DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to remarks filed 1/16/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
4. Claims 1, 14, 38 have been amended. The 101 rejection has been overcome based on the amendments. The claim objection has been overcome based on the amendments.
Response to Arguments
5. Regarding the art rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Prior Art Van de Par: “Informed postprocessing for auditory roughness removal for low-bitrate audio coders”, from initial IDS 3/4/2024 #8, is incorrect; that it is not a real reference and therefore does not qualify as prior art. Applicant argues the reference’s correct information is listed as #9. An updated IDS has been provided 1/16/2026 which has removed that document.
However, because the document appears to be prior art on its face and was indicated as such in the Information Disclosure Statement, the Office has strong reason to believe that the article is, in fact, prior art. Attorney arguments alone are not sufficient, and Applicant needs to submit proper declaration attesting to the facts along with supporting evidence. Therefore, currently, the rejection is maintained, as the prior art has not properly been disqualified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-15, 24, 27-28, 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van de Par, et al “Informed Postprocessing for auditory Roughness Removal for low-bitrate audio coders” October 2019 (provided in IDS).
Regarding claim 1 van de Par teaches An apparatus for processing an audio input signal to acquire an audio output signal (fig 1 audio encoder-decoder), wherein the apparatus comprises:
a signal analyser configured for determining information on an auditory roughness of one or more spectral bands of the audio input signal
(Page 2 2nd col 2nd para: side-peak removal needs to be done selectively, i.e. only in those parts of the audio signal where the encoding and decoding process cause roughness artefacts. Since this decision is related to the perception of such artefacts, such a decision can be driven by a psycho-acoustical model that compares the original and decoded signals to determine in what time-frequency regions, roughness artefacts are introduced;
Page 3 1st col 1st para: where roughness artefacts are introduced), and
a signal processor configured for generating the audio output signal by processing the audio input signal depending on the information on the auditory roughness of the one or more spectral bands
(Abstract: auditory roughness
Remove these roughness artifacts at the decoder side controlled by a small amount of guidance information transmitted by the encoder
Page 2 2nd col 2nd para: side-peak removal needs to be done selectively, i.e. only in those parts of the audio signal where the encoding and decoding process cause roughness artefacts. Since this decision is related to the perception of such artefacts, such a decision can be driven by a psycho-acoustical model that compares the original and decoded signals to determine in what time-frequency regions, roughness artefacts are introduced;
Page 4 2nd col 1st para: considerable attenuated, in this manner reducing potential audible modulation artefacts)
Regarding claim 2 Van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the auditory roughness of the one or more spectral bands of the audio input signal depends on a coding error introduced by encoding an original audio signal to acquire the encoded audio signal and/or introduced by decoding the encoded audio signal to acquire the audio input signal (Abstract: artifacts may occur…due to quantization errors or may be added when using an audio bandwidth extension)
Regarding claim 3 Van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 1
wherein the signal analyser configured to determine a plurality of tonal components in the one or more spectral bands (abstract: modulation artefacts can be introduced onto tonal signal components, which are often perceived as auditory roughness;
pg 2 1st col 3rd para: amplify roughness artifacts since the tonal frequency components are copied together), and
wherein the signal analyser is configured to select one or more tonal components out of the plurality of tonal components depending on a spectral proximity of each of the plurality of tonal components to another one of the plurality of tonal components
(Page 2 2nd col 2nd para: side-peak removal needs to be done selectively, i.e. only in those parts of the audio signal where the encoding and decoding process cause roughness artefacts. Since this decision is related to the perception of such artefacts, such a decision can be driven by a psycho-acoustical model that compares the original and decoded signals to determine in what time-frequency regions, roughness artefacts are introduced), and
wherein the signal processor is configured to remove and/or to attenuate and/or to modify the one or more tonal components
(Abstract: border of replicated bands
Remove these roughness artifacts at the decoder side controlled by a small amount of guidance information transmitted by the encoder
Page 2 2nd col 2nd para: side-peak removal needs to be done selectively, i.e. only in those parts of the audio signal where the encoding and decoding process cause roughness artefacts. Since this decision is related to the perception of such artefacts, such a decision can be driven by a psycho-acoustical model that compares the original and decoded signals to determine in what time-frequency regions, roughness artefacts are introduced
2.1 1st para: spectral representation ; spectral peaks that cause roughness artefacts are attenuated
2.1 2nd para: determines all peaks that are associated with roughness
3rd para: audio components that sounds rough, should be represented by a main spectral peak, with a nearby side peak that can be separated by as little as 10HZ).
Regarding claim 4 Van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 3
wherein the signal analyser is configured to receive a bitstream comprising steering information (Page 2 section 2 1st para: extraction of auxiliary information at the encoder side to steer the Roughness Removal that will be performed after the audio signal has been decoded; sends auxiliary information within the RR bitstream), and
wherein the signal analyser is configured to select the one or more tonal components out of the group of tonal components further depending on the steering information.
(pg 2 column 2 2nd & 3rd para; Page 2 section 2 1st para: extraction of auxiliary information at the encoder side to steer the Roughness Removal that will be performed after the audio signal has been decoded; sends auxiliary information within the RR bitstream)
Regarding claim 6 Van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 3
wherein the signal processor is configured to remove and/or to attenuate and/or to modify the one or more tonal components by employing a temporal smoothing or by employing a temporal attenuation (Abstract; pg 2 2nd col 3rd para; 2.1 1st para : spectral representation ; spectral peaks that cause roughness artefacts are attenuated; pg 4 1st col temporal smoothing).
Regarding claim 7 van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 1
wherein the signal processor is configured to process the audio input signal by removing or by attenuating one or more side peaks from a magnitude spectrum of the audio input signal, wherein each side peak of the one or more side peaks is a local peak within the magnitude spectrum being located within a predefined frequency distance from another local peak within the magnitude spectrum, and comprising a smaller magnitude than said other local peak
(Pg 2 left/1st column 4th para: tonal components would become more visible in the magnitude spectrum as side-bands or even side-peaks that appear next to the primary tonal component;
Page 2 2nd col 2nd para: side-peak removal needs to be done selectively, i.e. only in those parts of the audio signal where the encoding and decoding process cause roughness artefacts. Since this decision is related to the perception of such artefacts, such a decision can be driven by a psycho-acoustical model that compares the original and decoded signals to determine in what time-frequency regions, roughness artefacts are introduced; pg 3 1st col 4th para main spectral peak, with a nearby side peak that can be separated by as little as 10Hz)
Regarding claim 8 van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 1
wherein the signal analyser is configured to determine a plurality of local peaks in an initial magnitude spectrum of the one or more spectral bands of the audio input signal to acquire the information on the auditory roughness (Pg 2 left/1st column 4th para: tonal components would become more visible in the magnitude spectrum as side-bands or even side-peaks that appear next to the primary tonal component; Page 2 2nd col 2nd para; pg 3 1st col 4th para).
Regarding claim 9 van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 8
wherein the plurality of local peaks are a first group of a plurality of local peaks
(Pg 2 left/1st column 4th para: tonal components would become more visible in the magnitude spectrum as side-bands or even side-peaks that appear next to the primary tonal component; Page 2 2nd col 2nd para; pg 3 1st col 4th para: main spectral peak; nearby side peak; figure 3),
wherein the signal analyser is configured to smooth the initial magnitude spectrum of the one or more spectral bands to acquire a smoothed magnitude spectrum (pg 3 2nd col 1st para: magnitude spectrum is smoothed; figure 3),
wherein the signal analyser is configured to determine a second group of one or more local peaks in the smoothed magnitude spectrum (fig 3; pg 3 2nd col 1st para),
wherein the signal analyser is configured to determine, as the information on the auditory roughness, a third group of one or more local peaks which comprises all local peaks of the first group of the plurality of local peaks that do not comprise a corresponding peak within the second group of local peaks, such that the third group of one or more local peaks does not comprise any local peak of the second group of one or more local peaks (figure 3; pg 3 2nd col 2nd -3rdt para; pg 4 1st col 1st para).
Regarding claim 10 van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 9
wherein the signal processor is configured to process the audio input signal by removing or by attenuating the one or more local peaks of the third group in the initial magnitude spectrum of the one or more spectral bands to acquire a magnitude spectrum of the one or more spectral bands of the audio output signal (figure 3; pg 3 2nd col 2nd -3rdt para; pg 4 1st col 1st para – 2nd col: attenuation filter is applied).
Regarding claim 14 van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein a frequency spectrum of the audio input signal comprises a plurality of spectral bands
(Page 2 2nd col 2nd para: side-peak removal needs to be done selectively, i.e. only in those parts of the audio signal where the encoding and decoding process cause roughness artefacts. Since this decision is related to the perception of such artefacts, such a decision can be driven by a psycho-acoustical model that compares the original and decoded signals to determine in what time-frequency regions, roughness artefacts are introduced;
Page 3 1st col 1st para: where roughness artefacts are introduced)),
wherein the signal analyser is configured to receive or to determine the one or more spectral bands out of the plurality of spectral bands, for which the information on the auditory roughness shall be determined (Page 2 2nd col 2nd para),
wherein the signal analyser is configured to determine the information on the auditory roughness for said one or more spectral bands of the audio input signal (Page 2 2nd col 2nd para), and
wherein the signal analyser is configured to not determine information on the auditory roughness for any other spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands of the audio input signal.
(Page 2 2nd col 2nd para: side-peak removal needs to be done selectively, i.e. only in those parts of the audio signal where the encoding and decoding process cause roughness artefacts. Since this decision is related to the perception of such artefacts, such a decision can be driven by a psycho-acoustical model that compares the original and decoded signals to determine in what time-frequency regions, roughness artefacts are introduced).
Regarding claim 15 van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 14,
wherein the signal analyser is configured to receive the information on the one or more spectral bands, for which the information on the auditory roughness shall be determined, from an encoder side (pg 2 2nd col 3rd para; Section 2 pg 2 2nd col 5th para); or
wherein the signal analyser is configured to receive the information on the one or more spectral bands, for which the information on the auditory roughness shall be determined, as a binary mask or as a compressed binary mask; or
wherein the apparatus is configured receive a selection filter,
wherein the signal analyser is configured to determine, the one or more spectral bands out of the plurality of spectral bands, for which the information on the auditory roughness shall be determined, depending on the selection filter; or
wherein the signal analyser is configured to determine the one or more spectral bands out of the plurality of spectral bands, for which the information on the auditory roughness shall be determined or
wherein the signal analyser is configured to not use the information on the auditory roughness for those spectral bands of the plurality of spectral bands which comprise one or more transients.
Regarding claim 24 Van de Par teaches An apparatus for generating an audio output signal from an encoded audio signal (fig 1 audio encoder-decoder), wherein the apparatus comprises:
an audio decoder configured for decoding the encoded audio signal to acquire a decoded audio signal (fig 1 audio encoder-decoder; pg 2 2nd col 5th para: RR decoder), and
an apparatus for processing according to claim 1 (fig 1; & see claim 1), wherein the audio decoder is configured to feed the decoded audio signal as the audio input signal into the apparatus for processing according to claim 1 (fig 1; Section 2 1st para (pg 2 2nd col 5th of column): RR Decoder…where spectral components are altered to remove roughness (at the RR Decoder side)),
wherein the apparatus for processing according to claim 1 is configured to process the decoded audio signal to acquire the audio output signal (fig 1).
Further rejected for similar rationale and reasoning as claim 1
(Abstract: auditory roughness
Remove these roughness artifacts at the decoder side controlled by a small amount of guidance information transmitted by the encoder;
Page 2 2nd col 2nd para: side-peak removal needs to be done selectively, i.e. only in those parts of the audio signal where the encoding and decoding process cause roughness artefacts. Since this decision is related to the perception of such artefacts, such a decision can be driven by a psycho-acoustical model that compares the original and decoded signals to determine in what time-frequency regions, roughness artefacts are introduced;
Page 4 2nd col 1st para: considerable attenuated, in this manner reducing potential audible modulation artefacts)
Regarding claim 27 Van de Par teaches An audio encoder for encoding an initial audio signal to acquire an encoded audio signal and auxiliary information (abstract; section 2 1st para (pg 2 2nd col 5th overall para of column)), wherein the audio encoder comprises comprising:
an encoding module for encoding the initial audio signal to acquire the encoded audio signal (fig 1; section 2 1st para: RR Encoder), and
a side information generator for generating and outputting the auxiliary information depending on the initial audio signal and further depending on the encoded audio signal (Pg 2 2nd col 3rd para: the decisions that the psycho-acoustical model makes about whether roughness artifacts should be removed requires access to the original signal..implies that auxiliary information needs to be sent from the encoder to the decoder
section 2 1st para RR Encoder),
wherein the auxiliary information comprises an indication that indicates one or more spectral bands out of a plurality of spectral bands, for which information on an auditory roughness shall be determined on a decoder side
(Pg 2 2nd col 3rd para: the decisions that the psycho-acoustical model makes about whether roughness artifacts should be removed requires access to the original signal..implies that auxiliary information needs to be sent from the encoder to the decoder; Section 2 1st para).
Regarding claim 28 van de Par teaches The audio encoder according to claim 27
wherein the side information generator is configured to generate the additional information depending on a perceptual analysis model or a psycho-acoustical model (Pg 2 2nd col 3rd para: the decisions that the psycho-acoustical model makes about whether roughness artifacts should be removed requires access to the original signal..implies that auxiliary information needs to be sent from the encoder to the decoder);
or wherein the side information generator is configured to generate as the auxiliary information a binary mask that indicates the one or more spectral bands out of the plurality of spectral bands which exhibit an increased roughness, and for which the information on the auditory roughness shall be determined on the decoder side; or
wherein the side information generator is configured to generate the auxiliary information by employing a temporal modulation-processing; or
wherein the side information generator is configured to generate the auxiliary information by generating a selection filter; or
wherein the side information generator is configured to generate the indication of the auxiliary information that indicates the one or more spectral bands out of the plurality of spectral bands, for which information on an auditory roughness shall be determined on a decoder side by employing a neural network.
Regarding claim 37 Van de Par teaches A system comprising,
an audio encoder for encoding an initial audio signal to acquire an encoded audio signal and auxiliary information, wherein the audio encoder comprises:
an encoding module for encoding the initial audio signal to acquire the encoded audio signal, and
a side information generator for generating and outputting the auxiliary information depending on the initial audio signal and further depending on the encoded audio signal,
wherein the auxiliary information comprises an indication that indicates one or more spectral bands out of a plurality of spectral bands, for which information on an auditory roughness shall be determined on a decoder side, and
an apparatus according to claim 24 for generating an audio output signal from an encoded audio signal,
wherein the apparatus according to claim 24 is configured to generate the audio output signal depending on encoded audio signal and depending on the auxiliary information.
Claim recites limitations similar to claims 27(encoder) and 24 (decoder) and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning
Regarding claim 38 van de Par teaches A method for processing an audio input signal to acquire an audio output signal, wherein the method comprises:
determining information on an auditory roughness of one or more spectral bands of the audio input signal, and
generating the audio output signal by processing the audio input signal depending on the information on the auditory roughness of the one or more spectral bands.
Claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning
Regarding claim 39 Van de Par teaches A method for encoding an initial audio signal to acquire an encoded audio signal and auxiliary information, wherein the method comprises:
encoding the initial audio signal to acquire the encoded audio signal, and
generating and outputting the auxiliary information depending on the initial audio signal and further depending on the encoded audio signal,
wherein the auxiliary information comprises an indication that indicates one or more spectral bands out of a plurality of spectral bands, for which information on an auditory roughness shall be determined on a decoder side.
Claim recites limitations similar to claim 27 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning
Regarding claim 40 Van de Par teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program for implementing the method of claim 38 when the method is executed on a computer or signal processor.
Claim recites limitations similar to claim 38 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning
Regarding claim 41 Van de Par teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program for implementing the method of claim 39 when the method is executed on a computer or signal processor.
Claim recites limitations similar to claim 39 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van de Par in view of Disch et al (2016/0140980).
Regarding claim 5 Van de Par teaches The apparatus according to claim 4
wherein the steering information is represented in a first time-frequency domain or in a first frequency domain (pg 2 column 2 2nd & 3rd para; Page 2 section 2 1st para), {wherein the steering information comprises a first spectral resolution},
wherein the signal analyser is configured to determine the plurality of tonal components in a {second} time-frequency domain (pg 2 column 2 2nd & 3rd para; Page 2 section 2 1st para) {comprising a second spectral resolution, the second spectral resolution being a different spectral resolution than the first spectral resolution};
but does not specifically teach where Disch teaches a first and second spectral resolution (0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate multiple spectral resolutions to ensure the appropriate and complete set of tonal components are obtained for improved auditory roughness determination and processing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN A ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571-272-7516. 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.
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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAUN ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655