Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner notes that the title does not accurately reflect the improvement in the art, which is toward the training of a neural network operating on estimated source sound signals modified with tuning offsets with a scale-invariant ratio as an operational parameter within the neural network. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-17 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.
As per claims 1,10, the claims recite:
the limitation “each of the first and second source modulated audio signals”. Although a “first and second source audio signals” are presented in the previous step, the word ‘modulated’ is missing. On its own merits, one of ordinary skill in the art of processing audio signals can infer the antecedent basis; HOWEVER, this becomes more of an issue as in dependent claims 3-5,8, 12-14, 17, wherein those claims, there is a referral to “the first and second source audio signal”, which then triggers the question, which “first and second source audio signals”, in these dependent claims, refer, in claim 1 ? The “first and second source audio signals” or “the first and second source modulated audio signals ” ? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the limitation “the complex I-Q plane”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, do not cure the lack of antecedent basis issues, for the independent claims 1,10 (and further, complicate the antecedent basis issues, as noted above).
For prior art examination purposes, the claim limitations toward “representing each of the the first and second source modulated audio signals” will be interpreted as, “representing a modulation of each of the first and second source audio signals”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowable over the prior art of record, and would be allowed once amended to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per the independent claims, the claim limitations toward the calculations of representative signals to input audio signals, including modulation and tuning offsets, as inputs into a neural network overlapped by using a scale invariant ratio as further parameter inputs into the neural network, so as to the neural network generates further estimates of the source signals, is not explicitly taught by the prior art of record. What is well known in the prior art, is the modulation of the input signals to a mapping into the I-Q plane (for e.g., see Kim et al (20200136877) , para 0081-0084, teaching basedband packets representing signals, with offsets, with a mapping o an I-Q plane. References, such as, Chang et al (20190034108) establish the well known relationship between “I-Q plane” with “complex plane”, which is a well known representation of amplitude/phase relationship of transmitted signals (in Chang et al, see para 0151, equating complex plane with an I-Q plane). With that relationship in mind, further found prior art references, teaching audio/source separation using amplitude/phase information. In conjunction with these elements, Ozturk et al (20220291328) teaches the general concept of incorporating a neural network to compute variables such as convolutional calculations (para 0273-0274) to reduce the dimensionality of the input audio and radio signals – para 0274. See also in Ozturk et al (20220291328) showing radio signals being represented in the IQ plane (para 0271 – complex plane) and para 0257-0258 showing the dual-modality of the system; see also para 0275-0283 explaining the processing by the neural network. However, these prior art references do not explicitly teach the format of the generated signal representations into the neural network along with a scale invariant ratio as a parameter feature in the neural network, as claimed in the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see related art listed on the PTO-892 form.
Furthermore, see commentary above, in the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter, as to other pertinent references.
The references listed on the PTO-892 form, have similar features found in the references discussed above, and repeated below;
Kim et al (20200136877) , para 0081-0084, teaching baseband packets representing signals, with offsets, with a mapping o an I-Q plane.
Chang et al (20190034108) establish the well known relationship between “I-Q plane” with “complex plane”, which is a well known representation of amplitude/phase relationship of transmitted signals (in Chang et al, see para 0151, equating complex plane with an I-Q plane)
Ozturk et al (20220291328) teaches the general concept of incorporating a neural network to compute variables such as convolutional calculations (para 0273-0274) to reduce the dimensionality of the input audio and radio signals – para 0274.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Opsasnick, telephone number (571)272-7623, who is available Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Richemond Dorvil, can be reached at (571)272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael N Opsasnick/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 10/15/2025
.