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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding arguments on pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Examiner notes that each of the steps has been characterized as a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea. For example, performing a time-frequency transformation on an input audio signal to derive a frequency spectrum is a mathematical calculation . Obtaining a magnitude at a region is a measurement, while obtaining the measures is a result of performing mathematical calculations. Determining an encoding mode could be the result of comparison to a threshold, which is a mathematical calculation. Finally, the encoding itself is considered a series of mathematical calculations. The lack of detail in the claimed processes allows for broad interpretation, which encompasses abstract concepts. Further, there are no additional limitations that could be considered to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or constitute significantly more. Further, as each limitation is considered abstract, it cannot be considered as an improvement, as the improvements must be in addition to the abstract ideas. Regarding arguments on page s 11 -13 of the Remarks, Examiner notes that a single peak-to-average ratio of Liu is being interpreted as both a peakyness measure and a noise band detection measure. A high peak-to-average ratio indicates peakyness, or that a strong signal component is present, while a low peak-to-average ratio indicates that there is no strong signal component, and would thus be considered a noise band. Therefore, the peak-to-average ratio of Liu discloses both a peakyness measure and a noise band detection measure. A single peak-to-average ratio could be considered both a peakyness and noise band detection measure, or alternatively, the ratio for one subband could be considered the peakyness measure and the ratio for the other subband could be considered the noise band detection measure. The claims lack any sort of detail on what constitutes the peakyness measure or the noise band detection measure, or even the region of the signal that the measures are being taken. Therefore, the lack of details in the claims allows for broad interpretation of the two measures, and the Liu reference teaches the claimed limitations. 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. Claim s 1-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Using the subject matter eligibility test from page 74621 of the Federal Register Notice titled “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” a two-step process is performed. Under step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claims 1-24 are directed to a method , which is a process; claims 25-26 are directed to an apparatus, which is a machine or an article of manufacture . Step 2A (part 1 of the Mayo test), using the guidance from pages 50-57 of the Federal Register Vol. 84 No. 4 from Monday, January 7, 2019, requires applying a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, determining if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. In this case, claim 1 recites deriving a spectrum, obtaining a magnitude, obtaining a peakyness measure, obtaining a noise band detection measure, and encoding a signal, which are mathematical calculations, and determining the encoding mode , which is a mental process. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. In this case, there are no additional limitations that qualify as practical applications . Step 2B (part 2 of the Mayo test) requires analyzing the claims to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Regarding claim 1 , deriving a spectrum, obtaining a magnitude, obtaining a peakyness measure, obtaining a noise band detection measure, determining the encoding mode, and encoding a signal are mathematical calculations , which are abstract ideas, without integration into a practical application, and without significantly more. Regarding claim 2 , selecting an encoding mode is a mental process, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claims 3, 5, 9-10 , 14 , the limitations are further clarifications of the above abstract ideas. Regarding claim 4 , segmenting the signal, transforming the signal, and obtaining the magnitude spectrum are mathematical calculations, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claim 6 , the obtaining the magnitude is a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claims 7-8 , obtaining the peakyness measure is a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claim 11 ¸ obtaining the noise band detection measure is a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claim 12 , the value determination is a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claim 13 , low pass filtering is a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claim 15-19 , determining the encoding mode is a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claim 20 , deriving a spectrum, obtaining a magnitude, obtaining a peakyness measure, obtaining a noise band detection measure, and determining a harmonic condition are mathematical calculations, which are abstract ideas. Transmitting data is mere extrasolution activity, and does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or constitute significantly more. Regarding claim 21 , comparing values to thresholds is a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claim 22 , determining the values are mathematical calculations, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claim 23 , determining the values are mathematical calculations, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claim 24 , determining the values are mathematical calculations, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Regarding claim 25 , the use of processing circuitry and memory are generic computing components, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or constitute significantly more. Regarding claim 26 , the use of encoder apparatus is a generic computing component, and does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or constitute significantly more. The limitations of the claims, taken alone, do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Applicable case law cited in the Federal Register includes, but is not limited to: Alice Corp. , 134 S. Ct. at 2355-56, Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. , 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Benson , 409 U.S. at 63. See "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ," dated June 25, 2014, and the Federal Register notice titled "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility" (79 FR 74618). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 , 20 , and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2017/0125031 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu . Regarding claim 1 , Liu teaches: A method in an encoder to determine which of two encoding modes or groups of encoding modes to use, the method comprising: deriving a frequency spectrum of an input audio signal (Fig. 4 element 401, para [0405-407], where an audio frame has time-frequency transformation performed on it); obtaining a magnitude of the frequency spectrum of a critical frequency region (Fig. 4 element 401, para [0405-407], where spectral coefficients are determined, which would include critical frequency regions); obtaining a peakyness measure (Fig. 4 element 402, para [0408], where a peak-to-average ratio is considered a peakyness measure); obtaining a noise band detection measure (Fig. 4 element 402, para [0408], where a low peak-to-average ratio is considered a noise band); determining which one of the two encoding modes or groups of encoding modes to use based on at least the peakyness measure and the noise band detection measure (Fig. 4 element 404, 405, para [0413-415], where different encoding modes are selected based on the ratio of the peak-to-average ratios); and encoding the input audio signal based on the encoding mode determined to use (Fig. 4 element 404, 405, para [0413-415], where the spectral coefficients are encoded). Regarding claim 2 , Liu teaches: The method of Claim 1, wherein encoding the input audio signal based on the encoding mode determined to use comprises: responsive to a group of encoding modes being determined to use, selecting one encoding mode of the group of encoding modes to use to encode the input audio signal (Fig. 4 element 404, 405, para [0413-415], where different encoding modes are selected based on the ratio of the peak-to-average ratios). Regarding claim 3 , Liu teaches: The method of Claim 1, wherein deriving the frequency spectrum comprises deriving a frequency spectrum X(m, k), where X(m, k) denotes the frequency spectrum for frame m at frequency index k (Fig. 4 element 401-402, para [0405-407], [0412], [0217-219], where spectral coefficients are calculated per frame at different frequency bins). Regarding claim 20 , Liu teaches: A method in an encoder to determine whether an input audio signal has high peakyness and low energy concentration, the method comprising: deriving a frequency spectrum of an input audio signal (Fig. 4 element 401, para [0405-407], where an audio frame has time-frequency transformation performed on it); obtaining a magnitude of a critical frequency region of the frequency spectrum (Fig. 4 element 401, para [0405-407], where spectral coefficients are determined, which would include critical frequency regions); obtaining a peakyness measure of a frame of the input audio signal (Fig. 4 element 402, para [0408], where a peak-to-average ratio is considered a peakyness measure); obtaining a noise band detection measure (Fig. 4 element 402, para [0408], where a low peak-to-average ratio is considered a noise band); determining a harmonic condition based on at least the peakyness measure and the noise band detection measure (Fig. 4 element 403, para [0409-410], where the ratio of the peak-to-average ratios falling within an interval is the harmonic condition); and transmitting an indication of whether the harmonic condition is true or false (Fig. 4 element 404, 405, para [0413-415], where the spectral coefficients are encoded based on the harmonic condition being true or false). Regarding claim 25 , Liu teaches: An encoder apparatus comprising: processing circuitry (Fig. 10 element 1001, para [0521], where a processor is used); and memory coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the encoder apparatus to perform operations according to Claim 1 (Fig. 10 element 1005, para [0523], where memory is used). Regarding claim 26 , Liu teaches: An encoder apparatus adapted to perform the method according to Claim 1 (Fig. 10 element 1001, para [0520-521], where a coder is used). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim (s) 6, 8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, in view of Etsi ( ETSI TS 126 445 V14.1.0 (2017-08); Technical Specification; Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; Codec for Enhanced Voice Services (EVS); Detailed algorithmic description (3GPP TS 26.445 version 14.1.0 Release 14), 660 pages. ) . Regarding claim 6 , Liu teaches: The method of Claim 3,wherein obtaining the magnitude of the frequency spectrum of the critical frequency region comprises obtaining the magnitude of the frequency spectrum of the critical frequency region in accordance with Liu does not teach: A 0 m =|X m, k start | A 1 m =|X m, k start +1 | … A M-1 m =|X m, k end | where M =kend- kstart + 1 is the number of frequency indices in a critical band associated with the critical frequency region. Etsi teaches: A 0 m =|X m, k start | A 1 m =|X m, k start +1 | … A M-1 m =|X m, k end | where M =kend- kstart + 1 is the number of frequency indices in a critical band associated with the critical frequency region (page 247 2nd half of page, where the coefficients are split into 9 bands with 32 coefficients per band, and where their magnitudes are determined) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Liu by using the frequency bands of Etsi (Etsi page 247 2nd half of page) for the input audio signal of Liu (Liu para [0405-407]) in order to determine spectral fluctuation of the frequency coefficients and to categorize the frames (Etsi page 247 section 5.2.6.2.1.3 first paragraph). Regarding claim 8 , Liu in view of Etsi teaches: The method of Claim 6, wherein obtaining the peakyness measure comprises obtaining the peakyness measure in accordance with t(m) = i=0 M-1 low( A i m ) low (A i m )= 1, A i (m)< A thr max ( A i (m)) 0, A i (m)≥ A thr max ( A i (m)) where Athr is a relative threshold (Etsi page 248 top paragraph, where the counter is incremented when the specified conditions are met). Regarding claim 21 , Liu teaches: The method of Claim 20 further comprising: Liu does not teach: determining that the harmonic condition is true responsive to a low pass filtered crest(m) being greater than a crest threshold and a low pass filtered crestmod(m) being greater than a crest mod threshold, wherein crest(m) is a measure of the peakyness of frame m and crest mod(m) is a measure of a local concentration of energy. Etsi teaches: determining that the harmonic condition is true responsive to a low pass filtered crest(m) being greater than a crest threshold and a low pass filtered crestmod(m) being greater than a crestmod threshold, wherein crest(m) is a measure of the peakyness of frame m and crestmod(m) is a measure of a local concentration of energy (page 248 first dash after equations, where a frame is classified as harmonic when kmax, interpreted as the measure of peakyness, is greater than a threshold and when csharp, interpreted as the local concentration of energy, is also above a threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Liu by using the frequency bands of Etsi (Etsi page 247 2nd half of page) for the input audio signal of Liu (Liu para [0405-407]) in order to determine spectral fluctuation of the frequency coefficients and to categorize the frames (Etsi page 247 section 5.2.6.2.1.3 first paragraph). Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, in view of Etsi, and further in view of LeBoeuf et al. (US 2011/0075851 A1), hereinafter referred to as LeBoeuf . Regarding claim 7 , Liu in view of Etsi teaches: The method of Claim 6, wherein obtaining the peakyness measure comprises obtaining the peakyness measure in accordance with Liu in view of Etsi does not teach: crest(m) = max ( A i m ) √ 1 M i=0 M-1 A i (m) 2 where crest(m) gives a measure of the peakyness of frame m. LeBoeuf teaches: crest(m) = max ( A i m ) √ 1 M i=0 M-1 A i (m) 2 where crest(m) gives a measure of the peakyness of frame m (para [0033], where the spectral crest factor is calculated as the ratio between the highest peaks and the mean RMS value per frequency band). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Liu in view of Etsi by using the calculation of LeBoeuf (LeBoeuf para [0033]) for the peakyness of Liu in view of Etsi (Liu para [0408]), in order to determine the type of a sound object in real time (LeBoeuf para [0018]). Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 4-5, 9-19, and 22-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 , set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of Liu, Etsi, and LeBoeuf do not teach the limitations of the claims . Specifically, none of the cited prior art teaches the specific equations, index values, and parameter values in the cited claims. Hence, none of the cited prior art, either alone or in combination thereof, teaches the combination of limitations found in the claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6,148,282 A col. 6 lines 8-25 teaches comparing peakiness to a peakiness threshold to determine unvoiced speech or noise for proper coding. 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0685 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:00am-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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Richemond Dorvil can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658