DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to Application no.18/577,225. All claims have been examined and are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-15, 18-19 in the reply filed on 1/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. 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
4. 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.
Specification
5. 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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has multiple paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
6. Claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier (claim 1: unit configured to…).
Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-9, 11-15, 18-19 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: figures 2, 29, 31 para: 507-515.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 2-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 recites: The encoding device according to claim 1, wherein the bit allocation unit executes minimum quantization processing on the MDCT coefficients of the plurality of the audio signals and executes additional quantization processing for quantizing the MDCT coefficient on a basis of a result of the minimum quantization processing in descending order of the priority of the audio signal indicated by the priority information.
Which is not taught by the cited prior art of record (Norimatsu, presented in art rejection below).
Additional Closely related references teach:
Ramalho 7,408,918
Col 5 l. 52-62: FIG. 4 is a diagrammatic representation showing an example of a compressed delay sensitive frame where the segments are mapped using 2 bits. The contiguous quantization levels spanning from substantially the maximum quantization level in a frame to substantially the minimum quantization level in a frame is referred to herein as the range of quantization levels. The number of segments levels spanned by this range of quantization levels is S. Each sample in a frame is encoded and sent by concatenating the appropriate number of B.sub.j bits needed to represent the mapping of the S segments spanned (see Table 2 above), with the four L bits
Takada 2012/0263312: [0007] We now explain the outer loop according to the conventional method, in reference to FIG. 17. First, the scale factor is initialized (S111). For example, the scale factor is initialized so that it is at a minimum, that is, it is quantized to the finest value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norimatsu et al (6,826,526).
Regarding claim 1 Norimatsu teaches An encoding device (col 1 l. 13-14: coding apparatuses and methods; col 13 l. 25-27: audio signal coding and decoding apparatuses) comprising:
a priority information generation unit configured to generate priority information indicating a priority of an audio signal, on a basis of at least one of the audio signal or metadata of the audio signal (col 2 l. 12-17: In the methods represented by the MPEG method, a digital audio signal on the time axis is transformed to the frequency axis using orthogonal transform, and data on the frequency axis are given data quantities, with a priority to auditively important one, while considering the auditive sensitivity characteristic of human beings.);
a time-frequency transform unit configured to perform time-frequency transform on the audio signal and generate an MDCT coefficient (col 13 l. 34-36 denotes an MDCT unit that performs modified discrete cosine transform for time-to-frequency conversion of a signal on the time axis to a signal on the frequency axis); and
a bit allocation unit configured to quantize the MDCT coefficient of the audio signal, in descending order of the priority of the audio signal indicated by the priority information, for a plurality of the audio signals (col 28 l. 24-34: when quantization is carried out, the input MDCT coefficients are divided into three bands and quantized independently, so that the process of quantizing the auditively important band with priority can be performed in the first-time quantization. Further, in the subsequent quantization units 502 and 503, the MDCT coefficients in this band are subjected to further quantization by stages, whereby the quantization error is reduced furthermore, and higher-definition audio reproduction is realized at the receiving end.).
Regarding claim 18 Norimatsu teaches A decoding device (col 13 l. 25-27: audio signal coding and decoding apparatuses) comprising:
a decoding unit configured to acquire an encoded audio signal obtained by quantizing an MDCT coefficient of an audio signal, in descending order of a priority of the audio signal indicated by priority information generated on a basis of at least one of the audio signal or metadata of the audio signal, for a plurality of the audio signals, and decode the encoded audio signal
(col 13 l. 45-55: In the decoding apparatus 2, reference numeral 106 denotes an inverse quantization unit that receives a signal output from the coding apparatus 1 and inversely quantizes this signal; 107 denotes an inverse normalization unit that inversely normalizes the output from the inverse quantization unit 106; 108 denotes an inverse MDCT unit that performs modified discrete cosine transform of the output from the inverse normalization unit 107; 109 denotes a window multiplication unit; and 110 denotes a frame overlapping unit.
col 28 l. 24-34: when quantization is carried out, the input MDCT coefficients are divided into three bands and quantized independently, so that the process of quantizing the auditively important band with priority can be performed in the first-time quantization. Further, in the subsequent quantization units 502 and 503, the MDCT coefficients in this band are subjected to further quantization by stages, whereby the quantization error is reduced furthermore, and higher-definition audio reproduction is realized at the receiving end).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norimatsu in view of Tatsumi et al (6,353,703).
Regarding claim 19 Norimatsu does not specifically teach where Tatsumni et al (6,353,703) teaches The decoding device according to claim 18, wherein the decoding unit further acquires mute information indicating whether or not a quantization result of the audio signal is a quantized value of zero data, and generates the audio signal on a basis of the MDCT coefficient obtained by decoding or generates the audio signal as setting the MDCT coefficient to zero, according to the mute information
(col 57 l. 36-57: 46-57: In steps 5 to 9, subsampling, coding bit allocation, and quantization are not performed to periods t2 and t3 and preset coded data dN is output as subband output 0. In case of k=2, by omitting subsampling, coding bit allocation, and quantization every two continuous processings, processing burden is reduced to about 1/2. Furthermore, by setting k=3, and thereby omitting these processings in twice in every three times, the processing burden is further reduced to about 1/3. In this way, the input buffer supervising unit 1214 changes the value of constant k, thereby load on CPU is reduced and it is possible to continue real-time processing with lower quality of sound.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to not perform quantization for an improved system, where thereby load on CPU is reduced and it is possible to continue real-time processing (col 57 l. 55-57)
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
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