CTNF 18/686,568 CTNF 84589 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 11, 19, 20 is/are directed to signal processing generally and the mathematical concepts and steps necessary thereto; the claims may also be considered with respect to human performance of mental steps necessary to implement the recited mathematical concepts such as an algorithm; rather than limit the abstract idea in a manner that comprise an improvement to the field of use the claims merely recite implementations of standard transforms, algorithms, etc. such as the recited FDNS or other transforms upon particular numerical representations of audio. Further, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely resolve conventional computing elements which do no more than implement the recited and well-known algorithmic modules, steps, method, etc. Claims 2-9, 11-18 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of Patent 12334083; and over 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12334083 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims similarly recited common features of a codec including frequency domain noise shaping; time domain alias cancellation, time to frequency, and frequency to time transforms; temporal noise shaping, etc. these processes are considered obvious to permute and variously combine particularly as a codec may generally be considered to operate upon real and/or complex values of an input signal . Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of Patent 12334083; and over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 19206684. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims similarly recited common features of a codec including frequency domain noise shaping; time domain alias cancellation, time to frequency, and frequency to time transforms; temporal noise shaping, etc. these processes are considered obvious to permute and variously combine particularly as a codec may generally be considered to operate upon real and/or complex values of an input signal . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim s 1, 10, 19, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Fotopoulou: 20210104249 hereinafter Fot (provided by Applicant in the IDS filed 2/26/2024) . Regarding claim 1 Fot teaches: An audio signal processing device (Fot: Abstract; ¶ 2: such as a processing device operable to instantiate or operate the adaptive signal processing codec, method, etc.) comprising: a receiver configured to receive a bitstream corresponding to a compressed audio signal (Fot: ¶ 86; Fig 1, 5a: an encoder device comprising a signal processor operates to perform encoding of an output signal comprising compressions, such as by subsequent receipt of a MCLT-MDST, or MCLT-MDCT-TNS signal at frequency domain noise shaper 114; the signal is considered compressed by compaction of energy into fewer coefficients by the recited transforms; the signal subsequently transmitted to a decoder); and a processor configured to: generate a real restoration signal or a complex restoration signal by performing inverse quantization on real data of the bitstream or complex data of the bitstream (Fot: ¶ 86, 87, 146, 160; Fig 10, 14, 15a: an encoder performs a modulated complex lapped transform on an input signal in a manner sufficient to perform frequency domain noise shaping on the complex spectrum or to perform frequency domain noise shaping on an estimated spectrum such as by performing estimation upon the real spectrum; the encoding device thereby operative to encode a signal which when received by a decoder comprises a restoration signal operable to return the signal to a former state, such as the input state or other states along the encoding process; said decoder operable to perform inverse processing on the received restoration signal such as dequantization the received complex or estimated complex spectrum and dequantized at 710); generate a result of real Frequency Domain Noise Shaping (FDNS) synthesis or a result of complex FDNS synthesis by performing FDNS synthesis on the real restoration signal or the complex restoration signal (Fot: 106-162; Fig 10, 14, 15a, 15b: such as by the inverse FDNS and subsequent frequency to time conversion operable in concert with an overall adder to output a decoded and/or restored audio signal); and generate a restored audio signal by performing frequency-to-time transform on the result of the real FDNS synthesis or the result of the complex FDNS synthesis (Fot: 106-162; Fig 10, 14, 15a, 15b: such as by the inverse FDNS and subsequent frequency to time conversion operable in concert with an overall adder to output a decoded and/or restored audio signal) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 35 U.S.C. 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1-20 rejec ted u nder 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fotopoulo u: 20210104249 hereinafter Fot (provided by Applicant in the IDS filed 2/26/2024) further in view of Beack: 20200243099 hereinafter Be (provided by Applicant in the IDS filed 2/26/2024). Regarding claim 1 Fot teaches: An audio signal processing device (Fot: Abstract; ¶ 2: such as a processing device operable to instantiate or operate the adaptive signal processing codec, method, etc.) comprising: a receiver configured to receive a bitstream corresponding to a compressed audio signal (Fot: ¶ 86; Fig 1, 5a: an encoder device comprising a signal processor operates to perform encoding of an output signal comprising compressions, such as by subsequent receipt of a MCLT-MDST, or MCLT-MDCT-TNS signal at frequency domain noise shaper 114; the signal is considered compressed by compaction of energy into fewer coefficients by the recited transforms; the signal subsequently transmitted to a decoder); and a processor configured to: generate a real restoration signal or a complex restoration signal by performing inverse quantization on real data of the bitstream or complex data of the bitstream (Fot: ¶ 86, 87, 146, 160; Fig 10, 14, 15a: an encoder performs a modulated complex lapped transform on an input signal in a manner sufficient to perform frequency domain noise shaping on the complex spectrum or to perform frequency domain noise shaping on an estimated spectrum such as by performing estimation upon the real spectrum; the encoding device thereby operative to encode a signal which when received by a decoder comprises a restoration signal operable to return the signal to a former state, such as the input state or other states along the encoding process; said decoder operable to perform inverse processing on the received restoration signal such as dequantization the received complex or estimated complex spectrum and dequantized at 710); generate a result of real Frequency Domain Noise Shaping (FDNS) synthesis or a result of complex FDNS synthesis by performing FDNS synthesis on the real restoration signal or the complex restoration signal (Fot: 106-162; Fig 10, 14, 15a, 15b: such as by the inverse FDNS and subsequent frequency to time conversion operable in concert with an overall adder to output a decoded and/or restored audio signal); and generate a restored audio signal by performing frequency-to-time transform on the result of the real FDNS synthesis or the result of the complex FDNS synthesis (Fot: 106-162; Fig 10, 14, 15a, 15b: such as by the inverse FDNS and subsequent frequency to time conversion operable in concert with an overall adder to output a decoded and/or restored audio signal). Examiner believes that the recited generation of a real OR complex signal is met by Fot; Applicant may prefer that the generation be selectable such as of the output of the Fot taught MDST or MDCT such as by a physical or software switch. To be certain Fot strongly suggests such selection in Figure 1 but the feature is not explicitly recited in Fot; nor is the feature claimed. Examiner considers such as feature exceedingly well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention. As evidence consider Be which teaches switchable frame level selection between real and complex signals under control by a software switch instruction of a side information bitstream; the real and complex signal encoded at an encoder (Be: Abstract; ¶ 8-10, etc.); which switchably determines decoding by real and complex decoding signal paths and transmits one or more signals based thereon to the decoder (Be: ¶ 8, 12, 14, 15, 31, 32, 42); the decoder comprising modules to decode the real and complex signal based on the switchable determination propagated by the encoder thereby decoding by real and/or complex decoding signal paths (Be: ¶ 45, 49; Fig 4, 5, etc.: decoding unit 510). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the Fot system and method such as to utilize the Be taught switchable determination of a transmitted signal and the additional decoding of an output to thereby realize a codec operable to selectably output a real or complex signal as explicitly taught by Be and to selectably decode the received real signal by a real signal decoding path; and/or selectively decode a complex signal by a real or a complex signal decoding path by selection thereof on the decoding device; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results from such an implementation. Regarding claim 2 Fot in view of Be teaches or suggests: The audio signal processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the complex restoration signal by performing the inverse quantization on the real data and the complex data, based on a same scale factor (Fot: ¶ 56-58, 64, 97: system operates to transmit scale factors from encoder to decoder for use of the same scale factors for decoding; Be: ¶ 37: complex or real decoding performed on same frame). The claim is considered obvious over Fot as modified by Be as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Fot and/or Be to the modified device of Fot and Be; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 3 Fot in view of Be teaches or suggests: The audio signal processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform Temporal Noise Shaping (TNS) synthesis or the FDNS synthesis on the complex restoration signal by controlling a first switch based on a first switch control signal (Fot: ¶55, 84- 86, 161: system performs temporal noise shaping and/or FDNS on a complex or estimated complex spectrum; such as to provide a mirror or inverse process counterpart at the decoder; such as by selecting an order and presence of particular processing using side information; Be: ¶ 29, 30, 36, 37: switchable control generated based on the signal analyzing unit to determine appropriate coding and decoding paths such as by switching therebetween; please see additionally claim 1 supra ) . The claim is considered obvious over Fot as modified by Be as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Fot and/or Be to the modified device of Fot and Be; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 4 Fot in view of Be teaches or suggests: The audio signal processing device of claim 3, wherein, when the complex restoration signal is a TNS residual signal, the processor is configured to perform the TNS synthesis on the complex restoration signal and perform the FDNS synthesis on a result of the TNS synthesis (Fot: ¶ 56-58, 84-86, 161; Fig 1, 5a, 10, 15a, 15b: such as to perform inversely the encoding processes for the purpose of generating an output signal by the decoder; Be: ¶ 36: such as based on switchable control at an encoder, decoder, etc.; please see additionally claim 1 supra ) . The claim is considered obvious over Fot as modified by Be as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Fot and/or Be to the modified device of Fot and Be; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 5 Fot in view of Be teaches or suggests: The audio signal processing device of claim 1, wherein, when the complex restoration signal is an FDNS residual signal, the processor is configured to perform the complex FDNS synthesis on the complex restoration signal (Fot: ¶ 56-58, 84-86, 161; Fig 1, 5a: such as to perform inversely the encoding processes for the purpose of generating an output signal by the decoder). The claim is considered obvious over Fot as modified by Be as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Fot and/or Be to the modified device of Fot and Be; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 6 Fot in view of Be teaches or suggests: The audio signal processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform complex inverse quantization or real inverse quantization on the bitstream by controlling a second switch based on a second switch control signal (Fot: ¶ 83-86, 159-161: system performs temporal noise shaping and/or FDNS on a complex or estimated complex spectrum; such as to provide a mirror or inverse process counterpart at the decoder; Be: 9-15, 36: such as switchably selecting between a real, imaginary signal path by a first switch at an encoder and/or a second switch at a decoder; please see additionally claim 1 supra ). The claim is considered obvious over Fot as modified by Be as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Fot and/or Be to the modified device of Fot and Be; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 7 Fot in view of Be teaches or suggests: The audio signal processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform switching compensation on a result of the frequency-to-time transform (Fot: ¶ 47, 63-65, 86, 161, etc.: such as by an overall add processor to switch between alternately processed signals, frames, etc.; Be: ¶ 47, 63-65: such as by a controller operative to perform switching compensation performed time domain aliasing cancellation on results of the frequency to time conversion). The claim is considered obvious over Fot as modified by Be as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Fot and/or Be to the modified device of Fot and Be; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 8 Fot in view of Be teaches or suggests: The audio signal processing device of claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether a signal corresponding to a current frame of the result of the frequency-to-time transform is a Time Domain Aliasing (TDA) signal (Fot: ¶ 83-86: to determine particular processing paths for particular frames; Be: ¶ 49: such as by applying windows corresponding to particular frame filterbank combinations); and perform overlap-add (Fot: ¶ 83-86, 162; Fig 15b); based on a result of determining whether the signal is the TDA signal (Be: ¶ 63-67; Fig 8, 9: such as by applying particular aliasing control based on particular modes). The claim is considered obvious over Fot as modified by Be as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Fot and/or Be to the modified device of Fot and Be; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 9 Fot in view of Be teaches or suggests: The audio signal processing device of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether a signal corresponding to a previous frame of the result of the frequency-time transform is the TDA signal Fot: ¶ 84-86; 161: adaptive switching path responds to a current from with respect to the status of a previous or frame; Be: ¶ 55-59, 63-67; Fig 8, 9: such as by performing a particularly windowed overlap add to a previous frame by evaluation thereof); and perform the overlap-add based on a result of determining whether the signal corresponding to the previous frame is the TDA signal (Be: ¶ 55-59, 63-67; Fig 8, 9: configuration of processing based on previous frame, analysis thereof). The claim is considered obvious over Fot as modified by Be as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Fot and/or Be to the modified device of Fot and Be; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom. Regarding claim 10, 19, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected. Regarding claim 11—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 14—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 17—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9 and is similarly rejected. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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. /PAUL C MCCORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 2 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 3 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 4 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 5 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 6 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 7 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 9 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 10 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 11 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 12 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 13 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 14 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/686,568 Page 15 Art Unit: 2692
Prosecution Insights