DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Khojastepour et al. do not teach compressing coded residual sub-vectors, to obtain corresponding compressed residual sub-vectors; rejecting compressed residual sub-vectors that do not fulfill a predetermined sparseness criterion; concatenating the remaining compressed residual sub-vectors to form the virtual codebook (Amendment, pages 7 – 9).
The examiner disagrees, since Khojastepour et al. disclose “updating the plurality of residual vectors by removing the one residual vector having the optimal tap position, updating the observation generating matrices in accordance with the residual vector having the optimal tap position… Our objective is to minimize the following sparsity measure:… the concatenated vector of all channels to be…(col.2, lines 59 – 64; col.6, lines 31 – 40).
Applicant argues that Khojastepour et al. do not teach providing the virtual codebook to memory or output circuitry for use in spectrum filling of the transform coded audio signal (Amendment, pages 8 – 10).
The examiner disagrees, and points out that this is not a positive limitation since the claim recite “for use”, but not actually claim the spectrum filling of the transform coded audio signal.
Applicant argues that Khojastepour et al. do not teach below-predetermined frequency use (Amendment, page 10).
The examiner disagrees, and points out that the preamble recitation does not carry weight.
Applicant argues that the amended claims of providing the virtual codebook to memory or output circuitry for use in spectrum filling of the transform coded audio signal is a practical application of any mathematical rule that may be embodied in the processing, and the claim is not directed to any rule in and of itself (Amendment, pages 6, 7).
The examiner disagrees, and points out that this is not a positive limitation since the claim recite “for use”, but not actually claim the spectrum filling of the transform coded audio signal.
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.
Claims 1 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 1 - 12 are directed to a method/system. They hereby fall under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does not fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Claims 1 - 12 recite steps of observation, evaluation, and judgement that can be practically performed by a human, either mentally or with the use of pen and paper (mathematical algorithm).
The limitation of " compressing coded residual sub-vectors, to obtain corresponding compressed residual sub-vectors; rejecting compressed residual sub-vectors that do not fulfill a predetermined sparseness criterion; and concatenating the remaining compressed residual sub-vectors to form the virtual codebook;" in claims 1 - 12, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting " an apparatus comprising: means for", nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind (mathematical algorithm).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic apparatus comprising: means for do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claims 1 - 12 recite an abstract idea.
The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data- gathering (rejecting, concatenating and generating) steps, are recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 1 - 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an apparatus comprising: means for to perform the rejecting, concatenating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements (an apparatus comprising: means for) represent mere instruction to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1- 12 as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 1 – 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Khojastepour et al. (US Patent 8,619,918).
As per claims 1, 6, Khojastepour et al. teach a method of generating a virtual codebook for filling non-coded residual sub-vectors of a transform coded audio signal below a predetermined frequency, said method including the steps of:
compressing coded residual sub-vectors, to obtain corresponding compressed residual sub-vectors; rejecting compressed residual sub-vectors that do not fulfill a predetermined sparseness criterion ("updating the plurality of residual vectors by removing all of the residual vectors"; col.12, line 42 - col.13, line 20);and
concatenating the remaining compressed residual sub-vectors to form the virtual codebook; providing the virtual codebook to memory or output circuitry for use in spectrum filling of the transform coded audio signal (“Our objective is to minimize the following sparsity measure:… the concatenated vector of all channels to be…”; col.2, lines 19 - 67; col.12, line 42 -col.13, line 20);
wherein coefficients X (k) of the coded residual sub-vectors are compressed in accordance with:
PNG
media_image1.png
108
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Y(k) are the coefficients of the compressed residual sub-vectors (col.2, lines 19 - 67; col.5, line 26 - col.6, line 59; col.12, line 42 -col.13, line 20).
As per claims 2, 7, Khojastepour et al. further disclose compressed residual sub-vectors having less than a predetermined percentage of non-zero components are rejected (col.2, lines 19 - 67; col.5, line 26 - col.6, line 59; col.12, line 42 -col.13, line 20).
As per claims 3, 8, Khojastepour et al. further disclose compressed residual sub-vectors that do not fulfill the criterion:
PNG
media_image2.png
75
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where the sub-vector dimension M is 8, are rejected (col.2, lines 19 - 67; col.5, line 26 - col.6, line 59; col.12, line 42 -col.13, line 20).
As per claims 4, 9, Khojastepour et al. further disclose the virtual codebook is a first virtual codebook and wherein the method further comprises generating a second virtual codebook for filling non-coded residual sub-vectors of the transform coded audio signal above the predetermined frequency, based on combining pairs of coefficients of the first virtual codebook (col.2, lines 19 - 67; col.5, line 26 - col.6, line 59; col.12, line 42 -col.13, line 20).
As per claims 5, 10, Khojastepour et al. further disclose pairs of the coefficients Y(k) of the first virtual codebook are combined in accordance with:
PNG
media_image3.png
150
788
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where N is the size of the first virtual codebook (col.2, lines 19 - 67; col.5, line 26 - col.6, line 59; col.12, line 42 -col.13, line 20).
As per claim 11, Khojastepour et al. further disclose a decoder including an apparatus in accordance with claim 6 (col.2, lines 19 - 67; col.5, line 26 - col.6, line 59; col.12, line 42 -col.13, line 20).
As per claim 12, Khojastepour et al. further disclose a user equipment including a decoder in accordance with claim 11 (col.2, lines 19 - 67; col.5, line 26 - col.6, line 59; col.12, line 42 -col.13, line 20).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD SAINT-CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-4247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, 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 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.
/LEONARD SAINT-CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights