Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/835,764

ENCODING DEVICE AND ENCODING METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 05, 2024
Examiner
GODBOLD, DOUGLAS
Art Unit
2655
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation of America
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
898 granted / 1079 resolved
+21.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1104
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
§103
46.3%
+6.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1079 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . This Office Action is in response to correspondence filed 05 August 2024 in reference to application 18/835,764. Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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(s) 1-6, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagisetty et al. (US PAP 2020/0357417) in view of Fotopoulou et al. (US PAP 20201/0012784). Consider claim 1, Nagisetty teaches an encoding apparatus (abstract, figure 11), comprising: control circuitry, which, in operation, determines, when determining that an input stereo signal is suitable for encoding using a mid-side stereo scheme, either conversion of the input stereo signal into a mid-side signal and application of first encoding or application of second encoding, depending on a condition (0137-40, determining whether to use mid-side encoder 204 or other encoders such as DM or DMA encoders based on stereo signal characteristics); first encoding circuitry, which, in operation, encodes the mid-side signal when the first encoding is applied (mid-side encoder 204 used to encode M/S signal when appropriate); and second encoding circuitry, which, in operation, encodes the input stereo signal in a frequency domain when the second encoding is applied (0137-40, selecting DM or DMA encoders when appropriate. 0076, DM or DMA coders may use EVS selection method to determine coding methods, which at 0032 include frequency domain coders such as MDCT coders). Nagisetty does not specifically teach encoding the mid-side signal in a time domain. In the same field of mid-side coders, Fotopoulou teaches encoding the mid-side signal in a time domain (0186, the Mid signal may be encoded using ACELP methods which is time domain). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to encode Mid/Side using ACLEP as taught by Fotopoulou in the system of Nagisetty in order to allow for a bitrate efficient coding mode for speech signals. Consider claim 2, Nagisetty and Fotopoulou teach The encoding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first encoding includes Code-Excited-Linear-Prediction (CELP) based encoding (Fotopoulou 0186, the Mid signal may be encoded using ACELP methods which is time domain), and the second encoding includes Modified Discrete Cosine Transform (MDCT) based encoding (Nagisetty 0137-40, selecting DM or DMA encoders when appropriate. 0076, DM or DMA coders may use EVS selection method to determine coding methods, which at 0032 include frequency domain coders such as MDCT coders). Consider claim 3, Fotopoulou teaches the encoding apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first encoding is multi-mode encoding and further includes Modified Discrete Cosine Transform (MDCT) based encoding (0186-87, the Mid signal may be encoded using ACELP methods which is time domain. Side channel maybe use encoded in MDCT domain). Consider claim 4, Nagisetty and Fotopoulou teach The encoding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the condition is based on a type of the input stereo signal, and the control circuitry determines to apply the first encoding when the type is a speech signal (Nagisetty 0033, coding determinations may be based on whether input audio is speech, Fotopoulou 0186-87, the Mid signal coding method may be selected based on whether input audio is speech). Consider claim 5, Fotopoulou teaches The encoding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the condition is based on an inter-channel time difference between a left channel and a right channel in the input stereo signal (0136-38 determining inter-channel time differences), and the control circuitry determines to apply the first encoding when the inter-channel time difference is within a threshold range. (0136-38 determining inter-channel time differences, 0182-84 Mid-side coding based on inter-channel time differences). Consider claim 6, Nagisetty and Fotopoulou teach the encoding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the condition is based on a correlation between a left channel and a right channel in the input stereo signal (0138, inter-channel correlation), and the control circuitry determines to apply the first encoding when the correlation is greater than or equal to a threshold. (0138, inter-channel correlation threshold values used to determine whether to use M/S encoding). Consider claim 9, Fotopoulou teaches the encoding apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising adjustment circuitry, which, in operation, performs adjustment processing of bringing an inter-channel time difference between a left channel and a right channel in the input stereo signal close to zero (0172, time aligning channel signals), wherein the first encoding circuitry encodes the mid-side signal obtained by converting the input stereo signal after the inter-channel time difference is adjusted (0172, time aligning channel signals before M/S coding). Consider claim 11, Nagisetty and Fotopoulou teach the encoding apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the control circuitry performs Modified Discrete Cosine Transform (MDCT) based encoding of the first encoding in a section adjacent to a section in which the second encoding is performed, among consecutive sections in which the first encoding is performed (Fotopoulou 0186-87, the Mid signal may be encoded using ACELP methods which is time domain. Side channel maybe use encoded in MDCT domain. this coding may be in adjacent frames to regular FEC coding taught at Nagisetty.). Consider claim 12, Nagisetty teaches an encoding method (abstract, figure 11), comprising: determining, by an encoding apparatus, when determining that an input stereo signal is suitable for encoding using a mid-side stereo scheme, either conversion of the input stereo signal into a mid-side signal and application of first encoding or application of second encoding, depending on a condition (0137-40, determining whether to use mid-side encoder 204 or other encoders such as DM or DMA encoders based on stereo signal characteristics); encoding, by the encoding apparatus, the mid-side signal when the first encoding is applied (mid-side encoder 204 used to encode M/S signal when appropriate); and encoding, by the encoding apparatus, the input stereo signal in a frequency domain when the second encoding is applied (0137-40, selecting DM or DMA encoders when appropriate. 0076, DM or DMA coders may use EVS selection method to determine coding methods, which at 0032 include frequency domain coders such as MDCT coders). Nagisetty does not specifically teach encoding the mid-side signal in a time domain. In the same field of mid-side coders, Fotopoulou teaches encoding the mid-side signal in a time domain (0186, the Mid signal may be encoded using ACELP methods which is time domain). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to encode Mid/Side using ACLEP as taught by Fotopoulou in the system of Nagisetty in order to allow for a bitrate efficient coding mode for speech signals. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagisetty and Fotopoulou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ojanpera (US PAP 2008/0130903). Consider claim 7, Nagisetty and Fotopoulou teach The encoding apparatus according to claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the condition is based on a bit rate, and the control circuitry determines to apply the first encoding when the bit rate is less than or equal to a threshold. In the same field of Mid/Side Coding, Ojanpera teaches wherein the condition is based on a bit rate, and the control circuitry determines to apply the first encoding when the bit rate is less than or equal to a threshold (using bitrate constraints to choose between M/S coding or L/R coding). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use bitrate considerations as taught by Ojanpera in the system of Nagisetty and Fotopoulou in order to allow for improved quality of signals at lower bitrates (Ojanpera 0025). Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagisetty and Fotopoulou as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Fatus et al. (US PAP 2019/0066701). Consider claim 10, Nagisetty and Fotopoulou teach the encoding apparatus according to claim 9, but do not specifically teach wherein a range of adjustment for the inter-channel time difference is based on an angular resolution for reproducing a speech signal. In the same field of calculating inter-channel time differences, Fatus teaches wherein a range of adjustment for the inter-channel time difference is based on an angular resolution for reproducing a speech signal (0183, calculated inter-channel time differences are dependent on angular resolution used to measure them). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to consider angular resolution as taught by Fatus in the system of Nagisetty and Fotopoulou in order to accurately compensate for time differences in the signal. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 is 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. Consider claim 8, Nagisetty and Fotopoulou teach the encoding apparatus according to claim 1, but do not specifically teach “wherein the determination is based on whether a percentage of bands determined to use the mid-side stereo scheme among a plurality of bands of a frequency spectrum of the input stereo signal is greater than or equal to a threshold, or whether the mid-side stereo scheme is determined to be used in all of the plurality of bands” when combined with each and every other limitation of the claim and base claim. Notably, while selecting mid/side coding for each band separately is generally known, using a threshold percentage of bands to determine to encode all band using m/s coding is not. Therefore claim 8 contains allowable subject matter. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Disch et al. (US 2017/0365263) provides general background on Mid/side coding. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS C GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-1451. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-5pm Monday-Thursday. 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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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. DOUGLAS GODBOLD Examiner Art Unit 2655 /DOUGLAS GODBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 05, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585879
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ASSISTED NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORTING AND MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579371
USING MACHINE LEARNING TO GENERATE SEGMENTS FROM UNSTRUCTURED TEXT AND IDENTIFY SENTIMENTS FOR EACH SEGMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579372
KEY PHRASE TOPIC ASSIGNMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579383
VERIFYING TRANSLATIONS OF SOURCE TEXT IN A SOURCE LANGUAGE TO TARGET TEXT IN A TARGET LANGUAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572749
Compressing Information Provided to a Machine-Trained Model Using Abstract Tokens
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1079 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month