DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 08/05/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-3 are currently pending and examined below.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed on 08/05/2024 have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Statements (IDSs) filed on 08/05/2024, 02/26/2025, 10/23/2025, 11/04/2025 and 01/30/2026 have been accepted, considered and compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Priority
4. The Applicants priority to European Patent Application # 17150915.1, filed January 10, 2017, has been accepted and considered in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed computer program may be nothing more than software. Claim 3 explicitly recites a computer program. Computer programs explicitly claimed as such or recited as computer listings per se (i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs) are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Double Patenting
6. The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type 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 Omum, 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 e-terminal disclaimer (e-TD) 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 non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting 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. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign an e-terminal disclaimer. An e-terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3 of the instant Application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent # 12142286. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 12142286 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 12142286 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 12142286 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claims 1 of the instant application and U.S. Patent # 12142286 both disclose an audio decoder for providing a decoded audio signal representation on the basis of an encoded audio signal representation; wherein the audio decoder is configured to adjust decoding parameters in dependence on a configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to decode one or more audio frames using a current configuration information; and wherein the audio decoder is configured to compare a configuration information in a configuration structure associated with one or more frames to be decoded, with the current configuration information, and to make a transition to perform a decoding using the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded as a new configuration information if the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, or a relevant portion of the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, is different from the current configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to consider a stream identifier information included in the configuration structure when comparing the configuration information, such that a difference between a stream identifier previously acquired by the audio decoder and a stream identifier represented by the stream identifier information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded causes to make the transition; wherein the configuration structure is included in an extension element of an audio frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 12142286 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Similarly, claims 1-3 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent # 11837247. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 11837247 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 11837247 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 11837247 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claims 1 of the instant application and U.S. Patent # 11837247 both disclose an audio decoder for providing a decoded audio signal representation on the basis of an encoded audio signal representation; wherein the audio decoder is configured to adjust decoding parameters in dependence on a configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to decode one or more audio frames using a current configuration information; and wherein the audio decoder is configured to compare a configuration information in a configuration structure associated with one or more frames to be decoded, with the current configuration information, and to make a transition to perform a decoding using the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded as a new configuration information if the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, or a relevant portion of the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, is different from the current configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to consider a stream identifier information included in the configuration structure when comparing the configuration information, such that a difference between a stream identifier previously acquired by the audio decoder and a stream identifier represented by the stream identifier information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded causes to make the transition; wherein the configuration structure is included in an extension element of an audio frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 11837247 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Similarly, claims 1-3 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent # 11217260. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 11217260 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 11217260 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 11217260 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claims 1 of the instant application and U.S. Patent # 11217260 both disclose an audio decoder for providing a decoded audio signal representation on the basis of an encoded audio signal representation; wherein the audio decoder is configured to adjust decoding parameters in dependence on a configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to decode one or more audio frames using a current configuration information; and wherein the audio decoder is configured to compare a configuration information in a configuration structure associated with one or more frames to be decoded, with the current configuration information, and to make a transition to perform a decoding using the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded as a new configuration information if the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, or a relevant portion of the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, is different from the current configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to consider a stream identifier information included in the configuration structure when comparing the configuration information, such that a difference between a stream identifier previously acquired by the audio decoder and a stream identifier represented by the stream identifier information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded causes to make the transition; wherein the configuration structure is included in an extension element of an audio frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 11217260 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Similarly, claims 1-3 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795017. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795017 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795017 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795017 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact not been patented.
As an example; claims 1 of the instant application and U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795017 both disclose an audio decoder for providing a decoded audio signal representation on the basis of an encoded audio signal representation; wherein the audio decoder is configured to adjust decoding parameters in dependence on a configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to decode one or more audio frames using a current configuration information; and wherein the audio decoder is configured to compare a configuration information in a configuration structure associated with one or more frames to be decoded, with the current configuration information, and to make a transition to perform a decoding using the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded as a new configuration information if the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, or a relevant portion of the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, is different from the current configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to consider a stream identifier information included in the configuration structure when comparing the configuration information, such that a difference between a stream identifier previously acquired by the audio decoder and a stream identifier represented by the stream identifier information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded causes to make the transition; wherein the configuration structure is included in an extension element of an audio frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795017 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Similarly, claims 1-3 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795486. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795486 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795486 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795486 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact not been patented.
As an example; claims 1 of the instant application and U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795486 both disclose an audio decoder for providing a decoded audio signal representation on the basis of an encoded audio signal representation; wherein the audio decoder is configured to adjust decoding parameters in dependence on a configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to decode one or more audio frames using a current configuration information; and wherein the audio decoder is configured to compare a configuration information in a configuration structure associated with one or more frames to be decoded, with the current configuration information, and to make a transition to perform a decoding using the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded as a new configuration information if the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, or a relevant portion of the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, is different from the current configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to consider a stream identifier information included in the configuration structure when comparing the configuration information, such that a difference between a stream identifier previously acquired by the audio decoder and a stream identifier represented by the stream identifier information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded causes to make the transition; wherein the configuration structure is included in an extension element of an audio frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18795486 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Similarly, claims 1-3 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18796084. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18796084 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18796084 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18796084 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact not been patented.
As an example; claims 1 of the instant application and U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18796084 both disclose an audio decoder for providing a decoded audio signal representation on the basis of an encoded audio signal representation; wherein the audio decoder is configured to adjust decoding parameters in dependence on a configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to decode one or more audio frames using a current configuration information; and wherein the audio decoder is configured to compare a configuration information in a configuration structure associated with one or more frames to be decoded, with the current configuration information, and to make a transition to perform a decoding using the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded as a new configuration information if the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, or a relevant portion of the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, is different from the current configuration information; wherein the audio decoder is configured to consider a stream identifier information included in the configuration structure when comparing the configuration information, such that a difference between a stream identifier previously acquired by the audio decoder and a stream identifier represented by the stream identifier information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded causes to make the transition; wherein the configuration structure is included in an extension element of an audio frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application Publication # 18796084 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Phillipe (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2013/0103408 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Phillipe teaches an audio decoder for providing a decoded audio signal representation on the basis of an encoded audio signal representation (Paragraphs 36-44, teach a method of coding a digital audio signal comprising a succession of consecutive blocks of data, on the basis of a predictive filter. The method according to the invention comprises in particular the use of a modified predictive filter for coding at least one current block. This modified filter is constructed by the combination of a backward filter calculated for a past block, preceding the current block, and enrichment parameters of the backward filter, determined as a function of the signal in the current block and comprising the coefficients of a modifying filter. A decoder then receives the aforementioned parameters);
wherein the audio decoder is configured to adjust decoding parameters in dependence on a configuration information (Paragraphs 51-53, teaches that a criterion that takes into account a number of parameters to be sent to a decoder for decoding a current block and comprising at least the coefficients that the filter to be chosen comprises. Thus, the predetermined criterion may comprise a search for the optimum between the prediction gain offered by a filter to be chosen, on the one hand and a bitrate suitable for transmitting the necessary parameters to a decoder for reconstructing this filter);
wherein the audio decoder is configured to decode one or more audio frames using a current configuration information (Paragraphs 54-57, teach that the method comprises the steps of (a) determining a plurality of forward filters of distinct respective orders, (b) determining a plurality of backward filters of distinct respective orders, (C) calculating a plurality of modified filters of distinct respective orders, each estimated on the basis of a backward filter determined in step (b) and as a function of the signal in a current block to be coded. Para 105, teaches that the estimation of the LPC filter coefficients can be performed on the current signal on a frame representing a set of samples, or on a version of the signal resulting from a preceding local decoding of the signal in coded form. The local decoding is obtained by decoding the encoded parameters in the encoder. This local decoding can be used to retrieve information from the coder that is usable by the decoder in exactly the same way);
and wherein the audio decoder is configured to compare a configuration information in a configuration structure associated with one or more frames to be decoded, with the current configuration information, and to make a transition to perform a decoding using the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded as a new configuration information if the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, or a relevant portion of the configuration information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded, is different from the current configuration information (Paragraphs 54-57, teach step (d) comparing, for the same number of parameters to be sent to a decoder, this number being determined as a function of the filter orders, the performance of at least two filters from among the forward filters, backward filters and modified filters determined in steps a), b) and c), and step (e) selecting, for coding a current block, a predictive filter with the best performance according to the comparison of step d), for a given number of parameters to be sent to a decoder. Paragraphs 149-157, further detail this process wherein two different bitrate configurations are compared along with their signal-to-noise ratio on an audio frame to audio frame basis. In dynamic operation, the forward/backward/combined filter type may change from one frame to the next, according to the choice made in the coder. However, care will be taken to avoid too rapid changes in configuration if the prediction gains are not sufficiently different, in particular between the configuration used in the preceding frame and the configuration giving the best performance in the current frame);
wherein the audio decoder is configured to consider a stream identifier information included in the configuration structure when comparing the configuration information, such that a difference between a stream identifier previously acquired by the audio decoder and a stream identifier represented by the stream identifier information in the configuration structure associated with the one or more frames to be decoded causes to make the transition (Paragraphs 120-128, teach that the modifying filter may be estimated by deconvolution of a forward filter suitable for filtering the current block, by a backward filter calculated for a past block. A second option may be implemented by identification in the least squares sense, by calculating autocorrelation terms of the backward filter coefficients and intercorrelation between the modified filter and the backward filter. The filter M obtained via any one of these techniques is then quantified typically in a form appropriate to the transmission of LPC filter coefficients. Then, the performance of the filter obtained is compared with those of the quantified forward filter “F” containing the same number of coefficients as the calculated filter “M”);
wherein the configuration structure is included in an extension element of an audio frame (Paragraphs 149-157, further detail this process wherein two different bitrate configurations are compared along with their signal-to-noise ratio on an audio frame to audio frame basis as outlined in equations of para 154. Configurations structures are disclosed in paragraphs 167-172 including a typical configuration used in the AMR-WB 3GPP encoder and decoder).
With regards to claim 2, this is a method claim for the corresponding apparatus claim 1. These two claims are related as method and apparatus of using the same, with each claimed system element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 2 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to apparatus claim 1.
With regards to claim 3, this is a computer program claim for the corresponding apparatus claim 1. These two claims are related as computer and apparatus of using the same, with each claimed system element's function corresponding to the claimed computer program step. Accordingly, claim 3 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to apparatus claim 1.
Conclusion
8. The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sirivara (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0130721 A1), Choo (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0065753 A1). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
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. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). In case you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJ SHARMA whose contact information is given below. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis-Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799 (Direct Phone). The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NEERAJ SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
571-270-5487 (Direct Phone)
571-270-6487 (Direct Fax)
neeraj.sharma@uspto.gov (Direct Email)
Prosecution Insights