DETAILED ACTION
Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 4
II. Priority 4
III. Pertinent Prosecution History 4
IV. Reissue Requirements 5
V. Claim Status 6
VI. Information Disclosure Statement 6
VII. Oath/Declaration 7
VIII. Specification Objections 8
IX. Claim Objections 9
X. Claim Interpretation 11
A. Lexicographic Definitions 11
B. 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph 12
C. 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation' 12
(1) Tonality 13
XI. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112 14
A. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph 14
XII. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 251 18
A. Oath/Declaration 18
XIII. Double Patenting 18
A. U.S. Patent No. 7,983,922 19
B. U.S. Patent No. 8,532,999 24
C. U.S. Application No. 18/390,273 28
D. U.S. Application No. 18/390,294 32
E. U.S. Application No. 18/390,326 36
F. U.S. Application No. 18/390,344 39
G. U.S. Application No. 18/390,362 43
H. U.S. Application No. 18/390,383 46
I. U.S. Application No. 18/390,417 50
J. U.S. Application No. 18/390,451 53
K. U.S. Application No. 18/390,490 57
XIV. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 60
A. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Faller et al., “Binary Cue Coding Applied to Stereo and Multi-Channel Audio Compression”, Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5574 (“Faller”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”). 61
B. Claims 6, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faller et al., “Binary Cue Coding Applied to Stereo and Multi-Channel Audio Compression”, Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5574 (“Faller”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16, 19 and 21-23 above, and in further view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”). 77
XV. Conclusion 81
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Priority
Applicant filed the instant reissue application 18/390,251 (“‘251 Reissue Application”) on 20 December 2023 for U.S. Application No. 10/883,538 (“‘538 Application”), filed 30 June 2004, now U.S. Patent No. 8,843,378 (“‘378 Patent”), issued 23 September 23 2014.
Pertinent Prosecution History
As set forth supra, Applicant filed the application for the instant ‘251 Reissue Application on 20 December 2023. The Examiner finds that the instant ‘251 Reissue Application included a preliminary amendment (“Dec 2023 Preliminary Amendment”). The Dec 2023 Preliminary Amendment provided a Specification Amendment (“Dec 2023 Spec Amendment”) and a Claim Amendment (“Dec 2023 Claim Amendment”).
Reissue Requirements
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the ‘197 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, post-grant proceedings and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
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.
The Examiner notes that Amendment practice for Reissue Applications is NOT the same as for non-provisional applications. See MPEP §§ 1413 and 1453. Reissue application amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.173, while non-provisional application amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.121. Particularly,
Manner of making amendments under 37 CFR 1.173:
All markings (underlining and bracketing) are made relative to the original patent text, 37 CFR 1.173(g) (and not relative to the prior amendment).
For amendments to the abstract, specification and claims, the deleted matter must be enclosed in brackets, and the added matter must be underlined. See 37 CFR 1.173(d).
For amendments to the drawings, any changes to a patent drawing must be submitted as a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document. Any replacement sheet of drawings must be in compliance with § 1.84 and shall include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Amended figures must be identified as "Amended," and any added figure must be identified as "New." In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be surrounded by brackets and identified as "Canceled." All changes to the drawing(s) shall be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet accompanying the papers including the amendment to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.173(d)(3).
The Examiner further notes that all amendments to the instant ‘251 Reissue Application must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Claim Status
The Examiner finds that the claim status in the instant ‘251 Reissue Application is as follows:
Claim(s) 1 and 23 (Original and Amended)
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6-11, 14-16 and 19-22 (Original)
Claim(s) 2, 5, 12, 13, 17 and 18 (Original and Canceled)
Thus, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 14-16 and 19-23 are pending in the instant ‘251 Reissue Application. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 14-16 and 19-23 are examined (“Examined Claims”).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed 07 March 2024 (Mar 2024 IDS Statement”) has been received and entered into the record. Since the Information Disclosure Statement complies with the provisions of MPEP § 609, the references cited therein have been considered by the Examiner. See attached form PTO-1449. The Examiner finds that all of the Non-Patent Literature (NPL) cited on the Mar 2024 IDS Statement is filed in the underlying ‘538 Application.
Oath/Declaration
The Examiner finds that the Declaration filed by Applicant on 07 March 2024 (“Mar 2024 Oath/Declaration”) is defective because of the following:
The Examiner finds that the Mar 2024 Oath/Declaration is defective because it indicates that the ‘538 Application of the ‘378 Patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46. The Examiner finds that this is incorrect because the original ‘538 Application was filed 30 June 2004, which is not after 16 September 2012, and there was no mechanism to file the original ‘538 Application under 37 CFR 1.46 at that time.
In addition, the Examiner finds that the Mar 2024 Oath/Declaration is defective because it includes a “Statement of Status and Support of Claims.” (Mar 2024 Oath/Declaration at 5-6). The Examiner finds that the “Statement of Status and Support of Claims” should not be included in the Mar 2024 Oath/Declaration and should instead be filed as a separate submission.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In c.12, ll.35-40, the disclosure to “When, however, the tonality determination means determines that a certain frequency band of a actual time portion of the input signal, i.e., a certain frequency band of an input signal portion to be processed has a tonality lower than the specified threshold, i.e., is transient, the switch is actuated such that the smoothing filter 10a is by-passed” should instead read – When, however, the tonality determination means determines that a certain frequency band of an actual time portion of the input signal, i.e., a certain frequency band of an input signal portion to be processed has a tonality lower than the specified threshold, i.e., is transient, the switch is actuated such that the smoothing filter 10a is by-passed. –
In addition, the Dec 2023 Spec Amendment is objected to because each reissue application related to the ‘378 Patent is listed as “XX/XX,XXX” and should instead be listed as the actual reissue application number(s). In addition, the Dec 2023 Spec Amendment states “The reissue applications are application numbers … all of which are continuation reissues of Patent No. 8,843,378.” The Examiner finds that this statement is incorrect and should instead state – all of which are reissues of Patent No. 8,843,378. –
Moreover, the Examiner finds that the Examined Claims are verbatim copy of verbiage from the ‘378 Patent. (Compare claim 1 with ‘378 Patent at c.7, ll.18-39; and claim 23 with c.7, ll.41-59). As set forth below, the Examiner finds that the claim are replete with 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, issues. Thus, the Specification is objected to in light of the indefinite issues listed below. (See § XI.A, infra). Thus, any amendment to the claims to resolve the indefinite issue above must be made to the Specification of the ‘378 Patent as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
MPEP § 1453 states,
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(c), each claim amendment must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the amendment (i.e., support for all changes made in the claim(s), whether insertions or deletions). The failure to submit an explanation will generally result in a notification to applicant that the amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive (see 37 CFR 1.135(c)).
(MPEP § 1453; emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Applicant has not provided sufficient explanation of support for at least the amendments to claims instantly provided in the Dec 2023 Claim Amendment, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.173(c). (Id.) While the Dec 2023 Preliminary Amendment provides direction for the Examiner to find support for the claim amendments, the Examiner finds that the direction is not sufficient. Specifically, the Examiner finds that appropriate explanation of support in accordance with Rule 1.173(c) – with reference to particular passages and/or figures in the specification, and preferably on a claim-by-claim and limitation-by-limitation basis – is required. (Emphasis added).
Moreover, 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.
In order to present different versions of a patented claim (e.g., claim 1) in multiple reissue applications of a family, applicant should present a first version as claim 1 in the first reissue application, and in the second (and all subsequent) reissue application include claim 1 as canceled, while including the second version as a new claim having a claim number starting with the next claim after the highest patented claim (in this case, claim 24).
For additional guidance, see the example presented in MPEP §§ 1451(I) and (II).
In addition, the claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 5-6, “… using a inverse quantizer…” should read – … using an inverse quantizer… –.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “… postprocessor is…” should read – … post processor is … –.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, 6 “… postprocessed…” should read – … post processed … –.
Claim Interpretation
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, MPEP § 2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP § 2111.01(II). Therefore, unless one of the exceptions applies below, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Lexicographic Definitions
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. (See MPEP § 2111.01(IV)). After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner finds that he is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not his/her own lexicographer. (Id.)
35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph
A second exception to giving words in the claims their ordinary and customary meaning is when a claimed phrase is interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th paragraph. See MPEP § 2181 et seq.
The Examiner finds that because the Examined Claims do not recite “step,” “means” or a claim term used as a substitution for “means” (i.e. a generic placeholder for “means”), the Examined Claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181. Because the seventeen (17) Examined Claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181 I., the Examiner concludes that all Examined Claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph. See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential).
'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation'
For terms not lexicographically defined by Applicant, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how he is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language.1 In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Morris”), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support his interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
Tonality
The Examiner finds that the ‘378 Patent states,
The signal analyser 16 is formed from a tonality determination unit 16a and a subsequent thresholding device 16b. Additionally, the reconstruction parameter post processor 10 from FIG. 2 includes a smoothing filter 10a and a post processor switch 10b. The post processor switch 10b is operative to be controlled by the thresholding device 16b so that the switch is actuated, when the thresholding device 16b determines that a certain signal characteristic of the input signal such as the tonality characteristic is in a predetermined relation to a certain specified threshold. In the present case, the situation is such that the switch is actuated to be in the upper position (as shown in FIG. 3), when the tonality of a signal portion of the input signal, and, in particular, a certain frequency band of a certain time portion of the input signal has a tonality above a tonality threshold. In this case, the switch 10b is actuated to connect the output of the smoothing filter 10a to the input of the multi-channel reconstructor 12 so that post processed, but not yet inversely quantized inter-channel differences are supplied to the decoder/multi-channel reconstructor/up-mixer 12.
When, however, the tonality determination means determines that a certain frequency band of a[n] actual time portion of the input signal, i.e., a certain frequency band of an input signal portion to be processed has a tonality lower than the specified threshold, i.e., is transient, the switch is actuated such that the smoothing filter 10a is by-passed.
In the latter case, the signal-adaptive post processing by the smoothing filter 10a makes sure that the reconstruction parameter changes for transient signals pass the post processing stage unmodified and result in fast changes in the reconstructed output signal with respect to the spatial image, which corresponds to real situations with a high degree of probability for transient signal
(‘378 Patent at c.12, ll.15-47; emphasis added; also see Figures 2, 3). However, in examination of the citations from the ‘378 Patent above, the Examiner finds insufficient disclosure to what exactly “tonality” is, only that it is determined. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Baumgarte (U.S. Patent No. 7,333,930) states,
… Among other techniques, most known methods make a distinction between tone-like and noise-like components of the audio signal, referred to herein as “tonality.”…
(Baumgarte at c.1, ll.36-47).
From this perspective, the Examiner first finds that the “tonality” is simply a distinction between tone-like and noise-like components of an audio signal.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph
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 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 14-16 and 19-23 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.
With respect to the limitations of claims 1 and 23, the Examiner finds that claims 1 and 23 recite the limitations,
… and being associated with subsequent time portions of the input channel…;
… to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed…;
… the time portion of the input signal to be processed…; and
… reconstructing a time portion of the number of synthesized output channels using the time portion of the input channel…
… is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal
(July 2023 Claim Amendment at claim 1 and 23; emphasis added). The Examiner finds that further dependent claims recite the limitation “…time portion of the input signal….” (Id. at claims 5, 11, 12; also see claims that include “the time portion to be processed” which should either include input channel/signal). Since a channel is simply a carrier for a signal (‘378 Patent at c.2, ll.19-30), the Examiner finds it unclear and indefinite to how an input channel would have a time portion and/or subsequent time portions. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate or provide proper antecedent basis for the claim requirements.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that the ‘378 Patent is replete with the same issue. Thus, any amendment to the claims to resolve the indefinite issue above should be made to the Specification of the ‘378 Patent as well.
Claims 3, 4, 6-11, 14-17 and 19-22 are rejected in light of their dependency from at least independent claim 1.
Similarly, with respect to the limitations of claims 1 and 23, the Examiner finds that claims 1 and 23 recite the limitation,
the input signal having at least one input channel and a sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters, the quantized reconstruction parameters being quantized in accordance with a quantization rule
(July 2023 Claim Amendment at claim 1 and 23; emphasis added). The Examiner finds that further dependent claims recite the limitations “the quantized reconstruction parameter” and “the quantized reconstruction parameters.” It is unclear and indefinite to what the exact relationship is between “a sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters,” “the quantized reconstruction parameter” and “the quantized reconstruction parameters” recited in the claims. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate or provide proper antecedent basis for the claim requirements.
Claims 3, 4, 6-11, 14-17 and 19-22 are rejected in light of their dependency from at least independent claim 1.
In addition, with respect to the limitations of claims 1, 3, 14 and 23, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 3 and 14 recite the limitations,
an input signal analyser for analysing…;
… the input signal analyzer…;
… the input signal analyser…; and
… the input channel analyser…; and
(July 2023 Claim Amendment at claims 1, 3 and 14, emphasis added). Similarly, the Examiner finds that claim 23 recites the limitations,
analysing the input signal…; and
… determined by the analyzing….
(Id. at claim 23, emphasis added). It is unclear and indefinite to whether these structures and/or steps are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate or provide proper antecedent basis for the claim requirements.
Claims 3,4, 6-11, 14-17 and 19-22 are rejected in light of their dependency from at least independent claim 1.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 2 and claim 2 has been canceled. Similarly, claim 22 is dependent on claim 17 and claim 17 has been canceled. It is unclear and indefinite to which claim claims 14 and 22 are dependent from. Further clarification is required to provide proper antecedent basis for these claims.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the input signal” in lines 9-10, 29; “the input signal analyser” in lines 26, 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
In general, the claims are replete with such 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph issues. The above notes are exemplary with respect to all of the 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejections present in the instant case, all claims must be carefully reviewed and appropriate corrections should be made in response to this rejection.
The Examiner finds that because claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 14-16 and 19-23 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112 second paragraph as outlined above, it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time. See e.g. Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”). However, in accordance with MPEP § 2173.06 and the USPTO’s policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though these claims are indefinite, the claims are construed and the art is applied as much as practically possible.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 251
Oath/Declaration
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 14-16 and 19-23 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. (See § VII, supra).
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
U.S. Patent No. 7,983,922
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20, respectively, (“‘922 ODP Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,983,922 (“‘922 Patent”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 3 and 4, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 3 and 4 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘922 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 3 and 4 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘922 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 3 and 4 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘922 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 3 and 4 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘922 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘922 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘922 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘922 ODP Claims of the copending ‘922 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 3 and 4 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘922 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘922 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
With respect to the limitations of claim 20, and
[20] in which the postprocessed quantity is derived from the quantized reconstruction parameter only using a mapping function uniquely mapping an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule to obtain a non post processed quantity, and in which the post processor is operative to post process the non postprocessed quantity to obtain the postprocessed quantity.
The Examiner finds the ‘922 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for using a unique mapping function to map an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule.
However, using a mapping function to map an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches uniquely mapping an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule to obtain a non post processed quantity. (Smyth at c.21, ll. 47-53).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate utilizing a unique mapping function to map an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘922 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule, since it provides a mechanism to ensure the quantization and inverse quantization are identical. (Id.) In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of the same encoding and decoding methodology, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
U.S. Patent No. 8,532,999
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16, respectively, (“‘999 ODP Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,999 (“‘999 Patent”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 3 and 4, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 3 and 4 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘999 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 3 and 4 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘999 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 3 and 4 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘999 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 3 and 4 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘999 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘999 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘999 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘999 ODP Claims of the copending ‘999 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 3 and 4 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘999 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘999 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
With respect to the limitations of claim 20, and
[20] in which the postprocessed quantity is derived from the quantized reconstruction parameter only using a mapping function uniquely mapping an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule to obtain a non post processed quantity, and in which the post processor is operative to post process the non postprocessed quantity to obtain the postprocessed quantity.
The Examiner finds the ‘999 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for using a unique mapping function to map an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule.
However, using a mapping function to map an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches uniquely mapping an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule to obtain a non post processed quantity. (Smyth at c.21, ll. 47-53).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate utilizing a unique mapping function to map an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘999 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule, since it provides a mechanism to ensure the quantization and inverse quantization are identical. (Id.) In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of the same encoding and decoding methodology, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
U.S. Application No. 18/390,273
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-23 respectively, (“‘273 ODP Claim”) of copending Application No. 18/390,273 (“‘273 Application”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-23, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-23 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘273 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘273 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘273 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘273 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘273 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘273 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘273 ODP Claims of the copending ‘273 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-23 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘273 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘273 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
With respect to the limitations of claim 8, and
[8] in which the quantization rule is a logarithmic quantization rule.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘273 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling the quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule.
However, a quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit utilizing quantization rule that is a logarithmic quantization rule. (Smyth at c.21, ll.18-23).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘273 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate different level bit rates. (Id. at c.21, ll.16-27). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of multi bit rates, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
U.S. Application No. 18/390,294
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, respectively, (“‘294 ODP Claim”) of copending Application No. 18/390,294 (“‘294 Application”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘294 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘294 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘294 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘294 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘294 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘294 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘294 ODP Claims of the copending ‘294 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘294 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘294 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
U.S. Application No. 18/390,326
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, respectively, (“‘326 ODP Claim”) of copending Application No. 18/390,326 (“‘326 Application”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘326 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘326 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘326 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘326 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘326 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘326 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘326 ODP Claims of the copending ‘326 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘326 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘326 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
U.S. Application No. 18/390,344
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, respectively, (“‘344 ODP Claim”) of copending Application No. 18/390,344 (“‘344 Application”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘344 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 116 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘344 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘344 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘344 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘344 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘344 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘344 ODP Claims of the copending ‘344 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘344 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘344 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
U.S. Application No. 18/390,362
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, respectively, (“‘362 ODP Claim”) of copending Application No. 18/390,362 (“‘362 Application”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 116 and 19-23 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘362 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘362 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘362 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘362 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘362 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘362 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘362 ODP Claims of the copending ‘362 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘362 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘362 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
U.S. Application No. 18/390,383
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, respectively, (“‘383 ODP Claim”) of copending Application No. 18/390,383 (“‘383 Application”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16, 16 and 19-23 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘383 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘383 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘383 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘383 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘383 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘383 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘383 ODP Claims of the copending ‘383 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘383 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘383 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
U.S. Application No. 18/390,417
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, respectively, (“‘417 ODP Claim”) of copending Application No. 18/390,417 (“‘417 Application”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘417 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘417 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘417 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘417 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘417 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘417 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘417 ODP Claims of the copending ‘417 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘417 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘417 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
U.S. Application No. 18/390,451
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, respectively, (“‘451 ODP Claim”) of copending Application No. 18/390,451 (“‘451 Application”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘451 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘451 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘451 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘451 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘451 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘451 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘451 ODP Claims of the copending ‘451 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘451 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘451 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
U.S. Application No. 18/390,490
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, respectively, (“‘490 ODP Claim”) of copending Application No. 18/390,490 (“‘490 Application”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 are identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘490 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘490 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application and the ‘490 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 of the ‘251 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘490 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘490 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing a post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘490 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the post processor being operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘490 ODP Claims of the copending ‘490 Application in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19-23 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds the ‘490 ODP Claims discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of the ‘490 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
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 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Faller et al., “Binary Cue Coding Applied to Stereo and Multi-Channel Audio Compression”, Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5574 (“Faller”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, and
[1] [a] [m]ulti-channel synthesizer for generating an output signal from an input signal, the input signal having at least one input channel and a sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters, the quantized reconstruction parameters being quantized in accordance with a quantization rule, and being associated with subsequent time portions of the input channel, the output signal having a number of synthesized output channels, and the number of synthesized output channels being greater than 1 or greater than a number of input channels comprising:
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses a multi-channel synthesizer (Faller at § 4; Figure 10, see audio out - 1, 2...c, with 1,2...c as multiple channels) for generating an output signal from an input signal (id. at Figures 1, 2) the input signal having at least one input channel (id. at Figure 2, 5) and a sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters (id.; see ICLD, ICTD at p.3, Figure 5), the quantized reconstruction parameters being quantized in accordance with a quantization rule (id. at p.5, Equation (7), quantization and coding at p.3, Figure 5), and being associated with subsequent time portions of the input channel (id. at § 3.1 ll.4-6, ICLD, ICTD), the output signal having a number of synthesized output channels (id. at p. 5, Figure 10), and the number of synthesized output channels being greater than 1 or greater than a number of input channels (id.).
an input signal analyser for analysing the input signal to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed;
a post processor for determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the input signal analyzer for the time portion of the input signal to be processed, wherein the post processor is operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity such that a value of the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the quantization rule,
wherein the post processor is operative to perform a smoothing function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction parameters; and
wherein the post processor is operative to determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal; and
Faller discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the utilization of: (1) an input analyser to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed; and (2) a post processor for determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the input signal analyzer, wherein the post processor is operative to: (a) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity such that a value of the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the quantization rule; (b) perform a smoothing function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction parameters; and (c) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing an input analyser to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed and a post processor for determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the input signal analyzer, wherein the post processor is operative to: (a) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity such that a value of the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the quantization rule; (b) perform a smoothing function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction parameters; and (c) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an input analyser to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed and a post processor for determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the input signal analyzer, wherein the post processor is operative to: (a) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity such that a value of the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the quantization rule; (b) perform a smoothing function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction parameters; and (c) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of Faller.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an input analyser to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed and a post processor for determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the input signal analyzer, wherein the post processor is operative to: (a) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity such that a value of the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the quantization rule; (b) perform a smoothing function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction parameters; and (c) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
a multi-channel reconstructor for reconstructing a time portion of the number of synthesized output channels using the time portion of the input channel and the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed value
In this regard, Faller discloses a multi-channel reconstructor (Faller at Figure 10, inverse TF transform) for reconstructing a time portion of the number of synthesized output channels using the time portion of the input channel (id. at Figure 1, see mono, TF (Time frequency) transform, inverse TF transform, ICLD,ICTD) and the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed value (id. at § 4, ll.5-9; see Figure 10; mono signals and post processed ICLD and ICTD utilized to convert back to time domain).
With respect to the limitations of claims 3, 4 and 14, Faller and Serizawa teaches and/or renders obvious
[3] in which the input signal analyzer is operative to determine the signal characteristic as the predetermined signal characteristic, when a signal characteristic value is in a specified relation to a threshold; (claim 3)
[4] [4] in which the signal characteristic is a tonality characteristic or a transient characteristic of the portion of the input signal to be processed; (claim 4) and
[14] in which the input channel analyser is operative to determine a degree quantitatively indicating how much the input signal has the signal characteristic, and in which the post processor is operative to perform a post processing with a strength depending on the degree (claim 14).
As set forth above, the Examiner construes “tonality” as simply a distinction between tone-like and noise-like components of an audio signal. (See § X.C.(1), supra).
From this perspective, the Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches using the RMS qualities of the input signal to designate whether the input signal has the characteristic of a voice or voice-less period. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa further teaches utilizing thresholding of the RMS qualities to determine whether the input signal is a voice or voice-less period of the input signal. (Id.)
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate at input analyser to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed and a post processor for determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the input signal analyzer. (See §§ XIII.A.(1).(a)-(d), supra). Thus, the Examiner similarly finds that the incorporation of the structure as noted above teaches and/or renders obvious the “thresholding,” “tonality” and “determin[ing] a degree” claim requirement as recited. (Id.)
With respect to the limitations of claim 7, Faller and Serizawa teaches and/or renders obvious
[7] in which the post processor is operative to determine a manipulated reconstruction parameter as not being coincident with any quantization level defined by the quantization rule, and to inversely quantize the manipulated reconstruction parameter using a[n] inverse quantizer being operable to map the manipulated reconstruction parameter to an inversely quantized manipulated reconstruction parameter not being coincident with an inversely quantized value defined by mapping any quantization level by the inverse quantizer.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses the post processor being operative to determine a manipulated reconstruction parameter as not being coincident with any quantization level defined by the quantization rule. (Faller at § 4.2 (emphasis at determining the level modification.. determining the phase sections; also see §§ 3.4, 4.1, 4). Since the modification is performed during spatial synthesis, the Examiner finds that the parameters in Equation (8) are no longer coincident with the quantizer indices level in Equation (7).
Similarly, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses the post processor being operative to inversely quantize the manipulated reconstruction parameter using a[n] inverse quantizer being operable to map the manipulated reconstruction parameter to an inversely quantized manipulated reconstruction parameter not being coincident with an inversely quantized value defined by mapping any quantization level by the inverse quantizer. (Id. at § 4.1; also see §§ 3.4, 4.1, 4 - determining the level modification.. determining the phase sections). As set forth above, since the modification is performed during spatial synthesis, the Examiner finds that the parameters in Equation (8) are no longer coincident with the quantizer indices level in Equation (7).
With respect to the limitations of claim 9, Faller and Serizawa teaches and/or renders obvious
[9] in which the postprocessor is operative to inversely quantize quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with the quantization rule, to manipulate obtained inversely quantized reconstruction parameters, and to map manipulated parameters in accordance with a non-linear or linear function.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses the post processor being operative to inversely quantize quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with the quantization rule (id. at § 4.1, Equation (8), ICLD and ICTD decoding; also see Figure 10) to manipulate obtained inversely quantized reconstruction parameters (id. at § 4, ll.13-21, Spatial synthesis; Figure 9; also see § 4.2, Figure 10, and to map manipulated parameters in accordance with a non-linear or linear function (id. at p.5, Equations (7), (8); also see Figure 9).
With respect to the limitations of claim 10, Faller and Serizawa teaches and/or renders obvious
[10] in which the postprocessor is operative to inversely quantize quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with the quantization rule, to map obtained inversely quantized parameters in accordance with a non-linear or linear function; and to manipulate obtained mapped reconstruction parameters.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses the post processor being operative to inversely quantize quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with the quantization rule (id. at § 4.1, ll.2-3, Equation (8); also see ICLD and ICTD Decoding in Figure 10), to map obtained inversely quantized parameters in accordance with a non-linear or linear function (id. at p.5, Equations (7), (8); see Figure 9); and to manipulate obtained mapped reconstruction parameters (id. at § 4, ll.13-21; also see § 4.2 (emphasis at determining the level modification section, see Figure 10).
With respect to the limitations of claim 11, Faller and Serizawa teaches and/or renders obvious
[11] in which the post processor is operative to inversely quantize quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with the quantization rule, to map obtained inversely quantized parameters in accordance with a non-linear or linear function; and to manipulate obtained mapped reconstruction parameters.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses the post processor being operative to an inversely quantized reconstruction parameter associated with the subsequent time portion of the input signal in accordance with the quantization rule (id. at p.5, ICTD, Figure 10), and in which the post processor is further operative to determine a post processed reconstruction parameter based on at least one inversely quantized reconstruction parameter for at least one preceding time portion of the input signal (id. at § 4.1; § 4.2, Equations (10)-(13); also see p.3, c.1, ll.4-6, for each frame).
With respect to the limitations of claim 15, Faller and Serizawa teaches and/or renders obvious
[15] in which the post processor is operative to use the quantized reconstruction parameter associated with the time portion to be processed, when determining the post processed reconstruction parameter for the time portion to be processed.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses the post processor being operative to use the quantized reconstruction parameter associated with the time portion to be processed, when determining the post processed reconstruction parameter for the time portion to be processed. (Id. at §§ 4, 4.1; § 4.2, emphasis at Fcn and Gcn in Equation (9) and discussion thereof; also see Figure 10).
With respect to the limitations of claim 16, Faller and Serizawa teaches and/or renders obvious
[16] in which the quantization rule is such that a difference between two adjacent quantization levels is larger than a difference between two numbers determined by a processor accuracy of a processor for performing numerical calculations.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses the quantization rule being such that a difference between two adjacent quantization levels is larger than a difference between two numbers determined by a processor accuracy of a processor for performing numerical calculations. (Id. at § 3.4; § 5, 2nd-3rd ¶¶).
With respect to the limitations of claim 19, Faller and Serizawa teaches and/or renders obvious
[19] in which the post processor is operative to implement a post processing rule such that a difference between post processed reconstruction parameters for subsequent time portions is smaller than a difference between non-post processed reconstruction parameters derived from the quantized reconstruction parameters associated with subsequent time portions by requantization.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses the post processor being operative to implement a post processing rule such that a difference between post processed reconstruction parameters for subsequent time portions is smaller than a difference between non-post processed reconstruction parameters derived from the quantized reconstruction parameters associated with subsequent time portions by requantization. (Id. at § 3.4; also see §§ 4, 4.1, Figure 10).
With respect to the limitations of claim 21, Faller and Serizawa teaches and/or renders obvious
[21] in which the quantized reconstruction parameter is a difference parameter indicating a parameterised difference between two absolute quantities associated with the input channels, and in which the post processed quantity is an absolute value used for reconstructing an output channel corresponding to one of the input channels.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses the quantized reconstruction parameter being a difference parameter indicating a parameterised difference between two absolute quantities associated with the input channels (id. at § 3.4, 1st ¶), and in which the post processed quantity is an absolute value used for reconstructing an output channel corresponding to one of the input channels (id. at § 4, ll.4-9).
With respect to the limitations of claim 22, Faller and Serizawa teaches and/or renders obvious
[22] in which the quantized reconstruction parameter is an inter channel level difference, and in which the post processed quantity indicates an absolute level of an output channel, or in which the quantized reconstruction parameter is an inter channel time difference, and in which the post processed quantity indicates an absolute time reference of an output channel, or in which the quantized reconstruction parameter is an inter channel coherence measure, and in which the post processed quantity indicates an absolute coherence level of an output channel, or in which the quantized reconstruction parameter is an inter channel phase difference, and in which the post processed quantity indicates an absolute phase value of an output channel.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses the quantized reconstruction parameter being an inter channel level difference (id. at § 3.4) and in which the post processed quantity indicates an absolute level of an output channel (id. at § 4, ll.1-2), or the quantized reconstruction parameter being an inter channel time difference (id. at § 3.4, ICTD), and in which the post processed quantity indicates an absolute time reference of an output § 3.4 (id. at § 4.2, see Gcn, absolute delay in Equation (13); also see § 4, ll.1-2).
With respect to the limitations of claim 23, and
[23] [a] [m]ethod of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal, the audio input signal having at least one audio input channel and a sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters, the quantized reconstruction parameters being quantized in accordance with a quantization rule, and being associated with subsequent time portions of the audio input channel, the audio output signal having a number of synthesized audio output channels, and the number of synthesized audio output channels being greater than 1 or greater than a number of audio input channels, comprising:
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses a multi-channel synthesizer (Faller at § 4; Figure 10, see audio out - 1, 2...c, with 1,2...c as multiple channels) for generating an output signal from an input signal (id. at Figures 1, 2) the input signal having at least one input channel (id. at Figure 2, 5) and a sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters (id.; see ICLD, ICTD at p.3, Figure 5), the quantized reconstruction parameters being quantized in accordance with a quantization rule (id. at p.5, Equation (7), quantization and coding at p.3, Figure 5), and being associated with subsequent time portions of the input channel (id. at § 3.1 ll.4-6, ICLD, ICTD), the output signal having a number of synthesized output channels (id. at p. 5, Figure 10), and the number of synthesized output channels being greater than 1 or greater than a number of input channels (id.).
analysing the input signal to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed;
determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the analyzing for the time portion of the audio input signal to be processed, such that a value of the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the quantization rule,
wherein the step of determining comprises a smoothing function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction parameters; and
wherein the determining the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is performed, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and the determining the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is bypassed, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal; and
Faller discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the utilization of: (1) an input analyser to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed; and (2) a post processor for determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the input signal analyzer, wherein the post processor is operative to: (a) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity such that a value of the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the quantization rule; (b) perform a smoothing function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction parameters; and (c) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal.
However, providing an input analyser to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed and a post processor for determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the input signal analyzer, wherein the post processor is operative to: (a) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity such that a value of the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the quantization rule; (b) perform a smoothing function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction parameters; and (c) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Serizawa, for example, teaches a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyser) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2). The Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches the resulting VAD determination sign being sent to a smoothing circuit 36 and a switching circuit 28, and based upon the VAD determination sign either decoding the received encoding signal utilizing the smoothing factors provided by the smoothing circuit 36 (i.e., via voice-less part decoding circuit 35¸ or not (i.e., via voice part decoding circuit 35). (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an input analyser to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed and a post processor for determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the input signal analyzer, wherein the post processor is operative to: (a) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity such that a value of the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the quantization rule; (b) perform a smoothing function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction parameters; and (c) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal as described by Serizawa to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of Faller.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an input analyser to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal to be processed and a post processor for determining a post processed reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic determined by the input signal analyzer, wherein the post processor is operative to: (a) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity such that a value of the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the quantization rule; (b) perform a smoothing function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction parameters; and (c) determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity, when a predetermined signal characteristic is determined by the input signal analyser, and to bypass the post processor, when the predetermined signal characteristic is not determined by the input signal analyser for a time portion of the input signal, since it provides a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0043-0050). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that provides better sound quality when speech is included in the input audio signals, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
reconstructing a time portion of the number of synthesized audio output channels using the time portion of the audio input channel and the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed value
In this regard, Faller discloses a multi-channel reconstructor (Faller at Figure 10, inverse TF transform) for reconstructing a time portion of the number of synthesized output channels using the time portion of the input channel (id. at Figure 1, see mono, TF (Time frequency) transform, inverse TF transform, ICLD,ICTD) and the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post processed value (id. at § 4, ll.5-9; see Figure 10; mono signals and post processed ICLD and ICTD utilized to convert back to time domain).
Claims 6, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faller et al., “Binary Cue Coding Applied to Stereo and Multi-Channel Audio Compression”, Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5574 (“Faller”) in view of Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-11, 14-16, 19 and 21-23 above, and in further view of Smyth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,956,674)(“Smyth”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, and
[6] in which the post processor is operative to perform an interpolating function using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one preceding time portion or using a reconstruction parameter associated with at least one subsequent time portion.
In this regard, the Examiner finds Faller and Serizawa discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the reconstruction to utilize an interpolation filter.
However, reconstruction utilizing an interpolation filter is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit comprising an interpolation filter for reconstruction. (Smyth at c.7, ll.54-57).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of Faller and Serizawa.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an interpolation filter in a decoding circuit for reconstruction, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate higher frequency sampling rates. (Id. at c.7, ll.58-67). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of higher frequency components, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
With respect to the limitations of claim 8, and
[8] in which the quantization rule is a logarithmic quantization rule.
In this regard, the Examiner finds Faller and Serizawa discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling the quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule.
However, a quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches a decoding circuit utilizing quantization rule that is a logarithmic quantization rule. (Smyth at c.21, ll.18-23).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of Faller and Serizawa.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule, since it provides a mechanism to accommodate different level bit rates. (Id. at c.21, ll.16-27). In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of multi bit rates, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
With respect to the limitations of claim 20, and
[20] in which the postprocessed quantity is derived from the quantized reconstruction parameter only using a mapping function uniquely mapping an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule to obtain a non post processed quantity, and in which the post processor is operative to post process the non postprocessed quantity to obtain the postprocessed quantity.
In this regard, Faller discloses the postprocessed quantity being derived from the quantized reconstruction parameter to obtain a non post processed quantity, and in which the post processor is operative to post process the non postprocessed quantity to obtain the postprocessed quantity. (Faller at § 3.4, Equation (7); § 4.1, Equation (8)).
The Examiner finds Faller and Serizawa discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for using a unique mapping function to map an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule.
However, using a mapping function to map an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smyth teaches uniquely mapping an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule to obtain a non post processed quantity. (Smyth at c.21, ll. 47-53).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate utilizing a unique mapping function to map an input value to an output value in accordance with a mapping rule as described by Smyth to the multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal of Faller and Serizawa.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a quantization rule being a logarithmic quantization rule, since it provides a mechanism to ensure the quantization and inverse quantization are identical. (Id.) In other words, such a modification would have provided a multi-channel synthesizer and method of generating an audio output signal from an audio input signal that is configured to take advantage of the same encoding and decoding methodology, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the multi-channel synthesizer system and method.
Conclusion
Applicant is respectfully reminded that any suggestions or examples of claim language provided by the Examiner are just that—suggestions or examples—and do not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner. To be especially clear, any suggestion or example provided in this Office Action (or in any future office action) does not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner.
Should Applicant decide to amend the claims, Applicant is also reminded that—like always—no new matter is allowed. The Examiner therefore leaves it up to Applicant to choose the precise claim language of the amendment in order to ensure that the amended language complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph.
Independent of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph, Applicant is also respectfully reminded that when amending a particular claim, all claim terms must have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Should Applicant amend the claims such that the claim language no longer has clear support or antecedent basis in the specification, an objection to the specification may result. Therefore, in these situations where the amended claim language does not have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification and to prevent a subsequent ‘Objection to the Specification’ in the next office action, Applicant is encouraged to either (1) re-evaluate the amendment and change the claim language so the claims do have clear support or antecedent basis or, (2) amend the specification to ensure that the claim language does have clear support or antecedent basis. See again MPEP § 608.01(o) (¶3). Should Applicant choose to amend the specification, Applicant is reminded that—like always—no new matter in the specification is allowed. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). If Applicant has any questions on this matter, Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner via the telephone number listed below.
Applicant is reminded of the obligation to apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the ‘378 Patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, other reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or ‘of record’ in the original prosecution of the ‘378 Patent. Applicant is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the original prosecution of the ‘378 Patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant is 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J RALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6227. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184. 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.
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Conferees:
/Luke S. Wassum/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /H.B.P/Hetul PatelSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
SJR
03/17/2026
1 While most interpretations are cited because these terms are found in the claims, the Examiner may have provided additional interpretations to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the interpretations themselves, the ‘378 Patent, or in the prior art.