DETAILED ACTION
Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 4
II. Priority 4
III. Pertinent Prosecution History 4
IV. Reissue Requirements 5
V. Claim Status 6
VI. Information Disclosure Statement 7
VII. Oath/Declaration 7
VIII. Specification Objections 8
IX. Drawings Objections 9
X. Claim Objections 10
XI. Claim Interpretation 11
A. Lexicographic Definitions 11
B. 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph 12
C. 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation' 12
(1) System 13
XII. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112 13
A. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph 13
XIII. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 251 14
A. Oath/Declaration 14
XIV. Double Patenting 14
A. U.S. Application No. 18/630,252 15
B. U.S. Application No. 18/630,266 19
C. U.S. Application No. 18/630,299 23
D. U.S. Application No. 18/630,324 25
XV. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 28
A. Claims 21, 29, 30, 32 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Neuendorf et al., “Completion of Core Experiment on unification of USAC Windowing and Frame Transitions”, MPEG 2010 Meeting No.Ml7167 (“Neuendorf’Paper”) in view of Kirchherr et al. (European Publication No. EP 932141 A2) (“Kirchherr”). 28
B. Claims 22, 23, 27 and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Neuendorf et al., “Completion of Core Experiment on unification of USAC Windowing and Frame Transitions”, MPEG 2010 Meeting No.Ml7167 (“Neuendorf’Paper”) in view of Kirchherr et al. (European Publication No. EP 932141 A2) (“Kirchherr”) as applied to claims 21, 29, 30, 32 and 33 above, and further in view of Neuendorf et al. (International Publication No. WO 2010/040522 A2) (“Neuendorf’522”). 46
C. Claim 33 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Neuendorf et al., “Completion of Core Experiment on unification of USAC Windowing and Frame Transitions”, MPEG 2010 Meeting No.Ml7167 (“Neuendorf’Paper”) in view of Bessette (U.S. Patent No. 9,093,066) (“Bessette”) and Kirchherr et al. (European Publication No. EP 932141 A2) (“Kirchherr”). 52
XVI. Allowable Subject Matter 56
A. Claims 24-26 56
B. Claim 31 57
XVII. Conclusion 58
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Priority
Applicant filed the instant Reissue Application No. 18/630,171 (“‘171 Reissue Application”) on 09 April 2024 for U.S. Application No. 13/736,762 (“‘762 Application”), filed 08 January 2013, now U.S. Patent No. 9,257,130 (“‘130 Patent”), issued 09 February 2016, which is a continuation of PCT Application No. PCT/EP2011/061521 (“‘521 PCT Application"), filed 07 July 2011, which claims domestic priority to Provisional Application No. 61/362,547 (“ ‘547 Prov Application”), filed 08 July 2010 and Provisional Application No. 61/372,347 (“ ‘547 Prov Application”), filed 10 August 2010.
Thus, the Examiner concludes that for examination purposes the instant ‘171 Reissue Application claims a priority date of 08 July 2010.
Pertinent Prosecution History
As set forth supra, Applicant filed the application for the instant ‘171 Reissue Application on 09 April 2024. The Examiner finds that the instant ‘171 Reissue Application included a preliminary amendment (“April 2024 Preliminary Amendment”). The April 2024 Preliminary Amendment provided a Specification Amendment (“April 2024 Spec Amendment”) and a Claim Amendment (“April 2024 Claim Amendment”).
Reissue Requirements
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the ‘130 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, post-grant proceedings and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
The Examiner notes that Amendment practice for Reissue Applications is NOT the same as for non-provisional applications. See MPEP §§ 1413 and 1453. Reissue application amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.173, while non-provisional application amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.121. Particularly,
Manner of making amendments under 37 CFR 1.173:
All markings (underlining and bracketing) are made relative to the original patent text, 37 CFR 1.173(g) (and not relative to the prior amendment).
For amendments to the abstract, specification and claims, the deleted matter must be enclosed in brackets, and the added matter must be underlined. See 37 CFR 1.173(d).
For amendments to the drawings, any changes to a patent drawing must be submitted as a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document. Any replacement sheet of drawings must be in compliance with § 1.84 and shall include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Amended figures must be identified as "Amended," and any added figure must be identified as "New." In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be surrounded by brackets and identified as "Canceled." All changes to the drawing(s) shall be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet accompanying the papers including the amendment to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.173(d)(3).
The Examiner further notes that all amendments to the instant ‘171 Reissue Application must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Claim Status
The Examiner finds that the claim status in the instant ‘171 Reissue Application is as follows:
Claim(s) 1-20 (Original and Canceled)
Claim(s) 21-33 (New)
Thus, the Examiner concludes that claims 21-33 are pending in the instant ‘171 Reissue Application. Claims 21-33 are examined (“Examined Claims”).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements filed: 09 April 2024 (April 2024 IDS”); and 10 June 2024 (“June 2024 IDS”) have been received and entered into the record. Since the Information Disclosure Statements comply with the provisions of MPEP § 609, the references cited therein have been considered by the Examiner. See attached form PTO-1449. The Examiner finds that all of the Foreign Patent and Non-Patent Literature (NPL) cited on the April 2024 IDS and the June 2024 IDS are filed in the underlying ‘762 Application.
Oath/Declaration
The Examiner finds that the Declaration filed by Applicant on 10 June 2024 (“June 2024 Oath/Declaration”) is defective because of the following:
The Examiner finds that the June 2024 Oath/Declaration is defective because it is not clear to whether the ‘762 Application of the ‘130 Patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46. Specifically, the Jan 2013 ‘762 Application ADS indicates the Assignee as the Applicant, however, the June 2024 Oath/Declaration does not have the 37 CFR 1.46 box checked.
Applicant, for the record, is required to either: (1) indicate that the Jan 2013 ‘762 Application ADS inadvertently assigned the Assignee as the Applicant; or (2) indicate on a newly filed Oath/Declaration that the ‘762 Application of the ‘130 Patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 (i.e., check the 37 CFR 1.46).
In addition, the Examiner finds that the June 2024 Oath/Declaration is defective because it includes a “Statement of Status and Support of Claims.” (June 2024 Oath/Declaration at 4-6). The Examiner finds that the “Statement of Status and Support of Claims” should not be included in the June 2024 Oath/Declaration and should instead be filed as a separate submission.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In c.12, l.19, the disclosure to “potentially further data as the PLC information as will be” should instead read – potentially further data as the PLC information 104 as will be –.
In c.18, ll.18-19, the disclosure to “The output of filter W(z) then forms the input of a transform 142 in FIG. 6.” should instead read – The output of filter W(z) then forms the input of a transform 142 in FIG. 8 –.
Appropriate correction is required.
In addition, the April 2024 Spec Amendment is objected to because each reissue application related to the ‘130 Patent is listed as “XX/XX,XXX” and should instead be listed as the actual reissue application number(s). In addition, the June 2023 Spec Amendment states “The reissue applications are application numbers … all of which are continuation reissues of Patent No. 9,257,130.” The Examiner finds that this statement is incorrect and because the instant ‘171 Reissue application is a reissue of Patent No. 9,257,130, not a continuation reissue, with all of the other reissue applications being continuation reissue applications of the instant ‘171 Reissue Application.
In addition, the “more than one reissue application…” and “identification of the pertinent relationships” statements must be indicted in the “first sentence of the specification.” (See 37 CFR 1.177 and MPEP § 1451).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character(s):
“94” has been used to designate both “spectral weighing derivator” and “derivator;”
“100” has been used to designate both “excitation signal derivator” and “derivator;” and
“96” has been used to designate both “spectral weighter” and “weighter.”
In addition, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 118.
Moreover, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 171.
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to because: Figure 5 utilizes the term “derivation” instead of – derivator –; and the term “weighting” instead of – weighter –
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure of an amended drawing should be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be surrounded by brackets and identified as "Canceled," and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
MPEP § 1453 states,
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(c), each claim amendment must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the amendment (i.e., support for all changes made in the claim(s), whether insertions or deletions). The failure to submit an explanation will generally result in a notification to applicant that the amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive (see 37 CFR 1.135(c)).
(MPEP § 1453; emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Applicant has not provided sufficient explanation of support for at least the amendments to claims instantly provided in the April 2024 Claim Amendment, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.173(c). (Id.) While the April 2024 Preliminary Amendment provides direction for the Examiner to find support for the claim amendments (i.e.. see June 2024 Oath/Declaration at 4-6), the Examiner finds that the direction is not sufficient. Specifically, the Examiner finds that appropriate explanation of support in accordance with Rule 1.173(c) – with reference to particular passages and/or figures in the specification, and preferably on a claim-by-claim and limitation-by-limitation basis – is required. (Emphasis added).
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111, MPEP § 2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP § 2111.01(II). Therefore, unless one of the exceptions applies below, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Lexicographic Definitions
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. (See MPEP § 2111.01(IV)). After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner finds that he is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not his/her own lexicographer. (Id.)
35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph
A second exception to giving words in the claims their ordinary and customary meaning is when a claimed phrase is interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th paragraph. See MPEP § 2181 et seq.
The Examiner finds that because the Examined Claims do not recite “step,” “means” or a claim term used as a substitution for “means” (i.e. a generic placeholder for “means”), the Examined Claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181. Because the thirteen (13) Examined Claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181 I., the Examiner concludes that all Examined Claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph. See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential).
'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation'
For terms not lexicographically defined by Applicant, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how he is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language.1 In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Morris”), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support his interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
System
The Examiner finds that “system” is defined as:
Any collection of component elements that work together to perform a task. Examples are a hardware system consisting of a microprocessor, its allied chips and circuitry, input and output devices, and peripheral devices; an operating system consisting of a set of programs and data files; or a database management system used to process specific kinds of information 2
From this perspective, the Examiner construes that a “system” is simply a collection of component elements (i.e., a microprocessor or circuitry) that work together to perform a task.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph
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 27 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.
With respect to the limitations of claims 27 and 28, the Examiner finds that claims recite the limitation “the LP synthesis signal segment.” The preceding claim recites the claim limitation “an LP synthesized signal segment.” It is unclear and indefinite to whether these claim requirements are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate or provide proper antecedent basis for the claim requirements.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 251
Oath/Declaration
Claims 21-33 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action. (See § VII, supra).
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
U.S. Application No. 18/630,252
Claims 21 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 respectively, (“‘252 ODP Claims”) of copending Application No. 18/630,252 (“‘252 Application”) in view of Kirchherr et al. (European Publication No. EP 932141 A2) (“Kirchherr”) and Neuendorf et al., “Completion of Core Experiment on unification of USAC Windowing and Frame Transitions”, MPEG 2010 Meeting No.Ml7167 (“Neuendorf’Paper”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 21 and 22, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 21 and 22 are similar and/or covered by the ‘252 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 21 and 22 of the ‘171 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘252 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 21 and 22 of the ‘171 Reissue Application and the ‘252 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 21 and 22 of the ‘171 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘252 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘252 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for
the first and second syntax portions are comprised by each frame,
wherein the first syntax portion associates the respective frame from which the first syntax portion has been read, with a first frame type or a second frame type and, if the respective frame is of the second frame type, associates sub frames comprising a plurality of respective sub frames of a division of the respective frame, composed of a number of sub frames, with a respective one of a first sub frame type and a second sub frame type, wherein the reconstructor is configured to, if the first syntax portion associates the respective frame with the second frame type, use, for each sub frame of the respective frame, transform coded excitation linear prediction decoding as a version of the time-domain aliasing cancellation transform decoding mode to reconstruct a sub portion of the time segment of the respective frame, which is associated with the respective sub frame, if the first syntax portion associates the respective sub frame of the respective frame with the first sub frame type, and codebook excitation linear prediction decoding as the time-domain decoding mode to reconstruct a sub portion of the time segment of the respective frame, which is associated with the respective sub frame, if the first syntax portion associates the respective sub frame with the second sub frame type.
per frame of the second frame type,
per sub frame of the first sub frame type of the respective frame of the second frame type
derive a spectral weighting filter from LPC information within the respective frame of the second frame type,
spectrally weighting transform coefficient information within the respective sub frame of the first sub frame type using the spectral weighting filter, and
re-transform the spectrally weighted transform coefficient information to acquire a re-transformed signal segment extending, in time, over and beyond the sub portion of the time segment associated with the respective sub frame of the first sub frame type, and,
per sub frame of the second sub frame type of the respective frame of the second frame type,
derive an excitation signal from excitation update information within the respective sub frame of the second sub frame type and
perform LPC synthesis filtering on the excitation signal using the LPC information within the respective frame of the second frame type in order to acquire an LP synthesized signal segment for the sub portion of the time segment associated with the respective sub frame of the second sub frame type, and
perform time-domain aliasing cancellation within temporarily overlapping window portions at boundaries between time segments of immediately consecutive ones of frames of the first frame type and sub portions of time segments, which are associated with sub frames of the first sub frame type, to reconstruct the information signal thereacross, and
if the previous frame is of the first frame type or of the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the first sub frame type, and the current frame is of the second frame type with the first sub frame thereof being of the second sub frame type, derive a first forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal from the forward aliasing cancellation data and add the first forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal to the re-transformed signal segment within the previous time segment to reconstruct the information signal across the boundary between the previous and current frames, and
if the previous frame is of the second frame type with the first sub frame thereof being of the second sub frame type, and the current frame is of the first frame type or of the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the first sub frame type, derive a second forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal from the forward aliasing cancellation data and add the second forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal to the re-transformed signal segment within the current time segment to reconstruct the information signal across the boundary between the previous and current time segments.
‘252 ODP Claims discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the first and second syntax portions being comprised by each frame. (see § XIV.A.(1).a, supra).
However, the first and second syntax portions being comprised by each frame is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the first and second syntax portions being comprised by each frame as described by Kirchherr to the decoding apparatus of the ‘252 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the first and second syntax portions being comprised by each frame, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
‘252 ODP Claims and Kirchherr discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for elements XIV.A.(1).(b)-(h) above.
However, elements XIV.A.(1).(b)-(h) above are known in the art. The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches a system implementing a windowing approach, for LPC decoding, dividing frames into sub frames and processing them according to the first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode). (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; §§ 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8). The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches the system utilizing a transform coded excitation linear prediction decoding as a version of the time-domain aliasing cancellation transform. (Id. at §§ 3, 4, 8.2, 8.6; also see Figures 7, 9). Moreover, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches utilizing the same implementation and logic to transform frames and sub-frame/windows between various encodings utilizing FAC from TCX/LP, code excitation LP, etc. in order to obtain a synthesis signal as shown in Figure 6.x. (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; § 8). In addition, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches the system deriving the FAC synthesis signal and adding to the retransformed signal segment to reconstruct the information signal. (Id. at §§ 8.2-8.3; see Figure 6.3).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate elements XIV.A.(1).(b)-(h) above as described by Neuendorf’Paper to the decoding apparatus of the ‘252 ODP Claims and Kirchherr.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate elements XIV.A.(1).(b)-(h) above, since it provides a mechanism to improve audio quality and the structural design of the USAC system by simplifying and aligning the frame structure and the various frame transitions. (Id. at § 1).
U.S. Application No. 18/630,266
Claims 21 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 respectively, (“‘266 ODP Claims”) of copending Application No. 18/630,266 (“‘266 Application”) in view of Neuendorf et al., “Completion of Core Experiment on unification of USAC Windowing and Frame Transitions”, MPEG 2010 Meeting No.Ml7167 (“Neuendorf’Paper”) and Neuendorf et al. (International Publication No. WO 2010/040522 A2) (“Neuendorf’522”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 21 and 22, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 21 and 22 are similar and/or covered by the ‘266 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 21 and 22 of the ‘171 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘266 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 21 and 22 of the ‘171 Reissue Application and the ‘266 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 21 and 22 of the ‘171 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘266 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘266 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for
wherein the reconstructor is configured to, if the first syntax portion associates the respective frame with the second frame type, use, for each sub frame of the respective frame, transform coded excitation linear prediction decoding as a version of the time-domain aliasing cancellation transform decoding mode to reconstruct a sub portion of the time segment of the respective frame, which is associated with the respective sub frame, if the first syntax portion associates the respective sub frame of the respective frame with the first sub frame type, and codebook excitation linear prediction decoding as the time-domain decoding mode to reconstruct a sub portion of the time segment of the respective frame, which is associated with the respective sub frame, if the first syntax portion associates the respective sub frame with the second sub frame type.
wherein the reconstructor is configured to
per frame of the first frame type, perform a spectral varying de-quantization of transform coefficient information within the respective frame of the first frame type based on scale factor information within the respective frame of the first frame type, and a re-transform on the de-quantized transform coefficient information to acquire a re-transformed signal segment extending, in time, over and beyond the time segment associated with the respective frame of the first frame type, and
perform time-domain aliasing cancellation within temporarily overlapping window portions at boundaries between time segments of immediately consecutive ones of frames of the first frame type and sub portions of time segments, which are associated with sub frames of the first sub frame type, to reconstruct the information signal thereacross, and
if the previous frame is of the first frame type or of the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the first sub frame type, and the current frame is of the second frame type with the first sub frame thereof being of the second sub frame type, derive a first forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal from the forward aliasing cancellation data and add the first forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal to the re-transformed signal segment within the previous time segment to reconstruct the information signal across the boundary between the previous and current frames, and
if the previous frame is of the second frame type with the first sub frame thereof being of the second sub frame type, and the current frame is of the first frame type or of the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the first sub frame type, derive a second forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal from the forward aliasing cancellation data and add the second forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal to the re-transformed signal segment within the current time segment to reconstruct the information signal across the boundary between the previous and current time segments.
‘266 ODP Claims discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for elements XIV.B.(1).(a)(b),(d)-(f) above.
However, elements XIV.B.(1).(a)(b),(d)-(f) above are known in the art. The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches a system implementing a windowing approach, for LPC decoding, dividing frames into sub frames and processing them according to the first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode). (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; §§ 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8). The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches the system utilizing a transform coded excitation linear prediction decoding as a version of the time-domain aliasing cancellation transform. (Id. at §§ 3, 4, 8.2, 8.6; also see Figures 7, 9). Moreover, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches utilizing the same implementation and logic to transform frames and sub-frame/windows between various encodings utilizing FAC from TCX/LP, code excitation LP, etc. in order to obtain a synthesis signal as shown in Figure 6.x. (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; § 8). In addition, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches the system deriving the FAC synthesis signal and adding to the retransformed signal segment to reconstruct the information signal. (Id. at §§ 8.2-8.3; see Figure 6.3).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate elements XIV.B.(1).(a)-(f) above as described by Neuendorf’Paper to the decoding apparatus of the ‘266 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate elements XIV.B.(1).(a)-(f) above, since it provides a mechanism to improve audio quality and the structural design of the USAC system by simplifying and aligning the frame structure and the various frame transitions. (Id. at § 1).
‘266 ODP Claims discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for elements XIV.B.(1).(b)-(c) above.
However, elements XIV.B.(1).(b)-(c) above are known in the art. The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’522, for example, teaches a decoder apparatus that receives audio coded data comprising a reconstructor that specifically takes both a spectral domain and LPC domain signals, that are differentiated within each respective signal, and reconstructs the spectral domain and LPC domain signal independently. (Neuendorf’522 at p.4, l.33 – p.5, l.3; c.10, ll.25-33; c.10, ll.35-36; c.11, ll..1-5; c.18, ll.16-20; c.24, ll.10-14; c.24, ll.34-36; c.37, ll.2-6; c.81, l .30 - c.82, l.2; c.84, ll.19-29; see Figures 1B, 2B, 11B). The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’522 teaches reconstructor (i.e., combination 431, 440) performing, on the spectral domain signal: (1) a spectral varying de-quantization of transform coefficient information; and (2) a re-transform on the de-quantized transform coefficient information to acquire a re-transformed signal segment. (Id. at c.11, ll.27-31; c.12, ll.1-9; c.24, ll.10-14; c.24, ll.34-36 see Figures 1B, 2B, 11B).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate elements XIV.B.(1).(b)-(c) as described by Neuendorf’522 to the decoding apparatus of ‘266 ODP Claims and Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate elements XIV.B.(1).(b)-(c), since it provides a mechanism to process music only audio signal efficiently. (Id. at c.10, ll.9-11; c.13, ll.18-21; c.16, ll.6-8).
U.S. Application No. 18/630,299
Claims 21-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 21-27 and 32 respectively, (“‘299 ODP Claims”) of copending Application No. 18/630,299 (“‘299 Application”) in view of Neuendorf et al., “Completion of Core Experiment on unification of USAC Windowing and Frame Transitions”, MPEG 2010 Meeting No.Ml7167 (“Neuendorf’Paper”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 21-29, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 21-29 are similar and/or covered by the ‘299 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 21-29 of the ‘171 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘299 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 21-29 of the ‘171 Reissue Application and the ‘299 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 21-29 of the ‘171 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘299 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘299 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for
wherein the reconstructor is configured to, if the first syntax portion associates the respective frame with the second frame type, use, for each sub frame of the respective frame, transform coded excitation linear prediction decoding as a version of the time-domain aliasing cancellation transform decoding mode to reconstruct a sub portion of the time segment of the respective frame, which is associated with the respective sub frame, if the first syntax portion associates the respective sub frame of the respective frame with the first sub frame type, and codebook excitation linear prediction decoding as the time-domain decoding mode to reconstruct a sub portion of the time segment of the respective frame, which is associated with the respective sub frame, if the first syntax portion associates the respective sub frame with the second sub frame type.
wherein the reconstructor is configured to
if the previous frame is of the second frame type with the first sub frame thereof being of the second sub frame type, and the current frame is of the first frame type or of the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the first sub frame type, derive a second forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal from the forward aliasing cancellation data and add the second forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal to the re-transformed signal segment within the current time segment to reconstruct the information signal across the boundary between the previous and current time segments.
‘299 ODP Claims discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for elements XIV.C.(1).(a)-(c) above.
However, elements XIV.C.(1).(a)-(c) above are known in the art. The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches a system implementing a windowing approach, for LPC decoding, dividing frames into sub frames and processing them according to the first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode). (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; §§ 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8). The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches the system utilizing a transform coded excitation linear prediction decoding as a version of the time-domain aliasing cancellation transform. (Id. at §§ 3, 4, 8.2, 8.6; also see Figures 7, 9). Moreover, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches utilizing the same implementation and logic to transform frames and sub-frame/windows between various encodings utilizing FAC from TCX/LP, code excitation LP, etc. in order to obtain a synthesis signal as shown in Figure 6.x. (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; § 8). In addition, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches the system deriving the FAC synthesis signal and adding to the retransformed signal segment to reconstruct the information signal. (Id. at §§ 8.2-8.3; see Figure 6.3).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate elements XIV.C.(1).(a)-(c) above as described by Neuendorf’Paper to the decoding apparatus of the ‘299 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate elements XIV.C.(1).(a)-(c) above, since it provides a mechanism to improve audio quality and the structural design of the USAC system by simplifying and aligning the frame structure and the various frame transitions. (Id. at § 1).
U.S. Application No. 18/630,324
Claims 21-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 21-27 and 32 respectively, (“‘324 ODP Claims”) of copending Application No. 18/630,324 (“‘324 Application”) in view of Neuendorf et al., “Completion of Core Experiment on unification of USAC Windowing and Frame Transitions”, MPEG 2010 Meeting No.Ml7167 (“Neuendorf’Paper”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 21-29, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the pending claims 21-29 are similar and/or covered by the ‘324 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claims 21-29 of the ‘171 Reissue Application have essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘324 ODP Claims. In addition, where claims 21-29 of the ‘171 Reissue Application and the ‘324 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claims 21-29 of the ‘171 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘324 ODP Claims.
The Examiner finds that the ‘324 ODP Claims disclose all the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for
wherein the reconstructor is configured to, if the first syntax portion associates the respective frame with the second frame type, use, for each sub frame of the respective frame, transform coded excitation linear prediction decoding as a version of the time-domain aliasing cancellation transform decoding mode to reconstruct a sub portion of the time segment of the respective frame, which is associated with the respective sub frame, if the first syntax portion associates the respective sub frame of the respective frame with the first sub frame type, and codebook excitation linear prediction decoding as the time-domain decoding mode to reconstruct a sub portion of the time segment of the respective frame, which is associated with the respective sub frame, if the first syntax portion associates the respective sub frame with the second sub frame type.
wherein the reconstructor is configured to
if the previous frame is of the first frame type or of the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the first sub frame type, and the current frame is of the second frame type with the first sub frame thereof being of the second sub frame type, derive a first forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal from the forward aliasing cancellation data and add the first forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal to the re-transformed signal segment within the previous time segment to reconstruct the information signal across the boundary between the previous and current frames,
‘324 ODP Claims discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for elements XIV.D.(1).(a)-(c) above.
However, elements XIV.D.(1).(a)-(c) above are known in the art. The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches a system implementing a windowing approach, for LPC decoding, dividing frames into sub frames and processing them according to the first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode). (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; §§ 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8). The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches the system utilizing a transform coded excitation linear prediction decoding as a version of the time-domain aliasing cancellation transform. (Id. at §§ 3, 4, 8.2, 8.6; also see Figures 7, 9). Moreover, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches utilizing the same implementation and logic to transform frames and sub-frame/windows between various encodings utilizing FAC from TCX/LP, code excitation LP, etc. in order to obtain a synthesis signal as shown in Figure 6.x. (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; § 8). In addition, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper teaches the system deriving the FAC synthesis signal and adding to the retransformed signal segment to reconstruct the information signal. (Id. at §§ 8.2-8.3; see Figure 6.3).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate elements XIV.D.(1).(a)-(c) above as described by Neuendorf’Paper to the decoding apparatus of the ‘324 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate elements XIV.D.(1).(a)-(c) above, since it provides a mechanism to improve audio quality and the structural design of the USAC system by simplifying and aligning the frame structure and the various frame transitions. (Id. at § 1).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 29, 30, 32 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Neuendorf et al., “Completion of Core Experiment on unification of USAC Windowing and Frame Transitions”, MPEG 2010 Meeting No.Ml7167 (“Neuendorf’Paper”) in view of Kirchherr et al. (European Publication No. EP 932141 A2) (“Kirchherr”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 21, and
[21] [a] Decoder apparatus for decoding a data stream comprising a sequence of frames comprising a plurality of respective frames into which time segments of an information signal are coded, respectively, comprising:
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses a system comprising an encoder and a decoder for encoding/decoding a data stream comprising a sequence of frames comprising a plurality of respective frames into which time segments of an information signal are coded. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 3, 4.2.1, 4.3 (for encoder); §§ 3, 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.5, 8 (for decoder).
a parser configured to parse the data stream, wherein the parser is configured to, in parsing the data stream, read a first syntax portion and a second syntax portion from a current frame; and
a reconstructor configured to reconstruct a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based on information acquired from the current frame by the parsing, using, depending on a first selection, a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode, the first selection depending on the first syntax portion,
wherein the parser is configured to, in parsing the data stream, perform a first action of expecting the current frame to comprise, and thus reading forward aliasing cancellation data from the current frame or a second action of not-expecting the current frame to comprise, and thus not reading forward aliasing cancellation data from the current frame, wherein the parser is configured to perform a second selection selecting which of the first action and the second action is performed, depending on the second syntax portion,
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the decoder comprising software that parses the input data stream to derive a first syntax portion which defines which a first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode) for the reconstructor to either utilize forward aliasing cancellation (FAC) data or not in order to properly to reconstruct a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based on information acquired from the current frame. (Id. at § 8; see Figure 6.x).
Neuendorf’Paper discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the parser being configured to additionally read a second syntax parameter from the input data stream of the current frame and perform a second selection selecting which of the first action and the second action is performed, depending on the second syntax portion.
However, a parser being configured to additionally read a second syntax parameter from the input data stream of the current frame and perform a second selection selecting which of the first action and the second action is performed, depending on the second syntax portion, is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Kirchherr, for example, teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18). The Examiner find that Kirchherr teaches the second selection selecting either a first or second action based upon the transition mode bits to compensate for a frame erasure detection. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate reading a second syntax parameter from the input data stream of the current frame, in addition to the first syntax parameter, and perform a second selection selecting which of the first action and the second action is performed, depending on the second syntax portion as described by Kirchherr to the decoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate reading a second syntax parameter from the input data stream of the current frame, in addition to the first syntax parameter, and perform a second selection selecting which of the first action and the second action is performed, depending on the second syntax portion, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
wherein the reconstructor is configured to perform forward aliasing cancellation at a boundary between the current time segment and a previous time segment of a previous frame using the forward aliasing cancellation data,
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the decoder comprising software that performs reconstruction by performing FAC at the boundaries of the current and previous time segment frame data utilizing FAC data. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 8.2, 8.6).
wherein at least one of the parser and the reconstructor is implemented on a microprocessor, a programmable logic device or an electronic circuit,
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system comprising having a “negligible influence on ROM or RAM demand or computational complexity.” (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 4.5).
the first and second syntax portions are comprised by each frame,
As set forth above, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the first and second syntax portions being comprised by each frame as described by Kirchherr to the decoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the first and second syntax portions being comprised by each frame, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
wherein the first syntax portion associates the respective frame from which the first syntax portion has been read, with a first frame type or a second frame type and, if the respective frame is of the second frame type, associates sub frames comprising a plurality of respective sub frames of a division of the respective frame, composed of a number of sub frames, with a respective one of a first sub frame type and a second sub frame type, wherein the reconstructor is configured to, if the first syntax portion associates the respective frame with the second frame type, use, for each sub frame of the respective frame, transform coded excitation linear prediction decoding as a version of the time-domain aliasing cancellation transform decoding mode to reconstruct a sub portion of the time segment of the respective frame, which is associated with the respective sub frame, if the first syntax portion associates the respective sub frame of the respective frame with the first sub frame type, and codebook excitation linear prediction decoding as the time-domain decoding mode to reconstruct a sub portion of the time segment of the respective frame, which is associated with the respective sub frame, if the first syntax portion associates the respective sub frame with the second sub frame type.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses two types of frame modes (i.e., FD and LPC) being processed by the decoder apparatus. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 3, 4, 8). For the LPC frame mode, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system implementing a windowing approach dividing frames into sub frames and processing them according to the first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode). (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; §§ 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8). The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system utilizing a transform coded excitation linear prediction decoding as a version of the time-domain aliasing cancellation transform. (Id. at §§ 3, 4, 8.2, 8.6; also see Figures 7, 9).
With respect to the limitations of claim 29, Neuendorf’Paper and Kirchherr teaches and/or renders obvious
[29] wherein the parser is configured to, in parsing the data stream, perform the second selection depending on the second syntax portion and independent from as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are decoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode and the time-domain decoding mode.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the decoder comprising software that parses the input data stream to derive a first syntax portion which defines which a first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode) for the reconstructor to either utilize forward aliasing cancellation (FAC) data or not in order to properly to reconstruct a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based on information acquired from the current frame. (Id. at § 8; see Figure 6.x).
In addition, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18). The Examiner find that Kirchherr teaches the second selection selecting either a first or second action based upon the transition mode bits to compensate for a frame erasure detection. (Id.) Since the frame is lost, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches that said methodology can be applied to other time domain and transform domain coding techniques. (Id. at ¶ 0043).
Similarly, the Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the parser being configured to, in parsing the data stream, perform the second selection depending on the second syntax portion and independent from as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are decoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode and the time-domain decoding mode as described in Kirchherr to the decoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the parser being configured to, in parsing the data stream, perform the second selection depending on the second syntax portion and independent from as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are decoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode and the time-domain decoding mode, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
With respect to the limitations of claim 30, and
[30] [an] Encoder apparatus for encoding an information signal into a data stream such that the data stream comprises a sequence of frames into which time segments of the information signal are coded, respectively, comprising:
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses a system comprising an encoder and a decoder for encoding/decoding a data stream comprising a sequence of frames comprising a plurality of respective frames into which time segments of an information signal are coded. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 3, 4.2.1, 4.3 (for encoder); §§ 3, 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.5, 8 (for decoder)).
a constructor configured to code a current time segment of the information signal into information of the current frame using, depending on a first selection, a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode or a time-domain coding mode: and
an inserter configured to insert the information into the current frame along with a first syntax portion and a second syntax portion, wherein the first syntax portion signals the first selection,
wherein the constructor and inserter are configured to
determine forward aliasing cancellation data for forward aliasing cancellation at a boundary between the current time segment and a previous time segment of a previous frame and insert the forward aliasing cancellation data into the current frame in case the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode, and
refraining from inserting any forward aliasing cancellation data into the current frame in case the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that constructs a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based upon a first syntax portion/first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode) for the constructor to either utilize forward aliasing cancellation (FAC) data or not in order to properly to encoded a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame. (Id. at §§ 1, 3, 4.2, 4.3, 8.2; see Figures 7-9). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that determines FAC data at the boundaries of the current and previous time segment frame data for frames of different encoding and not at the boundaries of the current and previous time segment frame data for frames of the same encoding. (Neuendorf’Paper at § 4.3).
Neuendorf’Paper discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the inserter being configured to additionally insert a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion.
However, an inserter being configured to additionally insert a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Kirchherr, for example, teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18). The Examiner find that Kirchherr teaches the second selection selecting either a first or second action based upon the transition mode bits to compensate for a frame erasure detection. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate inserting a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion as described by Kirchherr to the encoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate inserting a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
wherein the second syntax portion is set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode,
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that constructs a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based upon a first syntax portion/first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode) for the constructor to either utilize forward aliasing cancellation (FAC) data or not in order to properly to encoded a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame. (Id. at §§ 1, 3, 4.2, 4.3, 8.2; see Figures 7-9).
In addition, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18). The Examiner find that Kirchherr teaches the second selection selecting either a first or second action based upon the transition mode bits to compensate for a frame erasure detection. (Id.) Since the frame is lost, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches that said methodology can be applied to other time domain and transform domain coding techniques. (Id. at ¶ 0043).
Similarly, the Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the second syntax portion being set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode as described in Kirchherr to the decoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the second syntax portion being set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
wherein at least one of the constructor and the inserter is implemented on a microprocessor, a programmable logic device or an electronic circuit.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system comprising having a “negligible influence on ROM or RAM demand or computational complexity.” (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 4.5).
With respect to the limitations of claim 30, and
[32] [a] Method for encoding an information signal into a data stream such that the data stream comprises a sequence of frames into which time segments of the information signal are coded, respectively, comprising:
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses a system comprising an encoder and a decoder for encoding/decoding a data stream comprising a sequence of frames comprising a plurality of respective frames into which time segments of an information signal are coded. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 3, 4.2.1, 4.3 (for encoder); §§ 3, 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.5, 8 (for decoder)).
coding a current time segment of the information signal into information of the current frame using, depending on a first selection, a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode or a time-domain coding mode: and
inserting the information into the current frame along with a first syntax portion and a second syntax portion, wherein the first syntax portion signals the first selection,
determine forward aliasing cancellation data for forward aliasing cancellation at a boundary between the current time segment and a previous time segment of a previous frame and insert the forward aliasing cancellation data into the current frame in case the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode, and
refraining from inserting any forward aliasing cancellation data into the current frame in case the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that constructs a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based upon a first syntax portion/first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode) for the constructor to either utilize forward aliasing cancellation (FAC) data or not in order to properly to encoded a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame. (Id. at §§ 1, 3, 4.2, 4.3, 8.2; see Figures 7-9). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that determines FAC data at the boundaries of the current and previous time segment frame data for frames of different encoding and not at the boundaries of the current and previous time segment frame data for frames of the same encoding. (Neuendorf’Paper at § 4.3).
Neuendorf’Paper discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the inserter being configured to additionally insert a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion.
However, an inserter being configured to additionally insert a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Kirchherr, for example, teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18). The Examiner find that Kirchherr teaches the second selection selecting either a first or second action based upon the transition mode bits to compensate for a frame erasure detection. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate inserting a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion as described by Kirchherr to the encoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate inserting a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
wherein the second syntax portion is set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode,
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that constructs a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based upon a first syntax portion/first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode) for the constructor to either utilize forward aliasing cancellation (FAC) data or not in order to properly to encoded a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame. (Id. at §§ 1, 3, 4.2, 4.3, 8.2; see Figures 7-9).
In addition, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18). The Examiner find that Kirchherr teaches the second selection selecting either a first or second action based upon the transition mode bits to compensate for a frame erasure detection. (Id.) Since the frame is lost, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches that said methodology can be applied to other time domain and transform domain coding techniques. (Id. at ¶ 0043).
Similarly, the Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the second syntax portion being set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode as described in Kirchherr to the decoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the second syntax portion being set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
wherein at least one of the coding and the inserting is performed using a microprocessor, a programmable logic device or an electronic circuit.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system comprising having a “negligible influence on ROM or RAM demand or computational complexity.” (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 4.5).
With respect to the limitations of claim 33, and
[33] [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising a program code for performing, when running on a computer, a method for encoding an information signal into a data stream such that the data stream comprises a sequence of frames into which time segments of the information signal are coded, respectively, comprising
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses a system comprising an encoder and a decoder for encoding/decoding a data stream comprising a sequence of frames comprising a plurality of respective frames into which time segments of an information signal are coded. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 3, 4.2.1, 4.3 (for encoder); §§ 3, 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.5, 8 (for decoder)).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system comprising having a “negligible influence on ROM or RAM demand or computational complexity.” (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 4.5). The Examiner finds that the encoding/decoding of Neuendorf’Paper is not done in a vacuum and is processed in a system comprising hardware and software, in which the software is inherently stored in memory of the system, performing the tasks required to encode/decode.
coding a current time segment of the information signal into information of the current frame using, depending on a first selection, a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode or a time-domain coding mode: and
inserting the information into the current frame along with a first syntax portion and a second syntax portion, wherein the first syntax portion signals the first selection,
determine forward aliasing cancellation data for forward aliasing cancellation at a boundary between the current time segment and a previous time segment of a previous frame and insert the forward aliasing cancellation data into the current frame in case the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode, and
refraining from inserting any forward aliasing cancellation data into the current frame in case the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that constructs a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based upon a first syntax portion/first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode) for the constructor to either utilize forward aliasing cancellation (FAC) data or not in order to properly to encoded a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame. (Id. at §§ 1, 3, 4.2, 4.3, 8.2; see Figures 7-9). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that determines FAC data at the boundaries of the current and previous time segment frame data for frames of different encoding and not at the boundaries of the current and previous time segment frame data for frames of the same encoding. (Neuendorf’Paper at § 4.3).
Neuendorf’Paper discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the inserter being configured to additionally insert a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion.
However, an inserter being configured to additionally insert a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Kirchherr, for example, teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18). The Examiner find that Kirchherr teaches the second selection selecting either a first or second action based upon the transition mode bits to compensate for a frame erasure detection. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate inserting a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion as described by Kirchherr to the encoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate inserting a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
wherein the second syntax portion is set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode,
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that constructs a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based upon a first syntax portion/first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode) for the constructor to either utilize forward aliasing cancellation (FAC) data or not in order to properly to encoded a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame. (Id. at §§ 1, 3, 4.2, 4.3, 8.2; see Figures 7-9).
In addition, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18). The Examiner find that Kirchherr teaches the second selection selecting either a first or second action based upon the transition mode bits to compensate for a frame erasure detection. (Id.) Since the frame is lost, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches that said methodology can be applied to other time domain and transform domain coding techniques. (Id. at ¶ 0043).
Similarly, the Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the second syntax portion being set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode as described in Kirchherr to the decoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the second syntax portion being set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
wherein at least one of the coding and the inserting is performed using a microprocessor, a programmable logic device or an electronic circuit.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system comprising having a “negligible influence on ROM or RAM demand or computational complexity.” (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 4.5).
Claims 22, 23, 27 and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Neuendorf et al., “Completion of Core Experiment on unification of USAC Windowing and Frame Transitions”, MPEG 2010 Meeting No.Ml7167 (“Neuendorf’Paper”) in view of Kirchherr et al. (European Publication No. EP 932141 A2) (“Kirchherr”) as applied to claims 21, 29, 30, 32 and 33 above, and further in view of Neuendorf et al. (International Publication No. WO 2010/040522 A2) (“Neuendorf’522”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 22, and
[22] wherein the reconstructor is configured to
per frame of the first frame type, perform a spectral varying de-quantization of transform coefficient information within the respective frame of the first frame type based on scale factor information within the respective frame of the first frame type, and a re-transform on the de-quantized transform coefficient information to acquire a re-transformed signal segment extending, in time, over and beyond the time segment associated with the respective frame of the first frame type, and
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses two types of frame modes (i.e., FD and LPC) being processed by the decoder apparatus. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 3, 4, 8).
While Neuendorf’Paper discloses the decoder apparatus above, Neuendorf’Paper and Kirchherr is silent to specifically calling for the reconstructor of the decoder apparatus being configured to per frame of the first frame type, perform a spectral varying de-quantization of transform coefficient information within the respective frame of the first frame type based on scale factor information within the respective frame of the first frame type, and a re-transform on the de-quantized transform coefficient information to acquire a re-transformed signal segment extending, in time, over and beyond the time segment associated with the respective frame of the first frame type.
However, a reconstructor of a decoder apparatus being configured to per frame of the first frame type, perform a spectral varying de-quantization of transform coefficient information within the respective frame of the first frame type based on scale factor information within the respective frame of the first frame type, and a re-transform on the de-quantized transform coefficient information to acquire a re-transformed signal segment extending, in time, over and beyond the time segment associated with the respective frame of the first frame type is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’522, for example, teaches a decoder apparatus that receives audio coded data comprising a reconstructor that specifically takes both a spectral domain and LPC domain signals, that are differentiated within each respective signal, and reconstructs the spectral domain and LPC domain signal independently. (Neuendorf’522 at p.4, l.33 – p.5, l.3; c.10, ll.25-33; c.10, ll.35-36; c.11, ll..1-5; c.18, ll.16-20; c.24, ll.10-14; c.24, ll.34-36; c.37, ll.2-6; c.81, l .30 - c.82, l.2; c.84, ll.19-29; see Figures 1B, 2B, 11B). The Examiner finds that Neuendorf’522 teaches reconstructor (i.e., combination 431, 440) performing, on the spectral domain signal: (1) a spectral varying de-quantization of transform coefficient information; and (2) a re-transform on the de-quantized transform coefficient information to acquire a re-transformed signal segment. (Id. at c.11, ll.27-31; c.12, ll.1-9; c.24, ll.10-14; c.24, ll.34-36 see Figures 1B, 2B, 11B).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the reconstructor of the decoder apparatus being configured to per frame of the first frame type, perform a spectral varying de-quantization of transform coefficient information within the respective frame of the first frame type based on scale factor information within the respective frame of the first frame type, and a re-transform on the de-quantized transform coefficient information to acquire a re-transformed signal segment extending, in time, over and beyond the time segment associated with the respective frame of the first frame type as described by Neuendorf’522 to the decoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper and Kirchherr.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate he reconstructor of the decoder apparatus being configured to per frame of the first frame type, perform a spectral varying de-quantization of transform coefficient information within the respective frame of the first frame type based on scale factor information within the respective frame of the first frame type, and a re-transform on the de-quantized transform coefficient information to acquire a re-transformed signal segment extending, in time, over and beyond the time segment associated with the respective frame of the first frame type, since it provides a mechanism to process music only audio signal efficiently. (Id. at c.10, ll.9-11; c.13, ll.18-21; c.16, ll.6-8).
With respect to the limitations of claim 22, and
[22] wherein the reconstructor is configured to
per frame of the second frame type,
per sub frame of the first sub frame type of the respective frame of the second frame type
derive a spectral weighting filter from LPC information within the respective frame of the second frame type,
spectrally weighting transform coefficient information within the respective sub frame of the first sub frame type using the spectral weighting filter, and
re-transform the spectrally weighted transform coefficient information to acquire a re-transformed signal segment extending, in time, over and beyond the sub portion of the time segment associated with the respective sub frame of the first sub frame type, and,
per sub frame of the second sub frame type of the respective frame of the second frame type,
derive an excitation signal from excitation update information within the respective sub frame of the second sub frame type and
perform LPC synthesis filtering on the excitation signal using the LPC information within the respective frame of the second frame type in order to acquire an LP synthesized signal segment for the sub portion of the time segment associated with the respective sub frame of the second sub frame type, and
perform time-domain aliasing cancellation within temporarily overlapping window portions at boundaries between time segments of immediately consecutive ones of frames of the first frame type and sub portions of time segments, which are associated with sub frames of the first sub frame type, to reconstruct the information signal thereacross, and
if the previous frame is of the first frame type or of the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the first sub frame type, and the current frame is of the second frame type with the first sub frame thereof being of the second sub frame type, derive a first forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal from the forward aliasing cancellation data and add the first forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal to the re-transformed signal segment within the previous time segment to reconstruct the information signal across the boundary between the previous and current frames, and
if the previous frame is of the second frame type with the first sub frame thereof being of the second sub frame type, and the current frame is of the first frame type or of the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the first sub frame type, derive a second forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal from the forward aliasing cancellation data and add the second forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal to the re-transformed signal segment within the current time segment to reconstruct the information signal across the boundary between the previous and current time segments.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses two types of frame modes (i.e., FD and LPC) being processed by the decoder apparatus. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 3, 4, 8). In addition, for the LPC frame mode, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system implementing a windowing approach dividing frames into sub frames and processing them according to the first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode). (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; §§ 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses utilizing the same implementation and logic to transform frames and sub-frame/windows between various encodings utilizing FAC from TCX/LP, code excitation LP, etc. in order to obtain a synthesis signal as shown in Figure 6.x. (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; § 8). In addition, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system deriving the FAC synthesis signal and adding to the retransformed signal segment to reconstruct the information signal. (Id. at §§ 8.2-8.3; see Figure 6.3).
With respect to the limitations of claim 23, Neuendorf’Paper, Kirchherr and Neuendorf’522 teaches and/or renders obvious
[23] wherein the reconstructor is configured to derive the first forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal from the forward aliasing cancellation data by performing a re-transform on transform coefficient information comprised by the forward aliasing cancellation data or derive the second forward aliasing cancellation synthesis signal from the forward aliasing cancellation data by performing the re-transform on transform coefficient information comprised by the forward aliasing cancellation data.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses two types of frame modes (i.e., FD and LPC) being processed by the decoder apparatus. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 3, 4, 8). In addition, for the LPC frame mode, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system implementing a windowing approach dividing frames into sub frames and processing them according to the first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode). (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; §§ 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses utilizing the same implementation and logic to transform frames and sub-frame/windows between various encodings utilizing FAC from TCX/LP, code excitation LP, etc. in order to obtain a synthesis signal as shown in Figure 6.x. (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; § 8).
With respect to the limitations of claims 27 and 28, Neuendorf’Paper, Kirchherr and Neuendorf’522 teaches and/or renders obvious
[27] wherein the reconstructor is configured to, if the previous frame is of the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the second sub frame type and the current frame is of the first frame type or the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the first sub frame type, perform a windowing on the LP synthesis signal segment of the last sub frame of the previous frame to acquire a first aliasing cancellation signal segment and add the first aliasing cancellation signal segment to the re-transformed signal segment within the current time segment (claim 27); and
[28] wherein the reconstructor is configured to, if the previous frame is of the second frame type with the last sub frame thereof being of the second sub frame type and the current frame is of the first frame type or the second frame type with a first sub frame thereof being of the first sub frame type, continue the LPC synthesis filtering performed on the excitation signal from the previous frame into the current frame, window a thus derived continuation of the LP synthesis signal segment of the previous frame within the current frame to acquire a second aliasing cancellation signal segment and add the second aliasing cancellation signal segment to the re-transformed signal segment within the current time segment (claim 28).
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses two types of frame modes (i.e., FD and LPC) being processed by the decoder apparatus. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 3, 4, 8). In addition, for the LPC frame mode, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system implementing a windowing approach dividing frames into sub frames and processing them according to the first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode). (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; §§ 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses utilizing the same implementation and logic to transform frames and sub-frame/windows between various encodings utilizing FAC from TCX/LP, code excitation LP, etc. in order to obtain a synthesis signal as shown in Figure 6.x. (Neuendorf’Paper at Title; § 8). In addition, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system deriving the FAC synthesis signal and adding to the retransformed signal segment to reconstruct the information signal. (Id. at §§ 8.2-8.3; see Figure 6.3).
Claim 33 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Neuendorf et al., “Completion of Core Experiment on unification of USAC Windowing and Frame Transitions”, MPEG 2010 Meeting No.Ml7167 (“Neuendorf’Paper”) in view of Bessette (U.S. Patent No. 9,093,066) (“Bessette”) and Kirchherr et al. (European Publication No. EP 932141 A2) (“Kirchherr”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 33, and
[33] [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising a program code for performing, when running on a computer, a method for encoding an information signal into a data stream such that the data stream comprises a sequence of frames into which time segments of the information signal are coded, respectively, comprising:
To the degree a reviewing body finds that it is not inherent that Neuendorf’Paper teaches “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising a program code for performing, when running on a computer, a method for encoding,” the following alternative to this feature is provided as set forth below:
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses a system comprising an encoder and a decoder for encoding/decoding a data stream comprising a sequence of frames comprising a plurality of respective frames into which time segments of an information signal are coded. (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 3, 4.2.1, 4.3 (for encoder); §§ 3, 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.5, 8 (for decoder)). Moreover, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the system comprising a “negligible influence on ROM or RAM demand or computational complexity.” (Neuendorf’Paper at §§ 1, 4.5).
Neuendorf’Paper discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising a program code for performing, when running on a computer, a method for encoding.
However, a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising a program code for performing, when running on a computer, a method for encoding is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Bessette, for example, teaches a method of encoding and decoding process steps being stored as series on instructions on a tangible medium and implemented via a computer/machine that reads the instructions. (Bessette at c.15, ll.18-64; emphasis at c.15, ll.46-50).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the program code for performing the method of encoding, when running on a computer, being stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium as described in Bessette, in the encoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the program code for performing the method of encoding, when running on a computer, being stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, since it provides a mechanism to provide the operational components on a single computer or distributed across multiple computers depending upon the situation at hand.
coding a current time segment of the information signal into information of the current frame using, depending on a first selection, a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode or a time-domain coding mode: and
inserting the information into the current frame along with a first syntax portion and a second syntax portion, wherein the first syntax portion signals the first selection,
determine forward aliasing cancellation data for forward aliasing cancellation at a boundary between the current time segment and a previous time segment of a previous frame and insert the forward aliasing cancellation data into the current frame in case the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode, and
refraining from inserting any forward aliasing cancellation data into the current frame in case the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that constructs a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based upon a first syntax portion/first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode) for the constructor to either utilize forward aliasing cancellation (FAC) data or not in order to properly to encoded a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame. (Id. at §§ 1, 3, 4.2, 4.3, 8.2; see Figures 7-9). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that determines FAC data at the boundaries of the current and previous time segment frame data for frames of different encoding and not at the boundaries of the current and previous time segment frame data for frames of the same encoding. (Neuendorf’Paper at § 4.3).
Neuendorf’Paper and Bessette discloses the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the inserter being configured to additionally insert a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion.
However, an inserter being configured to additionally insert a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Kirchherr, for example, teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18). The Examiner find that Kirchherr teaches the second selection selecting either a first or second action based upon the transition mode bits to compensate for a frame erasure detection. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate inserting a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion as described by Kirchherr to the encoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper and Bessette.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate inserting a second syntax portion along with the information of the current frame and a first syntax portion, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
wherein the second syntax portion is set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Neuendorf’Paper discloses the encoder comprising software that constructs a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame based upon a first syntax portion/first selection mode (i.e. a Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform decoding mode or a time-domain decoding mode) for the constructor to either utilize forward aliasing cancellation (FAC) data or not in order to properly encode a current time segment of the information signal associated with the current frame. (Id. at §§ 1, 3, 4.2, 4.3, 8.2; see Figures 7-9).
In addition, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches a method for signal controlled switching between different audio coding schemes in which, in addition to the current audio coding scheme being included as a parameter in the data stream, including another compilation of two (2) bits classifying a transition mode between frames. (Kirchherr at ¶¶ 0041-0047, 0079, claims 17-18). The Examiner find that Kirchherr teaches the second selection selecting either a first or second action based upon the transition mode bits to compensate for a frame erasure detection. (Id.) Since the frame is lost, the Examiner finds that Kirchherr teaches that said methodology can be applied to other time domain and transform domain coding techniques. (Id. at ¶ 0043).
Similarly, the Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the second syntax portion being set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode as described in Kirchherr to the decoding apparatus of Neuendorf’Paper and Bessette.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the second syntax portion being set depending on as to whether the current frame and the previous frame are encoded using equal or different ones of the Time-Domain Aliasing Cancellation transform coding mode and the time-domain coding mode, since it provides a mechanism to compensate for lost frames and ensure proper decoding occurs. (Id. at ¶¶ 0044-0047, 0079; claim 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-26
Claims 24-26 would be allowable if the Obvious Double Patenting and 35 U.S.C. 251 rejections are overcome.
Claim 31
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if: (1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (2) the 35 U.S.C. 251 rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
Applicant is respectfully reminded that any suggestions or examples of claim language provided by the Examiner are just that—suggestions or examples—and do not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner. To be especially clear, any suggestion or example provided in this Office Action (or in any future office action) does not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner.
Should Applicant decide to amend the claims, Applicant is also reminded that—like always—no new matter is allowed. The Examiner therefore leaves it up to Applicant to choose the precise claim language of the amendment in order to ensure that the amended language complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph.
Independent of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph, Applicant is also respectfully reminded that when amending a particular claim, all claim terms must have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Should Applicant amend the claims such that the claim language no longer has clear support or antecedent basis in the specification, an objection to the specification may result. Therefore, in these situations where the amended claim language does not have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification and to prevent a subsequent ‘Objection to the Specification’ in the next office action, Applicant is encouraged to either (1) re-evaluate the amendment and change the claim language so the claims do have clear support or antecedent basis or, (2) amend the specification to ensure that the claim language does have clear support or antecedent basis. See again MPEP § 608.01(o) (¶3). Should Applicant choose to amend the specification, Applicant is reminded that—like always—no new matter in the specification is allowed. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). If Applicant has any questions on this matter, Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner via the telephone number listed below.
Applicant is reminded of the obligation to apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the ‘130 Patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, other reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or ‘of record’ in the original prosecution of the ‘130 Patent. Applicant is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the original prosecution of the ‘130 Patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J RALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6227. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184. 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.
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Conferees:
/Luke S. Wassum/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
SJR
08/19/2026
1 While most interpretations are cited because these terms are found in the claims, the Examiner may have provided additional interpretations to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the interpretations themselves, the ‘378 Patent, or in the prior art.
2 “System,” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition Microsoft Press., Redmond, WA, 2002, p.508.
Prosecution Insights