DETAILED ACTION
Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
II. Priority 3
III. Pertinent Prosecution History 4
IV. Reissue Requirements 4
V. Claim Status 5
VI. Information Disclosure Statement 6
VII. Oath/Declaration 6
VIII. Specification Objections 7
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. § 251 13
A. Oath/Declaration 13
XIII. Double Patenting 14
A. U.S. Application No. 18/630,171 15
B. U.S. Application No. 18/630,266 15
C. U.S. Application No. 18/630,299 17
D. U.S. Application No. 18/630,324 18
XIV. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 18
A. Claim 21 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 Kirchherr et al. (European Publication No. EP 932141 A2) (“Kirchherr”) and Neuendorf et al. (International Publication No. WO 2010/040522 A2) (“Neuendorf’522”). 19
XV. Conclusion 25
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 continuation reissue1 application 18/630,252 (“‘252 Con Reissue Application”) on 09 April 2024 of a U.S. Reissue Application No. 18/630,171 (“‘171 Reissue Application”), filed 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 ‘252 Con Reissue Application claims a priority date of 08 July 2010.
Pertinent Prosecution History
As set forth supra, Applicant filed the application for the instant ‘252 Con Reissue Application on 09 April 2024.
On 06 March 2025, Applicant filed a preliminary amendment (“Mar 2025 Preliminary Amendment”). The Mar 2025 Preliminary Amendment provided a Specification Amendment (“Mar 2025 Spec Amendment”) and a Claim Amendment (“Mar 2025 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 ‘252 Con Reissue Application must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Claim Status
The Examiner finds that the claim status in the instant ‘252 Con Reissue Application is as follows:
Claim(s) 1-20 (Original and Canceled)
Claim(s) 21 (New)
Thus, the Examiner concludes that claim 21 is pending in the instant ‘252 Con Reissue Application. Claim 21 is examined (“Examined Claim”).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements filed: 09 April 2024 (April 2024 IDS”); and 11 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 19 August 2024 (“Aug 2024 Oath/Declaration”) is defective because of the following:
The Examiner finds that the Aug 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 Application Data Sheet filed with the ‘762 Application on 08 January 2013 (“Jan 2013 ‘762 Application ADS”) indicates the Assignee as the Applicant, however, the Aug 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 Aug 2024 Oath/Declaration is defective because it includes a “Statement of Status and Support of Claims.” (Aug 2024 Oath/Declaration at 4-5). The Examiner finds that the “Statement of Status and Support of Claims” should not be included in the Aug 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 Mar 2025 Spec Amendment is objected to because the Mar 2025 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: (1) the ‘171 Reissue Application is a reissue application of the ‘130 Patent; and (2) all of the other reissue applications, including the instant ‘252 Con Reissue Application , are continuation reissue applications of the ‘171 Reissue Application.2
Similarly, the Mar 2025 Spec Amendment states, “This application is a reissue application of issued U.S. Patent No. 9,257,130….” The Examiner finds that this statement is incorrect because this reissue application is a “continuation reissue” application. The Examiner finds that Applicant must amend this statement to be compliant as set forth in MPEP § 1451.
Appropriate correction is required.
Moreover, the Mar 2025 Spec Amendment is objected to because the first sentence of the specification does not contain sufficient notification stating that more than one reissue application has been filed and identifying each of the reissue applications by relationship, application number and filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.177(a). (See MPEP § 1451). Specifically, the Examiner finds that the “more than one” statement: is not the ‘first sentence’ of the ‘130 patent as required by 37 CFR 1.177(a).
Appropriate correction is required.
Furthermore, the Mar 2025 Spec Amendment is objected to because first paragraph included in the Mar 2025 Spec Amendment is entirely underlined indicating all new added subject matter. However, in examination of the ‘130 Patent and the Mar 2025 Spec Amendment, the Examiner finds that the Mar 2025 Spec Amendment should have also included the current first paragraph of the ‘130 Patent in brackets (i.e., “[ ]”) indicating the removed subject matter as well as the new underlined added matter.
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 Mar 2025 Claim Amendment, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.173(c). (Id.) While the Mar 2025 Preliminary Amendment provides direction for the Examiner to find support for the claim amendments (i.e.. see Mar 2025 Preliminary Amendment at 14; and Aug 2024 Oath/Declaration at 4-5), 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 Claim does not recite “step,” “means” or a claim term used as a substitution for “means” (i.e. a generic placeholder for “means”), the Examined Claim fails Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181. Because the one (1) Examined Claim fails Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181 I., the Examiner concludes that the Examined Claim does 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.3 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 4
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. § 251
Oath/Declaration
Claim 21 is 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. 18/630,171
Claim 21 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 respectively, (“‘171 ODP Claims”) of copending Application No. 18/630,171 (“‘171 Application”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 21, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of pending claim 21 is similar and/or covered by the ‘171 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application has essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘171 ODP Claims. In addition, where claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application and the ‘171 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘171 ODP Claims.
U.S. Application No. 18/630,266
Claim 21 is 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. (International Publication No. WO 2010/040522 A2) (“Neuendorf’522”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 21, although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of pending claim 21 is similar and/or covered by the ‘266 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application has essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘266 ODP Claims. In addition, where claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application and the ‘266 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claim 21 of the ‘252 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
(b) 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, [i.e., elements XIII.B.(1).(a)-(b)]
However, elements XIII.B.(1).(a)-(b) 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 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate elements XIII.B.(1).(a)-(b) as described by Neuendorf’522 to the decoding apparatus of ‘266 ODP Claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate elements XIII.B.(1).(a)-(b), since it provides a mechanism to process music only audio signals 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
Claim 21 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 respectively, (“‘299 ODP Claims”) of copending Application No. 18/630,299 (“‘299 Application”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 21, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of pending claim 21 is similar and/or covered by the ‘299 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application has essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘299 ODP Claims. In addition, where claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application and the ‘299 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘299 ODP Claims.
U.S. Application No. 18/630,324
Claim 21 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 respectively, (“‘324 ODP Claims”) of copending Application No. 18/630,324 (“‘324 Application”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 21, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of pending claim 21 is similar and/or covered by the ‘324 ODP Claims. The Examiner finds that claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application has essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘324 ODP Claims. In addition, where claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application and the ‘324 ODP Claims are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claim 21 of the ‘252 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘324 ODP Claims.
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.
Claim 21 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 Kirchherr et al. (European Publication No. EP 932141 A2) (“Kirchherr”) and Neuendorf et al. (International Publication No. WO 2010/040522 A2) (“Neuendorf’522”).
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 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 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).
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.
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 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 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, since it provides a mechanism to process music only audio signals efficiently. (Id. at c.10, ll.9-11; c.13, ll.18-21; c.16, ll.6-8).
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 /H.B.P/Hetul PatelSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
SJR
09/01/2026
1 The Examiner finds that the Application Data Sheet filed 06 March 2025 (Mar 2025 ADS) indicates that the instant ‘252 Con Reissue Application is a “continuation reissue” application. (See Mar 2025 ADS at 3). However, the Mar 2025 Spec Amendment indicates that the ‘252 Con Reissue Application is a reissue application and not a
“continuation reissue.” For examination purposes, the Office is considering the instant ‘252 Con Reissue Application a “continuation reissue” application.
2 See footnote 1, supra.
3 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 ‘130 Patent, or in the prior art.
4 “System,” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition Microsoft Press., Redmond, WA, 2002, p.508.
Prosecution Insights