Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,11,18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as well as rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections below.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: As analyzed with respect to a typical piece of prior art (Walker), Walker describes a satellite receiver with various performance enhancements, such as maximizing a long time interleaver and improvement of its audio listenability. (Walker, Abstract). A front end 28 of the receiver 12 is used to process received RF signals 25a-c, and includes a digital signal processor (DSP) 50. (Walker, para 62; Fig. 3). The DSP 50 processes digital baseband signals so that a speaker 49 coupled to the DSP 50 can play a listenable audio stream 31. (Walker, para 62; Fig. 3). The DSP 50 includes an inner receiver 51 and an outer receiver 60 that conduct additional signal processing on the baseband signals. (Walker, para 63; Fig. 4). Walker describes a method 70 that reduces “listenable audio frequency interruptions”, e.g., when a vehicle is beneath an overpass 20, by causing the audio stream 31 to “recover faster from the weak signal condition” and “reducing the number of mutes and the total time of a mute”. (Walker, para 66, 68). Paragraph 36 of Walker defines “[h]ard bit word/data value” as “a digital indication of a binary decision, such as a TRUE decision or a FALSE decision”. Walker, however, does not explicitly teach the combination of claim features found in the dependent claims 4,11,18; nor does the remaining prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1,5,7,8,12-15,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (20130089126) in view of Gautier et al (20130188680).
As per claims 1,5, Walker (20130089126) teaches a method of receiving an audio signal represented by a digital signal, comprising:
detecting a characteristic associated with a digital modulation scheme of a digital signal from a received RF signal, (as I and Q datastreams as part of constellation mapping – para 0064, in view of para 0062);
generating hard bits based on the determined characteristic (as using hard bits – para 0036);
determining, based on the detected characteristic, one or more approximate loglikelihood ratios indicated a confidence in a strength of the hard bits, comparing the one or more approximate log likelihood ratios to a predetermined threshold (as the bits are used to render a TRUE/FALSE decision -- para 0036; wherein the true/false decision is used measure the distance between the I/Q datastreams – see fig. 1, multiple pathways and then received by the circuitry – fig. 4 – softbit data to outer receiver, and hard data bit to decoder –fig. 4, output of fec circuitry);
generating, based on the comparing audio samples of a decoded digital audio signal, wherein the audio samples comprise: one or more audio samples based on the hard bits or one or more zero audio samples ((as replacing with zero audio samples if the power is too low – para 0003, 0032, 0039; ie, effectively muting the signal).
Although Walker (20130089126) discusses both hard bit ( para 0036; examiner notes that the inner receiver combines the I/Q streams INTO a softbit stream – para 0066, ie, the stream is ready to be softbit processed at that point; prior, the bits are fixed – ie, by definition hardbit) and softbit (para 0067 – the outer receiver is the location where softbit operations are performed). However, Walker does not explicitly teach using log-likelihood ratios in the distance measurement to determine the strength of the hardbits; Gautier et al (20130188680) teaches operating on I/Q signals, estimating LLR (log-likelihood ratio) values – para 0031, and then performing FEC error correction on the scaled estimated LLR value signals, with the output corresponding to hard bits (para 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of signal broadcasting to further operate on the I/Q stream of Walker (20130089126) with further LLR processing and FEC error correction generating hardbits, as taught by Gautier et al (20130188680), because it would advantageously provide a fast and direct slope adaptation to obtain the best decoding performance when starting the receiver (see Gautier et al (20130188680), para 0018).
Further to the formatting of the audio samples, examiner notes the discussion of Walker (20130089126), showing DSP processing of the audio signals (Walker, Reed-Solomon decoder – para 0075) along with noise concerns in the audio stream, that one of ordinary skill in the art of audio encoding/decoding easily recognizes the use of the well know pulse-code modulated format to overcome noise considerations, which is of concern in Walker (See Walker, para 0068, noise in the audio stream).
As per claim 6, the combination of Walker (20130089126) in view of Gautier et al (20130188680) teaches generating audio from the samples and muting the zero audio samples (see Walker (20130089126), para 0003, 0032, 0039, producing output audio unless the signal is not strong enough – then muting/samples with zero values).
As per claim 7, the combination of Walker (20130089126) in view of Gautier et al (20130188680) teaches the generating of audio samples is further based on a perceptual importance associated with the hard bits (see Walker (20130089126), as determining different states of perceptual audio quality – para 0070 either quality listenable/minimum quality/defective listenable).
Claims 8, 12-14 are apparatus claims performing steps found in method claims 1,5-7 and as such, claims 8,12-14 are similar in scope and content to claims 1,5-7 above; therefore, claims 8,12-14 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1,5-7 above. Furthermore, Walker teaches processors executing stored program instructions to perform the method disclosed – para 0033, 0038 memories accessed by processors in 0054, 0062.
Claims 15,19,20 are nontransitory computer readable medium claims performing steps found in method claims 1,5-7 and as such, claims 15,19,20 are similar in scope and content to claims 1,5-7 above; therefore, claims 15,19,20 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1,5-7 above. Furthermore, Walker teaches processors executing stored program instructions to perform the method disclosed – para 0033, 0038 memories.
Claims 1-3, 8-10,15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (20130089126) in view of Gautier et al (20130188680). In further view of Drumm (20130121447).
As per claim 1, Walker (20130089126) teaches a method of receiving an audio signal represented by a digital signal, comprising:
detecting a characteristic associated with a digital modulation scheme of a digital signal from a received RF signal, (as I and Q datastreams as part of constellation mapping – para 0064, in view of para 0062);
generating hard bits based on the determined characteristic (as using hard bits – para 0036);
determining, based on the detected characteristic, one or more approximate loglikelihood ratios indicated a confidence in a strength of the hard bits, comparing the one or more approximate log likelihood ratios to a predetermined threshold (as the bits are used to render a TRUE/FALSE decision -- para 0036; wherein the true/false decision is used measure the distance between the I/Q datastreams – see fig. 1, multiple pathways and then received by the circuitry – fig. 4 – softbit data to outer receiver, and hard data bit to decoder –fig. 4, output of fec circuitry);
generating, based on the comparing audio samples of a decoded digital audio signal, wherein the audio samples comprise: one or more audio samples based on the hard bits or one or more zero audio samples ((as replacing with zero audio samples if the power is too low – para 0003, 0032, 0039; ie, effectively muting the signal).
Although Walker (20130089126) discusses both hard bit ( para 0036; examiner notes that the inner receiver combines the I/Q streams INTO a softbit stream – para 0066, ie, the stream is ready to be softbit processed at that point; prior, the bits are fixed – ie, by definition hardbit) and softbit (para 0067 – the outer receiver is the location where softbit operations are performed). However, Walker does not explicitly teach using log-likelihood ratios in the distance measurement to determine the strength of the hardbits; Gautier et al (20130188680) teaches operating on I/Q signals, estimating LLR (log-likelihood ratio) values – para 0031, and then performing FEC error correction on the scaled estimated LLR value signals, with the output corresponding to hard bits (para 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of signal broadcasting to further operate on the I/Q stream of Walker (20130089126) with further LLR processing and FEC error correction generating hardbits, as taught by Gautier et al (20130188680), because it would advantageously provide a fast and direct slope adaptation to obtain the best decoding performance when starting the receiver (see Gautier et al (20130188680), para 0018). Further to the formatting of the audio samples, examiner notes the discussion of Walker (20130089126), showing DSP processing of the audio signals (Walker, Reed-Solomon decoder – para 0075) along with noise concerns in the audio stream, that one of ordinary skill in the art of audio encoding/decoding easily recognizes the use of the well know pulse-code modulated format to overcome noise considerations, which is of concern in Walker (See Walker, para 0068, noise in the audio stream).
As per claim 2, the combination of Walker (20130089126) in view of Gautier et al (20130188680) teaches:
the characteristic, of the digital signal, comprises a sequence of symbols in a constellation associated with a digital modulation scheme (see Walker (20130089126) , as I and Q datastreams as part of constellation mapping – para 0064, in view of para 0062);
generating the hard bits comprises determining a likely transmitted sequence of symbols based on error (see Gautier et al (20130188680) , generating an output of hardbits after processing the FEC error correction on the I/Q bitstream modified by the LLR estimates – para 0031, 0032, on a distance of the detected point of the constellation to defined points of the constellation – para 0005). The combination of Walker (20130089126) in view of Gautier et al (20130188680) does not explicitly teach the calculation in a complex plane, determining from running the sequence of symbols through a Viterbi algorithm; nor, determining the one or more approximate log likelihood ratios comprises determining the one or more approximate log likelihood ratios based on a degree of closeness, of the sequence of symbols to known legal sequence of symbols, determined from running the sequence of symbols through a soft output Viterbi algorithm. Drumm (20130121447) teaches in para 0089, defining LLR as log-likelihood ratio; and using LLR’s for bit processing – para 0202-0207, and para 0121-0125) by using a Viterbi algorithm in translation of the bitstream (para 0104, 0109) in a trellis analysis approach in analyzing constellation data (para 104-107), operating in the complex plane (para 0183). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constellation based signal processing to further define the LLR processing in the combination of Walker (20130089126) in view of Gautier et al (20130188680) with using a log-likelihood ratios distance measurement, via the trellis based approach of Drumm, incorporating a Viterbi algorithm, because it would advantageously provide redundancy and soft bit estimates which are useable to from a receive message, during transmission (Drumm, para 0007).
As per claim 3, the combination of Walker (20130089126) in view of Gautier et al (20130188680) in further view of Drumm (20130121447) teaches the “characteristic comprises a phase trajectory of the digital signal; generating the hard bits (Drumm, para 0039, generating hard estimates) comprises determining a likely transmitted phase trajectory based on running the phase trajectory through a Viterbi algorithm (as phase projection/estimates – para 0206-0207, using Viterbi equalization – para 0104);
and determining the one or more approximate log likelihood ratios comprises determining the one or more approximate log likelihood ratios based on a degree of closeness, of the phase trajectory to known legal phase trajectories (Drumm, para 0205-0206, tracking the phase transitions, and in para 0206 – using LLR’s), determined from running the phase trajectory through a soft output Viterbi algorithm (as using the disclosed Viterbi equalization – para 0119; as soft estimates of the bits – para 0021).
Claims 8-10 are apparatus claims performing steps found in method claims 1-3 and as such, claims 8-10 are similar in scope and content to claims 1-3 above; therefore, claims 8-10 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-3 above. Furthermore, Walker teaches processors executing stored program instructions to perform the method disclosed – para 0033, 0038 memories accessed by processors in 0054, 0062.
Claims 15-17 are nontransitory computer readable medium claims performing steps found in method claims 1-3 and as such, claims 15-17 are similar in scope and content to claims 1-3 above; therefore, claims 15-17 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-3 above. Furthermore, Walker teaches processors executing stored program instructions to perform the method disclosed – para 0033, 0038 memories.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner notes the introduction of the Gautier et al reference (20130188680) teaching the use of LLR’s and FEC error coding to clearly define generated hardbits from the I/Q data stream (which is noted as being softbit-processing-ready).
And as a carryover/repeat: the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 7/23/2025 has overcome the obviousness-type double patenting rejection; Examiner notes the indication of allowable subject matter.
Lastly, examiner notes the newly found references listed below, with a focus on LLR’s measuring/defining the hardbits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see related art listed on the PTO-892 form.
Kamuf et al (20100088578) teaches LLR dictating hard bit decisions see para 0028
Chen et al 20130266097 teaches magnitude of LLR reflects the reliability of the hard decision bits.
Geirhofer (20130301450) teaches noise power measurements, with distance calculations, from point to point, with phase considerations (para 0047, 0059)
Goyal (20050177860) teaches soft bit decision processing in a FEC technique (para 0056)
Badri et al (7173979) teaches the transmission/receiving, and analysis of symbols, processing using a Viterbi algorithm (col. 1 lines 15-45).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Opsasnick, telephone number (571)272-7623, who is available Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Richemond Dorvil, can be reached at (571)272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael N Opsasnick/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
09/01/2026
Prosecution Insights