DETAILED ACTION
Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 4
II. Priority 4
III. Pertinent Prosecution History 4
IV. Patent Term 5
V. Reissue Requirements 5
VI. Claim Status 7
VII. Information Disclosure Statement 7
VIII. Specification Objections 7
IX. Claim Objections 8
X. Claim Interpretation 9
A. Lexicographic Definitions 9
B. 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph 10
C. 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation' 10
(1) Tonality 11
XI. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112 12
A. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph 12
(1) Written Description 12
B. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph 16
XII. Response to Arguments 17
A. 35 U.S.C. § 251 Rejections 17
(1) Oath/Declaration Issue 17
B. Specification Objection(s) 17
C. Claim Objection(s) 17
D. 35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejections 18
(1) 35 U.S.C.§ 112(b) Rejections 18
E. Obvious Double Patenting Rejections 18
(1) U.S. Patent Nos, 7,983,922 (‘922 Patent) and 8,532,999 (‘999 Patent) 18
(2) U.S. Reissue Applications for U.S. Patent No. 8,843,378 18
F. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections 19
(1) Second, Third, Eighth and Ninth Paragraphs of Claim 24 19
(2) Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Paragraphs of Claim 24 23
G. Allowable Subject Matter 24
A. Claims 24 and 33 25
XIII. Conclusion 27
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 18/390,273 (“‘273 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 ‘273 Reissue Application on 20 December 2023. The Examiner finds that the instant ‘273 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”).
The Office issued a Non-Final Office action on 26 March 2026 (“Mar 2026 Non-Final Office Action”). In particular, the Mar 2026 Non-Final Office Action provided rejections for claims 1, 4, 6-11, 15-16 and 18-23 (“Rejected Claims”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103, 112, 251 and Obvious Double Patenting.1
On 22 July 2026, Applicant filed a Response to Non-Final Office Action. (“July 2026 Applicant Response”). The July 2026 Applicant Response included Remarks, a new Oath/Declaration (“July 2026 Oath/Declaration”); a specification amendment (“July 2026 Spec Amendment”); and a claim amendment (“July 2026 Claim Amendment”). The July 2026 Claim Amendment comprises: canceled original claims 1-23; and new claims 24-33.
The instant action is a Final Office Action.
Patent Term
The Examiner finds that twenty (20) years from the effective filing date of the 378 Patent ends on 30 June 2024. However, the Examiner finds that there is a patent term extension of 2242 days. Thus, the patent term ends 20 August 2030.
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 ‘387 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 ‘273 Reissue Application must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Claim Status
The Examiner finds that the claim status in the instant ‘273 Reissue Application is as follows:
Claim(s) 1-23 (Original and Canceled)
Claim(s) 24-33 (New)
Thus, the Examiner concludes that claims 24-33 are pending in the instant ‘273 Reissue Application. Claims 24-33 are examined (“Examined Claims”).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed 30 June 2026 (June 2026 IDS”) 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.
It is noted that a foreign language document was included in the June 2026 IDS. In this case, the Office has annotated the entry in the form 1449 where applicable to indicate the degree to which the document has been considered (limited to English language disclosures).
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Examiner finds that the July 2026 Spec Amendment is non-compliant with respect to 37 C.F.R. 1.173. Specifically, the marked copy of July 2026 Spec Amendment provides “strike-throughs” for remove subject matter; and includes the entirety of the specification for amendments instead of the “entire text of each added or rewritten paragraph with markings (single brackets and underlining)” and “indicat[ing] the precise point where any added or rewritten paragraph is located.” (See MPEP § 1453.I; also see 37 C.F.R. 1.173(b)(1)(i).
In addition, the July 2026 Spec Amendment and the ‘378 Patent include disclosure to the term(s) “artefact/artefacts” at numerous locations. The Examiner finds that “artefact/artefacts” should instead read as – artifact/artifacts– .
The Examiner finds that Applicant must provide a new Specification Amendment that complies with 37 C.F.R. 1.173; provides all previous amendments included in the July 2026 Spec Amendment; and corrects the newly cited issues as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 34 “… the determining the post processed quantity…” should read – … wherein the determining the post processed quantity … –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.2 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(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Written Description
Claim 24-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to the limitations of claims 24, 29 and 33, the Examiner finds that claim 24 recites,
wherein the post processor includes a digital filter having a low pass characteristic, the digital filter receiving as an input at least one post processed quantity associated with a preceding time portion of the input signal
(July 2026 Claim Amendment at claim 24; emphasis added (“Post Processor Digital Filter Claim 24 Requirement”)); claim 29 recites
in which the digital filter is an IIR filter
(July 2026 Claim Amendment at claim 29; emphasis added); and claim 33 recites
the determining the post processed quantity is performed using a digital filter having a low pass characteristic, the digital filter receiving as an input at least one post processed quantity associated with a preceding time portion of the input signal
(July 2026 Claim Amendment at claim 33; emphasis added (“Determining Step Digital Filter Claim 33 Requirement”)). The Examiner finds that recitation to the method and synthesizer having a step and/or post processor “determining the post processing quantity using a digital filter” based upon the input of “at least one post processed quantity” is not sufficiently described in the ‘378 Patent. To support the Examiner’s position, the Examiner finds that claim 24 now recites, in part:
the post processor is operative
to inversely quantize the quantized reconstruction parameters of the sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with the quantization rule to obtain inversely quantized reconstruction parameters,
to derive a sequence of non-post processed quantities from the inversely quantized reconstruction parameters using mapping the inversely quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with a non-linear or linear function,
to perform a smoothing function after requantization on the sequence of non- post processed quantities to obtain the sequence of post processed quantities, so that the sequence of post processed quantities is smoother in time compared to the sequence of non-post processed quantities
(July 2026 Claim Amendment at claim 24; emphasis added); and claim 33 similar now recites, in part:
wherein the step of determining comprises
inversely quantizing the quantized reconstruction parameters of the sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with the quantization rule to obtain inversely quantized reconstruction parameters,
deriving a sequence of non-post processed quantities from the inversely quantized reconstruction parameters using mapping the inversely quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with a non-linear or linear function,
performing a smoothing function after requantization on the sequence of non-post processed quantities to obtain the sequence of post processed quantities, so that the sequence of post processed quantities is smoother in time compared to the sequence of non-post processed quantities;
(July 2026 Claim Amendment at claim 33; emphasis added). In construing the claim requirements above, the Examiner finds that each step requires the preceding step to occur first (i.e., (1) inverse quantizing is performed first; (2) subsequently, a sequence of quantities is derived by mapping the results of the inverse quantized result; and (3) a smoothing function is performed on the results of the derived sequence of quantities). In examination of the ‘378 Patent, the Examiner finds that these claim requirements are with respect to the embodiment as shown in Figure 6b [AltContent: textbox (Figure 6b of '378 Patent)]
PNG
media_image1.png
380
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
below, specifically the “dotted line” embodiment. However, in examination of Figure 6b, with respect to low pass and/or smoothing filtering functionality, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is no further processing (i.e., post processing) after the last smoothing filtering functionality (i.e., 10h), only before the linear or non-linear mapper 10g. In addition, while Figure 6b does show an “either or” configuration with respect to the smoothing filter, the Examiner finds that the ‘378 Patent sufficiently discloses an embodiment with a smoother filter both before and after the linear or non-linear mapper 10g. (‘378 Patent at c.14, ll.33-35).
From this perspective, both the Post Processor Digital Filter Claim 24 and Determining Step Digital Filter Claim 33 Requirements include the input being at least one post processed quantity. However, as shown above in Figure 6b of the ‘378 Patent, there is insufficient disclosure to further processing (i.e., post processing) occurring after the last smoothing filtering functionality (i.e., 10h). While the ‘378 Patent does disclose different embodiments to “post processing” functionality (i.e., Figures 5, 6a, 6b, 7a; also see c.13, l.44 – c.14, l.54 for explanations thereof), the Examiner finds insufficient disclosure in the ‘378 Patent to a digital filter receiving as input at least one post processed quantity as recited in both the Post Processor Digital Filter Claim 24 and Determining Step Digital Filter Claim 33 Requirements that satisfies the instant claim requirements.
Thus, the Examiner concludes that there is insufficient indication in the specification that Applicant had possession of a method and/or synthesizer claim comprising a digital filter receiving as input at least one post processed quantity, as recited.
Claims 25-32 are rejected in light of their dependency from at least independent claim 24.
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 24-33 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 24 and 33, the Examiner finds that claims 24 and 33 recite, in part, the limitations
… the digital filter receiving as an input at least one post processed quantity associated with a preceding time portion of the input signal.
(July 2023 Claim Amendment at claim 23 and 33; emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claims.
Claims 25-32 are rejected in light of their dependency from at least independent claim 24.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 251 Rejections
Oath/Declaration Issue
With respect to the defective Mar 2026 Oath/Declaration, the Examiner finds that the newly filed July 2026 Oath/Declaration is sufficient as required by 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. Thus, the Examiner withdraws the defective Mar 2024 Oath/Declaration objection and correlating 35 U.S.C. 251 rejection.
Specification Objection(s)
With respect to the Specification Objections, the July 2026 Applicant Response, including the July 2026 Spec Amendment and “Remarks,” is not persuasive. (See § VII, supra). Thus, the Examiner finds that there are Claim Objection issues still present. (Id.)
Claim Objection(s)
With respect to the Claim Objections, the July 2026 Applicant Response, including the July 2026 Claim Amendment and “Remarks,” has been fully considered and is persuasive. (See July 2026 Applicant Response at 15-16). However, based upon the July 2026 Claim Amendment there are outstanding Claim Objection issues still present. (See § IX, supra).
35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejections
35 U.S.C.§ 112(b) Rejections
Applicant contends that the July 2026 Claim Amendment overcomes all of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. (July 2026 Response at 16-17).
The Examiner finds that July 2026 Applicant Response, including the July 2026 Claim Amendment, has been fully considered and is persuasive. Thus, the Examiner withdraws the corresponding U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. However, based upon the July 2026 Claim Amendment there are outstanding 35 U.S.C.§ 112(b) issues still present. (See § XI.B, supra).
Obvious Double Patenting Rejections
U.S. Patent Nos, 7,983,922 (‘922 Patent) and 8,532,999 (‘999 Patent)
With respect to the rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over the ‘922 and ‘999 Patent, the July 2026 Applicant Response, including the July 2026 Claim Amendment and “Remarks,” has been fully considered and is persuasive. (See July 2026 Applicant Response at 17-18).
U.S. Reissue Applications for U.S. Patent No. 8,843,3783
With respect to the rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, the Examiner finds that the July 2026 Terminal Disclaimer filed by Applicant has been approved by the Office. Thus, the rejections over the reissue applications of the ‘378 Patent on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, provided in the Mar 2026 Non-Final Office Action, are overcome and withdrawn, accordingly.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
Second, Third, Eighth and Ninth Paragraphs of Claim 244
Applicant contends that Serizawa5 does not disclose construction parameters for reconstruction output channels because Serizawa is a “mono audio decoder” and cannot be used in BCC decoding. (July 2026 Applicant Response at 23-25). Applicant contends that Faller does not disclose the “digital filter” claim requirement. (Id. at 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
252
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4 of Faller)]The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds that Figure 4 of Faller6 is very similar to Figure 2 of the ‘378 Patent. To support the Examiner’s position, and as Applicant has pointed out, Figure 4 of Faller, as shown above, discloses a mono audio decoder and BCC decoder. In examination of Figure 2 of the ‘378 Patent, included below, the Examiner finds that the input analyzer structure and functionality occurs before the BCC decoding into multiple channel outputs. (‘378 Patent at c.11, l.58 – c.12, l.34). From this perspective, the Examiner finds that the “post processor/signal analyzer combination” of Figures 2 and 3 of the ‘378 Patent (id. at c.9, ll.50-52) is nothing more than a mono-audio decoder that decodes the audio bit stream and performs a tonality analysis on the decoded mono-audio signal before the BCC processing in the [AltContent: textbox (Figure 2 of '378 Patent)]
PNG
media_image3.png
540
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“Up-mixer 12” occurs. (Id. at c.11, l.58 – c.12, l.34). Accordingly, while one of ordinary skill in the art can construe the structure/functionality of the “post processor/signal analyzer combination” as being part of the BCC decoder broadly, the Examiner finds that the structure/functionality of the “post processor/signal analyzer combination” is actually a mono audio signal decoder that varies its output based upon results of a tonality analysis. (Id.; also see Figures 2, 3). Thus, the Examiner concludes that the “post processor/signal analyzer combination” of the ‘378 Patent is nothing more than a mono audio decoder that provides its adjusted output to a BCC synthesizer that breaks the audio signal into N-channel outputs, respectively.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2 of Serizawa)]
PNG
media_image4.png
512
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, since Faller is silent to the functionality of the “mono audio decoder,” one of ordinary skill in the art would look to structure/functionality of mono audio decoder circuitry for improving the “mono audio decoder” of Faller. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that Serizawa similarly teaches a mono-audio signal decoder that utilizes a decoding circuit comprising a bit sequence decomposing circuit 26 (i.e., an input analyzer) determining a characteristic VAD determination based upon the time inputted signal to be processed. (Serizawa at ¶¶ 0066-0067; 0090-0097; see Figure 2 included below). 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.) From this perspective, and in examination of Figure 2 of Serizawa above, the Examiner finds that Serizawa teaches utilizing the voice-less part decoding circuit 35 to determine a post processing quantity when the VAD sign signal is present and by passing the voice-less part decoding circuit 35 when the VAD sign signal is not present.
Thus, the Examiner concludes and maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art to would: (1) recognize that Serizawa is analogous to the ‘378 Patent and Faller; and (3) look to incorporate the teachings of Serizawa into the mono audio decoder of Faller in order to provide a mechanism to reduce degradation of speech quality. (Id. at ¶¶ 0043-0050).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4 of Faller)]
PNG
media_image2.png
252
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect the contention that Faller does not disclose the “digital filter” claim requirement, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds that Faller discloses a filtering occurring in the TF Transform of BCC encoder of Faller. (Faller at § 3.1; also see Figure 5). The Examiner finds that Faller discloses the same TF Transform being utilized in both the BCC encoder of Figure 5 and the BCC decoder Figure 10. (Id.; also see Figure 10 below). Since the same TF Transform is utilized in both of the BCC encoder and the BCC decoder, the Examiner finds that the digital filter having a low pass characteristic is in the BCC decoder as well. In addition, as shown in Figure 4 of Faller above, the BCC decoder takes as input data that has been processed by the mono audio decoder. Accordingly, the digital filter of the TF Transform of BCC encoder of Faller receives a post processed quantity that has been processed by the mono audio decoder.
Thus, the Examiner concludes and maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art to would recognize that Faller sufficiently satisfies the “digital filter” claim requirement.
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Paragraphs of Claim 247
Applicant contends that Faller does not teach or suggest the “deriv[ing] a sequence of non-post processed quantities…” and the “perform[ing] a smoothing function after requantization…” steps. (July 2026 Applicant Response at 22, 23, 25, 26-27).
The Examiner respectfully agrees. The Examiner finds that claim 24 now recites, in part,:
wherein the post processor is operative
to inversely quantize the quantized reconstruction parameters of the sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with the quantization rule to obtain inversely quantized reconstruction parameters,
to derive a sequence of non-post processed quantities from the inversely quantized reconstruction parameters using mapping the inversely quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with a non-linear or linear function,
to perform a smoothing function after requantization on the sequence of non- post processed quantities to obtain the sequence of post processed quantities, so that the sequence of post processed quantities is smoother in time compared to the sequence of non-post processed quantities
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 10 of Faller)]
PNG
media_image5.png
224
286
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(July 2026 Claim Amendment at claim 24; emphasis added). In construing the claim requirements above, the Examiner finds that each step requires the preceding step to occur first (i.e., (1) inverse quantizing is performed first; (2) subsequently a sequence of quantities is derived by mapping the results of the inverse quantized result; and (3) a smoothing function is performed on the results of the derived sequence of quantities). In examination of Figure 10 of Faller below, the Examiner finds that Faller discloses all of its additional post processing occurring before the inverse quantization of the quantized reconstruction parameters. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the post processor of Faller is not operative as the claim requires. Similarly, the Examiner finds that Serizawa does not remedy, nor teach the absent claim requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 33
Claims 24 and 33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record clearly teaches a system and method for generating an output signal from an input signal comprising: analyzing an input signal to determine a signal characteristic: post processing to determine a post processing quality based the determine characteristic and bypassing the post processing when the signal characteristic is not determined; determining a post processing quantity of a sequence of posted processed quantities depending on the post processing quality output provided by the post processing (i.e.. either a post processing quality of a non-post processing quality); and reconstructing a time portion of the number of synthesized audio output channels using the time portion of the audio input signal to be processed and the post processing quality output. (See Mar 2026 Non-Final Office Action at §§ XIV.A.(1), (15); also see § XIII.F.(1), supra).
With respect to the limitations of independent claims 24 and 33, the indication of allowable subject matter is because the prior art of Faller and Serizawa fail to teach or fairly suggest a system and method for generating an output signal from an input signal, with all of the limitations of independent claims 24 and 33, particularly at least the limitation of
the post processor [being] operative
to inversely quantize the quantized reconstruction parameters of the sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with the quantization rule to obtain inversely quantized reconstruction parameters,
to derive a sequence of non-post processed quantities from the inversely quantized reconstruction parameters using mapping the inversely quantized reconstruction parameters in accordance with anon-linear or linear function,
to perform a smoothing function after requantization on the sequence of non- post processed quantities to obtain the sequence of post processed quantities, so that the sequence of post processed quantities is smoother in time compared to the sequence of non-post processed quantities
in combination with the system and method for generating an output signal from an input signal limitations as set forth in the claims. (Emphasis added).
Claims 25-32 are similarly deemed as having allowable subject matter based on their dependency from independent claim 24, respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Because this application is now final, Applicant are reminded of the USPTO’s after final practice as discussed in MPEP §714.12 and §714.13 and that entry of amendments after final is not a matter of right. “The refusal of an examiner to enter an amendment after final rejection of claims is a matter of discretion.” In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 61 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Furthermore, 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. Unless stated otherwise by an express indication that a claim is “allowed,” exemplary claim language provided by the Examiner to overcome a particular rejection or to change claim interpretation has not been addressed with respect to other aspects of patentability (e.g. §101 patentable subject matter, §112, first paragraph written description and enablement, §112, second paragraph indefiniteness, and §102 and §103, prior art). Therefore, any claim amendment submitted under 37 C.F.R. §1.116 that incorporates an Examiner suggestion or example or simply changes claim interpretation will nevertheless require further consideration and/or search and a patentability determination as noted above. 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.
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 Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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
08/14/2026
1 The Examiner notes that all of the Rejected Claims stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, 112(b), 251 and Obvious Double Patenting.
2 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.
3 Application No. 18/390,273 (“‘273 Application”); Application No. 18/390,294 (“‘2994 Application”); Application No. 18/390,326 (“‘326 Application”); Application No. 18/390,344 (“‘344 Application”); Application No. 18/390,362 (“‘362 Application”); Application No. 18/390,383 (“‘383 Application”); Application No. 18/390,417 (“‘417 Application”); Application No. 18/390,451 (“‘451 Application”); and Application No. 18/390,490 (“‘490 Application”).
4 The Examiner finds that claim 24 is being utilized as representative of claim 31. Thus, the analysis provided by the Examiner for the claim requirements of claim 24 is pertinent to the claim requirements of claim 31.
5 Serizawa et al. (European Publication No. EP 1199710 A1) (“Serizawa”)
6 Faller et al., “Binary Cue Coding Applied to Stereo and Multi-Channel Audio Compression”, Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5574 (“Faller”).
7 The Examiner finds that claim 24 is being utilized as representative of claim 33. Thus, the analysis provided by the Examiner for the claim requirements of claim 24 is pertinent to the claim requirements of claim 33.
Prosecution Insights