by zeros without introducing noticeable distortions, the computational workload can be reduced by not performing the corresponding multiplications and additions. When the high-frequency components are large, e.g., during attacks, the computational workload is much higher,” Kandhadai et al., col. 18, lines 55-65.). Tzannes et al. benefits Kandhadai et al. by employing strategies to reduce computational workload (Tzannes et al., col. 18, lines 55-65). Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kandhadai et al. with those of Tzannes et al. to improve the wideband encoding and decoding efficiency of Kandhadai et al.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al., in view of WO2011121782A1, hereinafter referred to as Fujitsu, and further in view of US 10062389, hereinafter referred to as Kawashima et al.
Regarding claim 19 (currently amended), Kandhadai et al. discloses a method, comprising:
delivering audio in packets to a receiver, wherein components of audio in each packet are sorted in a frequency domain based on refinement stage partitions and magnitude (Kandhadai et al., para [0009], describes a packet encoder and a frame formatter. Kandhadai et al., para [00075], explains that a speech encoder encodes a frame of speech signal as a speech packet. Kandhadai et al., para [00076], describes a speech encoder to calculate the ordered sequence of spectral values such that each value indicates an amplitude or magnitude of the signal at a corresponding frequency.);
determining audio components of the packets (Kandhadai et al., fig. 26A, shows the receipt of audio information contained in packets and speech is determined from the audio components of the packets.).
Kandhadai et al., though, does not disclose dynamically establishing an elimination threshold magnitudes below the threshold while processing components having magnitudes above the threshold.
Kawashima et al. discloses dynamically establishing an elimination threshold
eliminating from processing components having magnitudes below the threshold while processing components having magnitudes above the threshold (Kawashima et al., fig. 14(601).). Kawashima et al. benefits Kandhadai et al. by dynamically adjusting the elimination threshold (Kawashima et al., fig. 14(601)), thereby continually updating the audio spectrum for decoding. Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kandhadai et al. with those of Kawashima et al. to improve the wideband encoding and decoding of Kandhadai et al.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al., in view of WO2011121782A1, hereinafter referred to as Fujitsu, and further in view of CN 106256000, hereinafter referred to as Ramadas et al.
Regarding claim 20 (original), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Kawashima et al., discloses the method of Claim 19, but not wherein the audio is computer game audio.
Ramadas et al. is cited to disclose wherein the audio is computer game audio (“Device 900 may include a mobile communication device, a smart phone, a cellular telephone, a laptop computer, a computer, a tablet computer, a personal digital assistant, a display device, a television, a game machine, a music player, a radio, a digital video player, a digital video disc (DVD) player, a tuner, a camera, a navigation device, a decoder system, the encoder system or any combination thereof,” Ramadas et al., p.21, highlighted portion.). Ramadas et al. benefits Kandhadai et al. by providing examples of incorporating the described high-band excitation techniques in practical systems (Ramadas et al., p. 21, highlighted portion). Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kandhadai et al. with those of Ramadas et al. to improve the wideband encoding and decoding applications of Kandhadai et al.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al., in view of WO2011121782A1, hereinafter referred to as Fujitsu., and further in view of CA 2663904, hereinafter referred to as Krishnan et al.
Regarding claim 21 (currently amended), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu, discloses the device of Claim 9, but not wherein the order is from highest to lowest magnitude. Krishnan et al. is cited to disclose wherein the order is from highest to lowest amplitude (Krishnan et al., para [0029], explains that a frame may also be referred to as a packet. And, Krishnan et al., para [0038], specifies that unit 214 may sort the N residual energy values in descending order.). Krishnan et al. benefits Kandhadai et al. by incorporating a sparseness detector of the input signal to determine the best encoder option (Krishnan et al., para [0006]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kandhadai et al. with those of Krishnan et al. to improve the wideband encoding and decoding of Kandhadai et al.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2767327, hereinafter referred to as Kandhadai et al., in view of WO2011121782A1, hereinafter referred to as Fujitsu, further in view of US 10062389, hereinafter referred to as Kawashima et al., and further in view of CA 2663904, hereinafter referred to as Krishnan et al.
Regarding claim 22 (previously presented), Kandhadai et al., as modified by Fujitsu and Kawashima et al., discloses the device of Claim 19, but not wherein the components of audio in each packet are sorted by magnitudes from highest to lowest amplitude. Krishnan et al. is cited to disclose wherein the components of audio in each packet are sorted by magnitudes from highest to lowest amplitude (Krishnan et al., para [0029], explains that a frame may also be referred to as a packet. And, Krishnan et al., para [0038], specifies that unit 214 may sort the N residual energy values in descending order.). Krishnan et al. benefits Kandhadai et al. by incorporating a sparseness detector of the input signal to determine the best encoder option (Krishnan et al., para [0006]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kandhadai et al. with those of Krishnan et al. to improve the wideband encoding and decoding of Kandhadai et al.
Conclusion
The examiner has cited several other references on form PTO-892.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE L THOMAS-HOMESCU whose telephone number is (571)272-0899. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 5712727453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ANNE L THOMAS-HOMESCU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656