DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
As per Claim 1 (and similarly claim 25):
“the spectrum” in line 9 of claim 1 is interpreted as referring to “a spectrum based on the frame and on the linear predictive coding coefficients” in lines 6-7 of claim 1 (not to “a processed spectrum” in lines 8-9 of claim 1).
As per Claim 2:
“the spectrum” in line 4 of claim 2 is interpreted as referring to “a spectrum based on the frame and on the linear predictive coding coefficients” in lines 6-7 of claim 1 (not to “a processed spectrum” in lines 8-9 of claim 1).
As per Claim 3:
“the spectrum” in line 4 of claim 3 is interpreted as referring to “a spectrum based on the frame and on the linear predictive coding coefficients” in lines 6-7 of claim 1 (not to “a processed spectrum” in lines 8-9 of claim 1).
As per Claim 4:
“the reference spectral line” in the 4th to last line of claim 4 is interpreted as referring to “a reference spectral line” in line 10 of claim 1 (not to “a further reference spectral line in lines 5-6 of claim 4).
As per Claim 5:
“the reference spectral line” in line 3 of claim 4 is interpreted as referring to “a reference spectral line” in line 10 of claim 1 (not to “a further reference spectral line in lines 5-6 of claim 4).
As per Claim 9:
“the reference spectral line” in line 1 of claim 9 is interpreted as referring to “a reference spectral line” in line 10 of claim 1 (not to “a further reference spectral line in lines 5-6 of claim 4).
As per Claim 10:
“the reference spectral line” in line 3 of claim 10 is interpreted as referring to “a reference spectral line” in line 10 of claim 1 (not to “a further reference spectral line in lines 5-6 of claim 4).
As per Claim 16:
“the reference spectral line” in the 4th to last line of claim 16 is interpreted as referring to “a reference spectral line” in line 10 of claim 12 (not to “a further reference spectral line in lines 5-6 of claim 16).
As per Claim 17:
“the reference spectral line” in line 3 of claim 17 is interpreted as referring to “a reference spectral line” in line 10 of claim 12 (not to “a further reference spectral line in lines 5-6 of claim 16).
As per Claim 22:
“the reference spectral line” in line 3 of claim 22 is interpreted as referring to “a reference spectral line” in line 10 of claim 12 (not to “a further reference spectral line in lines 5-6 of claim 16).
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 13, 17, 18, and 23, are objected to because of the following informalities:
“in such way” in line 2 of claim 11 seems like it may have been intended to be –in such a way—(see e.g. “in such a way” in line 2 of claim 17).
“combination of” in line 2 of claim 13 seems like it should be –a combination of--.
“reverse process spectrum” in the last 2 lines of claim 17 seems like it should be –reverse processed spectrum--.
“of the of the” in line 5 of claim 18 should be –of the—(i.e. delete one of the “of the” recitations)
There is a space between “factor” and the comma following “factor” at the start of line 7 of claim 18.
“in such way” in line 2 of claim 23 seems like it may have been intended to be –in such a way—(see e.g. “in such a way” in line 2 of claim 17).
Appropriate 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 4-11, 12-24, 26, and 28, 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 Claim 4:
“the filtered frame” in the last line of claim 4 lacks antecedent basis (“a filtered frame” is first introduced in claim 2 and claim 4 depends on claim 1).
As per Claim 5:
“the spectral line representing a lowest frequency of the spectrum” in lines 3-4 of claim 5 lacks explicit antecedent basis (spectra may inherently include a spectral line representing a lowest frequency but the phrase “a spectral line representing a lowest frequency of the spectrum” does not actually appear prior to “the spectral line representing a lowest frequency of the spectrum” in lines 3-4 of claim 5).
It is also not clear if Applicant meant for “the spectrum” in line 4 of claim 5 to refer to “a spectrum based on the frame and on the linear predictive coding coefficients” in lines 6-7 of claim 1, or to “a processed spectrum” in lines 8-9 of claim 1. Applicant has previously indicated the “the spectrum” is meant to refer to “a spectrum” and not “a processed spectrum” but in claims 1 and 5, “spectral lines” were initially recited as being “of the processed spectrum” and the “reference spectral line” in claim 1 is described as a reference for spectral lines of the processed spectrum, and so it seems like Applicant may have actually meant to refer to “the processed spectrum” in the last line of claim 5.
As per Claim 6:
“the spectral lines” in line 9 of claim 6, in line 10 of claim 6, and in line 11 of claim 6 is ambiguous (it can refer to either “spectral lines of a spectrum of the filtered frame” in the last line of claim 4 or to “spectral lines of the processed spectrum representing frequencies lower than a reference spectral line” in lines 9-10 of claim 1, and it’s not clear which set of “spectral lines” is the one that “the spectral lines” in line 9 of claim 6, in line 10 of claim 6, and in line 11 of claim 6 is supposed to refer to).
Additionally, if “the spectral lines in line 9 of claim 6, in line 10 of claim 6, and in line 11 of claim 6 refer to “spectral lines of a spectrum of the filtered frame” in the last line of claim 4, then “the frequencies of the spectral lines” in the 2nd to last line of claim 6 lacks antecedent basis (only the “spectral lines of the processed spectrum” in claim 1 are recited as “representing frequencies” such that only “spectral lines of the processed spectrum” in claim 1 have corresponding frequencies from which “the frequencies of the spectral lines” in the 2nd to last line of claim 6 can have antecedent basis).
“the spectral line emphasis factor with index i” in the last line of claim 6 lacks antecedent basis (the 3rd to last line of claim 6 recites where the index is for spectral lines and not spectral line emphasis factors, and while claim 4 recites where “the spectral line emphasis factors” are “appl[ied]… to spectral lines”, this does not establish a one-to-one correspondence between spectral line emphasis factors and spectral lines (as opposed to where the factors as a group are applied to the spectral lines as a group without necessarily applying one factor to each line) such that the index of any given spectral line is also necessarily an index of a corresponding emphasis factor.
As per Claim 8:
“the spectral lines being emphasized” in line 3 of claim 8 is ambiguous (it can refer to either “spectral lines of a spectrum of the filtered frame” in the last line of claim 4 [which can be interpreted as “being emphasized” as a result of being spectral lines to which emphasis factors are applied] or to “spectral lines of the processed spectrum representing frequencies lower than a reference spectral line” in lines 9-10 of claim 1)
As per Claim 11:
“the maximum”, “the minimum”, and “the first preset value” in the last 2 lines of claim 11 lack antecedent basis (“a minimum” and “a maximum” are introduced in claim 4 and “a first preset value” is introduced in claim 6, but claim 11 depends on claim 1).
As per Claim 12 (and similarly claim 26):
“the quantized spectrum” in line 6 of claim 12 is ambiguous (it can refer to any one of “quantized spectrums” [i.e. plural quantized spectrums] in line 3 of claim 12).
As per Claim 17:
“the spectral line representing the lowest frequency of the reverse process spectrum” in lines 3-5 of claim 17 lacks explicit antecedent basis (spectra may inherently include a spectral line representing a lowest frequency but the phrase “a spectral line representing a lowest frequency of the reverse process spectrum” does not actually appear prior to “the spectral line representing the lowest frequency of the reverse process spectrum” in lines 3-5 of claim 17).
As per Claim 18:
“the spectral lines” in the 5th to last line to the 4th to last line of claim 18, in the 4th to last line of claim 18, and in the 3rd to last line of claim 18 is ambiguous (it can refer to either “spectral lines of the spectrum of the de-quantized spectrum” in the last line of claim 16 or to “spectral lines of the reverse processed spectrum representing frequencies lower than a reference spectral line” in lines 9-10 of claim 12).
Additionally, if “the spectral lines in the 5th to last line to the 4th to last line of claim 18, in the 4th to last line of claim 18, and in the 3rd to last line of claim 18 refer to “spectral lines of the spectrum of the de-quantized spectrum” in the last line of claim 16, then “the frequencies of the spectral lines” in the 3rd to last line of claim 18 lacks antecedent basis (only the “spectral lines of the reverse processed spectrum” in claim 12 are recited as “representing frequencies” such that only “spectral lines of the reverse processed spectrum” in claim 12 have corresponding frequencies from which “the frequencies of the spectral lines” in the 3rd to last line of claim 18 can have antecedent basis).
“the spectral line de-emphasis factor with index i” in the last line of claim 18 lacks antecedent basis (the 4th to last line of claim 18 recites where the index is for spectral lines and not spectral line de-emphasis factors, and while claim 16 recites where “the spectral line de-emphasis factors” are “appl[ied]… to spectral lines”, this does not establish a one-to-one correspondence between spectral line de-emphasis factors and spectral lines (as opposed to where the factors as a group are applied to the spectral lines as a group without necessarily applying one factor to each line) such that the index of any given spectral line is also necessarily an index of a corresponding de-emphasis factor.
As per Claim 20:
“the spectral lines being de-emphasized” in line 3 of claim 20 is ambiguous (it can refer to either “spectral lines of the spectrum of the de-quantized spectrum” in the last line of claim 16 [which can be interpreted as “being de-emphasized” as a result of being spectral lines to which de-emphasis factors are applied] or to “spectral lines of the processed spectrum representing frequencies lower than a reference spectral line” in lines 9-10 of claim 12)
As per Claim 23:
“the maximum”, “the minimum”, and “the first preset value” in the last 2 lines of claim 23 lack antecedent basis (“a minimum” and “a maximum” are introduced in claim 16 and “a first preset value” is introduced in claim 18, but claim 23 depends on claim 12).
The dependent claims include the issues of their respective parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 27-28 are directed to computer programs without claiming that the computer programs are stored/embedded in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Claims 27-28 are therefore directed to “a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”)” which is not directed to any of the statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03 I.).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per Claim(s) 25 (and similarly claim[s] 1, and consequently claim[s] 2-11 and 27 which depend on claim[s] 25 and 1), the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of all limitations in claim(s) 25, including (i.e. in combination with the remaining limitations in claim[s] 25) A method for encoding a non-speech audio signal so as to produce therefrom a bitstream, the method comprising: filtering with a linear predictive coding filter comprising a plurality of linear predictive coding coefficients and converting a frame of the audio signal into a frequency domain in order to output a spectrum based on the frame and on the linear predictive coding coefficients; calculating a processed spectrum based on the spectrum, wherein spectral lines of the processed spectrum representing frequencies lower than a reference spectral line are emphasized; and controlling the calculation of the processed spectrum depending on the linear predictive coding coefficients of the linear predictive coding filter; and producing a quantized spectrum based on the processed spectrum.
As per Claim(s) 26 (and similarly claim[s] 12, and consequently claim[s] 13-23 and 28 which depend on claim[s] 26 and 12), the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of all limitations in claim(s) 26, including (i.e. in combination with the remaining limitations in claim[s] 26) A method for decoding a bitstream based on a non-speech audio signal so as to produce from the bitstream a non-speech audio output signal, the bitstream comprising quantized spectrums and a plurality of linear predictive coding coefficients, the method comprising: producing a de-quantized spectrum based on the quantized spectrum; calculating a reverse processed spectrum based on the de-quantized spectrum, wherein spectral lines of the reverse processed spectrum representing frequencies lower than a reference spectral line are deemphasized; and controlling the calculation of the reverse processed spectrum depending on the linear predictive coding coefficients comprised in the bitstream.
Bessette (US 2007/0147518) suggests a decoder for producing a music/”non-speech” audio signal by decoding a bitstream (paragraphs 20, 141, 163-164, 212, 349 ; Figures 1, 5a, and 11), a coder process which includes calculating a spectrum of an input TCX music/“non-speech” frame (paragraphs 20, 245, 246, 271; Figure 5a), applying low-frequency emphasis to the spectrum (particularly to only the first quarter of the spectrum, paragraphs 271-272), quantizing a spectrum after low-frequency emphasis (paragraphs 282-283, 287), transmitting global gain and lattice vectors (produced by quantizing a spectrum) to a decoder through a multiplexer and reconstructing a spectrum using gain and indices parameters that can be interpreted as a “quantized spectrum” (paragraphs 282-283; Figures 1 and 11).
A decoder that is a “mirror” of an encoder is common/conventional in the art (see e.g. US 2010/0286990, paragraph 41; US 5,473,727, col. 23, lines 26-32; US 6,898,566, col. 3, lines 22-37; US 6,748,363; US 2010/0023575, paragraph 38 and Figures 1-2). Bessette thus suggests a decoder which extracts a quantized spectrum from a bitstream, de-quantizes the extracted quantized spectrum, and performs low-frequency de-emphasis on the de-quantized spectrum produced by de-quantizing the extracted quantized spectrum, where low-frequency emphasis de-emphasizes spectral components below a reference spectral component (not specifically a spectral “line”)
Bessette does not appear to describe where low-frequency emphasis/de-emphasis is based on linear predictive coding coefficients.
Inoue et al. (US 5,864,796) suggests performing spectrum emphasis based on LPC coefficients (col. 3, lines 21-43; col. 5, lines 28-34) but does not appear to describe where the LPC coefficients are “comprised in the bitstream”.
Ehara (2008/0059166) suggests where a decoder includes a de-emphasis function and also decodes LPC coefficients from a multiplexed signal input to a demultiplexer (paragraphs 105, 106, 107, 113; Figure 7). In this reference, pre-emphasis (and corresponding de-emphasis “whose characteristics are inverse of pre-emphasis filter”) appear to be high-band enhancement functions (see paragraph 99), not low-band enhancement functions. This reference does not appear to describe where the decoded LPC coefficients are used to perform de-emphasis.
Applicant’s admitted prior art (Specification, page 2, first paragraph) teaches conventional adaptive low-frequency emphasis that amplifies low-frequency spectral lines.
2010/0286990 teaches “The linear prediction filtering may further operate on a warped frequency axis to selectively emphasize certain frequency ranges, such as low frequencies, over other frequencies” (paragraph 11). This reference appears to describe low-frequency emphasis as part of linear prediction filtering, and not where LPC coefficients used to generate a spectrum are also used to perform low frequency emphasis as a separate process on the spectrum (generated using the LPC coefficients)
2007/0011002 teaches “The above-described band expansion circuit 74 whitens the low frequency sub-band signal by means of a linear prediction filter. Subsequently, the frequency band expansion circuit 74 regulates the gain of the whitened low frequency sub-band signal, using the high frequency band information containing the gain value of the high frequency sub-band signal, to generate a high frequency sub-band signal” (paragraph 19). The whitening in this reference appears to suppress low frequency amplitudes, and not emphasize low frequency components.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,176,817, hereafter Parent Patent 1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are anticipated/rendered-obvious by the claims of Parent Patent 1.
Claim 1 is broader than Claim 1 of Parent Patent 1 (claim 1 does not include the last limitation of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 1).
Claims 2-11 correspond to Claims 2-11 of Parent Patent 1, respectively.
Claim 12 is broader than Claim 12 of Parent Patent 1 (claim 12 does not include the “bitstream receiver” limitation of Claim 12 of Parent Patent 1 and also does not depend on claim 1)
Claims 13-23 correspond to Claims 13-23 of Parent Patent 1, respectively.
Claim 24 broader than Claim 24 of Parent Patent 1 (Claim 24 of Parent Patent 1 is directed to a system comprising the encoder of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 1 and the decoder of Claim 12 of Parent Patent 1, and so teaches claim 24 which is directed to a system comprising at least one of the encoder of claim 1 or the decoder of claim 12 [as discussed above, claims 1 and 12 are broader than Claims 1 and 12 of Parent Patent 1 and so claims 1 and 12 taught by Claims 1 and 12 of Parent Patent 1).
Claims 25-26 are broader than Claims 25-26 of Parent Patent 1, respectively.
Claims 27-28 are taught by Claims 27-28 of Parent Patent 1, respectively (the mediums of Claims 27-28 of Parent Patent 1 comprise the programs of Claims 27-28).
Claims 12-24, 26, and 28, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, of U.S. Patent No. 10,692,513, hereafter Parent Patent 2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are anticipated/rendered-obvious by the claims of Parent Patent 2.
Claim 12 is broader than Claim 1 of Parent Patent 2 (claim 12 does not include the “bitstream receiver” limitation and the last limitation of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 2).
Claim 13 is directed to the last limitation of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 2.
Claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, correspond to Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 6, and 10, of Parent Patent 2, respectively.
Claim 24 is taught by Claim 12 of Parent Patent 2 (Claim 12 of Parent Patent 2 teaches a broader encoder than the one in Claim 1 and Claim 1 of Parent Patent 2 teaches a broader decoder than the one in Claim 12)
Claim 26 is broader than Claim 13 of Parent Patent 2.
Claim 28 is taught by Claim 14 of Parent Patent 2 (the medium of Claim 14 of Parent Patent 2 comprise the program of Claim 28).
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, of U.S. Patent No. 11,568,883, hereafter Parent Patent 3. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are anticipated/rendered-obvious by the claims of Parent Patent 3.
Claim 1 is taught by Claim 11 of Parent Patent 3 (interpreted as incorporating the limitations of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 3) (Claim 1 of Parent Patent 3 teach everything except the last limitation of Claim 1 and Claim 11 of Parent Patent 3 teaches the last limitation of Claim 1).
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, correspond to Claims 2, 10, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 8, and 9, of Parent Patent 3, respectively.
For each of Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine claim elements according to known methods because the Claims of Parent Patent 3 included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single claim, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the Claims of Parent Patent 3 being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single claim. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (by adding dependent claim limitations to parent claim limitations which are also incorporated, based on dependency, into other dependent claims [e.g., by adding the limitations of claim 2 of Parent Patent 3 to the limitations of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 3 which are incorporated, by dependency, into Claim 11 of Parent Patent 3; by adding the limitations of claim 12 of Parent Patent 3 to the limitations of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 3 which are incorporated, by dependency, into Claims 7 and 11 of Parent Patent 3, etc.]) and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The combination is the predictable results of Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
Claim 12 is broader than Claim 15 of Parent Patent 3 (claim 12 does not include the last limitation of Claim 15 of Parent Patent 3)
Claim 13 is taught by Claim 15 of Parent Patent 3 (Claim 13 is directed to the last limitation of Claim 15 of Parent Patent 3)
Claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, correspond to Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 23, and 24, of Parent Patent 3, respectively.
Claim 24 is rendered obvious by Claims 28 and 11 of Parent Patent 3.
More specifically, Claim 28 of Parent Patent 3 teaches a system comprising a decoder and an encoder, where the decoder is formed according to claim 15 of Parent Patent 3 (where claim 12 is broader than Claim 15 of Parent Patent 3), and where the encoder includes the limitations of Claim 1 except the last limitation of Claim 1.
Claim 28 of Parent Patent 3 does not, but Claim 11 of Parent Patent 3 teaches a quantization device configured to produce a quantized spectrum based on the processed spectrum.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine prior art elements according to known methods because the Claims of Parent Patent 3 included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single claim, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the Claims of Parent Patent 3 being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single claim. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (by adding the limitations of Claim 11 of Parent Patent 3 to the limitations of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 3 which are incorporated into Claim 28 of Parent Patent 3), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The combination is the predictable results of claim 24.
Claim 25 is rendered obvious by Claim 11 of Parent Patent 3 (The decoder of Claim 11 of Parent Patent 3 [interpreted as incorporating the limitations of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 3] suggests its method equivalent [i.e. claim 25 of this application])
Claim 26 is broader than Claim 26 of Parent Patent 3.
Claim 27 is rendered obvious by Claim 11 of Parent Patent 3 (The decoder of Claim 11 of Parent Patent 3 [interpreted as incorporating the limitations of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 3] suggests its computer program equivalent [i.e. claim 27 of this application])
Claim 28 is taught by Claim 27 of Parent Patent 3 (the medium of Claim 27 of Parent Patent 3 comprises the program of Claim 28).
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,561, hereafter Parent Patent 4. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are anticipated/rendered-obvious by the claims of Parent Patent 4.
Claim 1 is broader than Claim 1 of Parent Patent 4.
Claim 2 corresponds to Claim 2 of Parent Patent 4.
Claim 3 corresponds to Claim 3 of Parent Patent 4.
Claim 4 is taught by Claim 4 of Parent Patent 4 (the 2nd to last limitation of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 4 teaches the spectral analyzer and minimum-maximum analyzer of Claim 4 while Claim 4 of Parent Patent 4 teaches the emphasis factor calculator of Claim 4).
Claim 5 corresponds to Claim 5 of Parent Patent 4.
Claim 6 corresponds to Claim 6 of Parent Patent 4.
Claim 7 corresponds to Claim 7 of Parent Patent 4.
Claim 8 corresponds to Claim 8 of Parent Patent 4.
Claim 9 corresponds to Claim 9 of Parent Patent 4.
As per claim 10:
Claim 4 of Parent Patent 4 teaches the limitations of Claim 10 (which depends on claim 4) except wherein the further reference spectral line represents a frequency which is the same as or higher than a frequency represented by the reference spectral line.
Claim 4 of Parent Patent 4 does not, but Claim 10 of Parent Patent 4 teaches wherein the further reference spectral line represents a frequency which is the same as or higher than a frequency represented by the reference spectral line
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine prior art elements according to known methods because the Claims of Parent Patent 4 included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single claim, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the Claims of Parent Patent 4 being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single claim. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (by adding the limitations of Claim 10 of Parent Patent 4 to the limitations of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 4 which are incorporated into Claim 4 of Parent Patent 4), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The combination is the predictable results of claim 10.
Claim 11 is taught by Claim 1 of Parent Patent 4 (see last limitation of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 4).
Claim 12 is broader than Claim 11 of Parent Patent 4.
Claims 13, 14, and 15, correspond to Claims 12, 13, and 14, of Parent Patent 4, respectively.
Claim 16 is taught by Claim 15 of Parent Patent 4 (the 2nd to last limitation of Claim 11 of Parent Patent 4 teaches the spectral analyzer and minimum-maximum analyzer of Claim 16 and Claim 15 of Parent Patent 4 teaches the de-emphasis calculator of Claim 16)
Claims 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, correspond to Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, of Parent Patent 4, respectively.
As per Claim 22:
Claim 15 of Parent Patent 4 teaches the limitations of Claim 22 (which depends on claim 16) except wherein the further reference spectral line represents a frequency which is the same as or higher than a frequency represented by the reference spectral line.
Claim 15 of Parent Patent 4 does not, but Claim 21 of Parent Patent 4 teaches wherein the further reference spectral line represents a frequency which is the same as or higher than a frequency represented by the reference spectral line
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine prior art elements according to known methods because the Claims of Parent Patent 4 included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single claim, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the Claims of Parent Patent 4 being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single claim. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (by adding the limitations of Claim 21 of Parent Patent 4 to the limitations of Claim 11 of Parent Patent 4 which are incorporated into Claim 15 of Parent Patent 4), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The combination is the predictable results of claim 22.
Claim 23 is taught by Claim 11 of Parent Patent 4 (see last limitation of Claim 1 of Parent Patent 4).
Claim 24 is taught by Claim 22 of Parent Patent 4 (the encoder of claim 1 is broader than the encoder in Claim 22 of Parent Patent 4 and the decoder of claim 12 is broader than the decoder of Claim 11 of Parent Patent 4)
Claims 25-26 are broader than Claims 23-24 of Parent Patent 4, respectively.
Claims 27-28 are taught by Claims 25-26 of Parent Patent 4, respectively (the programs stored in the mediums of Claims 25-26 of Parent Patent 4 are for performing narrower methods than those of Claims 25 and 26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4249. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM -8:30PM EST.
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, 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 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.
EY 3/20/2026
/ERIC YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658