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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the arguments Applicant argues that the specification supports an improvement to overcome the rejection under 3 USC 101. Examiner concurs, the 101 rejection has been withdrawn (see analysis below).
On pages 10-11 of the arguments Applicant argues that neither sign/phase, amplitude, or compression is taught by the prior art. Examiner does not concur.
NÄSLUND teaches sign extraction with suggestion of amplitudes thereof using codec/encoder/decoder as in 0041-0042. While amplitude extraction is suggested and otherwise plausibly inherent particularly for spectral components under BRI, in lieu of official notice, XIAO covers this concept and expressly teaches a neural network PLUS an encoder/decoder scheme with MDCT, extracting amplitude, and otherwise compression via NN + encoder/decoder i.e. an autoencoder 0035, 0038, 0080.
Note: The claims are not directed towards patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 1: IS THE CLAIM DIRECTED TO A PROCESS, MACHINE, MANUFACTURE OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER?
Yes
Step 2A.1: IS THE CLAIM DIRECTED TO A LAW OF NATURE, A NATURAL PHENOMENON (PRODUCT OF NATURE) OR AN ABSTRACT IDEA?
No
Step 2A.2: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION?
Yes, if the claims are alternatively construed to be abstract in step 2A1. The claims seek to improve reconstruction audio quality supported by the specification, and reflected by the claims e.g. in spec: 0014-0019 In other words, the claims enable the invention to increase the quality of an input audio single during output reconstruction using a neural network with MDCT.
Supported by the following:
In Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 125 USPQ2d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the claimed invention was a method of virus scanning that scans an application program, generates a security profile identifying any potentially suspicious code in the program, and links the security profile to the application program. 879 F.3d at 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d at 1285-86. The Federal Circuit noted that the recited virus screening was an abstract idea, and that merely performing virus screening on a computer does not render the claim eligible. 879 F.3d at 1304, 125 USPQ2d at 1286. The court then continued with its analysis under part one of the Alice/Mayo test by reviewing the patent’s specification, which described the claimed security profile as identifying both hostile and potentially hostile operations. The court noted that the security profile thus enables the invention to protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and “obfuscated code,” as compared to traditional virus scanning, which only recognized the presence of previously-identified viruses. The security profile also enables more flexible virus filtering and greater user customization. 879 F.3d at 1304, 125 USPQ2d at 1286. The court identified these benefits as improving computer functionality, and verified that the claims recite additional elements (e.g., specific steps of using the security profile in a particular way) that reflect this improvement. Accordingly, the court held the claims eligible as not being directed to the recited abstract idea. 879 F.3d at 1304-05, 125 USPQ2d at 1286-87. This analysis is equivalent to the Office’s analysis of determining that the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and thus that the claims were not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
Examples of claims that improve technology and are not directed to a judicial exception include: Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1691-92 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to a self-referential table for a computer database were directed to an improvement in computer capabilities and not directed to an abstract idea); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology and not directed to an abstract idea); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253,1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims to an enhanced computer memory system were directed to an improvement in computer capabilities and not an abstract idea); Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 125 USPQ2d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims to virus scanning were found to be an improvement in computer technology and not directed to an abstract idea); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets were found to be an improvement in computer network technology and not directed to an abstract idea). Additional examples are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Regarding the December 5th 2025 Memo in light of September 26, 2025 Appeals Review Panel Decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 for Application 16/319,040, in deciding if a recited abstract idea does or does not direct the entire claim to an abstract idea, when a claim is considered as a whole:
Paragraph 21 of the Specification, which the Appellant cites, identifies improvements in training the machine learning model itself. Of course, such an assertion in the Specification alone is insufficient to support a patent eligibility determination, absent a subsequent determination that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here, however, we are persuaded that the claims reflect such an improvement. For example, one improvement identified in the 8 Appeal2024-000567 Application 16/319,040 Specification is to "effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks." Spec. ,r 21. The Specification also recites that the claimed improvement allows artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "us[e] less of their storage capacity" and enables "reduced system complexity." Id. When evaluating the claim as a whole, we discern at least the following limitation of independent claim 1 that reflects the improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task." We are persuaded that constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation. Under a charitable view, the overbroad reasoning of the original panel below is perhaps understandable given the confusing nature of existing § 101 jurisprudence, but troubling, because this case highlights what is at stake. Categorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardizes America's leadership in this critical emerging technology. Yet, under the panel's reasoning, many AI innovations are potentially unpatentable-even if they are adequately described and nonobvious-because the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable "algorithm" and the remaining additional elements as "generic computer components," without adequate explanation. Dec. 24. Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality.
Specifically, Ex Parte Desjardins explained the following:
Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of technological improvements. In particular, Enfish recognized that “[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes.” 822 F.3d at 1339. Moreover, because “[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can,” the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determinations should turn on whether “the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” Id. at 1336. (Desjardins, page 8).
Further in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were
The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., “thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”). See, e.g., Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150379998 A1 NÄSLUND; Sebastian et al. (hereinafter NÄSLUND) in view of US 20210407526 A1 XIAO; Wei (hereinafter XIAO).
Re claim 1, NÄSLUND teaches
1. (Currently Amended) A coding method for coding an audio signal, the method being implemented by a coding device and comprising: (using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
decomposing ; (using decomposition via MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
coding . (a codec will code thereof, using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
However, while NÄSLUND teaches known MDCT analysis for amplitude, phase, and sign for specific frequency bands for a codec, it fails to further define such a codec per se:
analyzing (XIAO inputting MDCT outputs in a neural network 0080 and 0085 with fig. 1b… a neural network PLUS an encoder/decoder scheme with MDCT, extracting amplitude, and otherwise compression via NN + encoder/decoder i.e. an autoencoder 0035, 0038, 0080, 0161)
coding and (XIAO inputting MDCT outputs in a neural network which produces a latent space per se 0080 and 0085 with fig. 1b and 0161… a neural network PLUS an encoder/decoder scheme with MDCT, extracting amplitude, and otherwise compression via NN + encoder/decoder i.e. an autoencoder 0035, 0038, 0080)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of NÄSLUND to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by XIAO to allow for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as a neural network as part of the codec operations to allow for improvement of reconstruction which reduces complex data into a lower-dimensional format, enhancing tasks like classification, denoising, and generative reconstruction via an autoencoder for instance, which takes high-dimensions and create a compact, low-dimensional latent space per se, allowing for faster, more efficient processing, storage, and transmission of large datasets in real time.
Re claim 12, NÄSLUND teaches
12. (Currently Amended) A decoding method for decoding an audio signal, the method being implemented by a decoding device and comprising: (using MDCT with codec as part of a decoder operation e.g. fig. 9 and 11 including subsequent decoded state data within the decoder per se ready for output, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
decoding ; (using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8, NOTE: using MDCT with codec as part of a decoder operation e.g. fig. 9 and 11 including subsequent decoded state data within the decoder per se ready for output)
combining (the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof, using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8, NOTE: using MDCT with codec as part of a decoder operation e.g. fig. 9 and 11 including subsequent decoded state data within the decoder per se ready for output)
However, while NÄSLUND teaches known MDCT analysis for amplitude, phase, and sign for specific frequency bands for a codec, it fails to further define such a codec per se:
decoding (XIAO inputting MDCT outputs in a neural network which produces a latent space per se 0080 and 0085 with fig. 1b, NOTE: decoding operations for inverse encoding at 0400-0401 otherwise generalized for reverse operations or internal to decoding e.g. G.711, 0161… a neural network PLUS an encoder/decoder scheme with MDCT, extracting amplitude, and otherwise compression via NN + encoder/decoder i.e. an autoencoder 0035, 0038, 0080)
synthesizing and (XIAO inputting MDCT outputs in a neural network 0080 and 0085 with fig. 1b and reconstruction 0265 and 0281, NOTE: decoding operations for inverse encoding at 0400-0401 otherwise generalized for reverse operations or internal to decoding e.g. G.711, 0161… a neural network PLUS an encoder/decoder scheme with MDCT, extracting amplitude, and otherwise compression via NN + encoder/decoder i.e. an autoencoder 0035, 0038, 0080)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of NÄSLUND to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by XIAO to allow for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as a neural network as part of the codec for both coding and decoding inverse operations to allow for improvement of reconstruction which reduces complex data into a lower-dimensional format, enhancing tasks like classification, denoising, and generative reconstruction via an autoencoder for instance, which takes high-dimensions and create a compact, low-dimensional latent space per se, allowing for faster, more efficient processing, storage, and transmission of large datasets in real time.
Re claim 14, NÄSLUND teaches
14. (Currently Amended) A coding device comprising; a processing circuit configured to: (using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
decompose an audio signal into at least amplitude components and sign or phase components; (using decomposition MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
code at least a portion of the sign or phase components. (using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
However, while NÄSLUND teaches known MDCT analysis for amplitude, phase, and sign for specific frequency bands for a codec, it fails to further define such a codec per se:
analyze the amplitude components by way of a neural network-based autoencoder so as to obtain a latent space representative of the amplitude components of the audio signal; (XIAO inputting MDCT outputs in a neural network 0080 and 0085 with fig. 1b, 0161… a neural network PLUS an encoder/decoder scheme with MDCT, extracting amplitude, and otherwise compression via NN + encoder/decoder i.e. an autoencoder 0035, 0038, 0080)
code the obtained latent space; and (XIAO inputting MDCT outputs in a neural network which produces a latent space per se 0080 and 0085 with fig. 1b, 0161… a neural network PLUS an encoder/decoder scheme with MDCT, extracting amplitude, and otherwise compression via NN + encoder/decoder i.e. an autoencoder 0035, 0038, 0080)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of NÄSLUND to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by XIAO to allow for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as a neural network as part of the codec operations to allow for improvement of reconstruction which reduces complex data into a lower-dimensional format, enhancing tasks like classification, denoising, and generative reconstruction via an autoencoder for instance, which takes high-dimensions and create a compact, low-dimensional latent space per se, allowing for faster, more efficient processing, storage, and transmission of large datasets in real time.
Re claim 15, NÄSLUND teaches
15. (Currently Amended) A decoding device comprising a processing circuit (using MDCT with codec as part of a decoder operation e.g. fig. 9 and 11 including subsequent decoded state data within the decoder per se ready for output, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
decode sign or phase components of the audio signal; (using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8, NOTE: using MDCT with codec as part of a decoder operation e.g. fig. 9 and 11 including subsequent decoded state data within the decoder per se ready for output)
combine the decoded amplitude components and the decoded sign or phase components so as to obtain a decoded audio signal. (the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof, using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8, NOTE: using MDCT with codec as part of a decoder operation e.g. fig. 9 and 11 including subsequent decoded state data within the decoder per se ready for output)
However, while NÄSLUND teaches known MDCT analysis for amplitude, phase, and sign for specific frequency bands for a codec, it fails to further define such a codec per se:
decode a latent space representative of amplitude components of the audio signal; (XIAO inputting MDCT outputs in a neural network which produces a latent space per se 0080 and 0085 with fig. 1b, NOTE: decoding operations for inverse encoding at 0400-0401 otherwise generalized for reverse operations or internal to decoding e.g. G.711, 0161… a neural network PLUS an encoder/decoder scheme with MDCT, extracting amplitude, and otherwise compression via NN + encoder/decoder i.e. an autoencoder 0035, 0038, 0080)
synthesize the amplitude components of the audio signal by way of a neural network- based autoencoder, from the decoded latent space; and (XIAO inputting MDCT outputs in a neural network 0080 and 0085 with fig. 1b and reconstruction 0265 and 0281, NOTE: decoding operations for inverse encoding at 0400-0401 otherwise generalized for reverse operations or internal to decoding e.g. G.711, 0161… a neural network PLUS an encoder/decoder scheme with MDCT, extracting amplitude, and otherwise compression via NN + encoder/decoder i.e. an autoencoder 0035, 0038, 0080)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of NÄSLUND to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by XIAO to allow for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as a neural network as part of the codec for both coding and decoding inverse operations to allow for improvement of reconstruction which reduces complex data into a lower-dimensional format, enhancing tasks like classification, denoising, and generative reconstruction via an autoencoder for instance, which takes high-dimensions and create a compact, low-dimensional latent space per se, allowing for faster, more efficient processing, storage, and transmission of large datasets in real time.
Re claim 2, NÄSLUND teaches
2. (Currently Amended) The coding method as claimed in claim 1, furthermore comprisingoutput for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041-0042, 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
However, while NÄSLUND teaches known MDCT analysis for amplitude, phase, and sign for specific frequency bands for a codec, it fails to further define such a codec per se:
Autoencoder (XIAO inputting MDCT outputs in a neural network which produces a latent space per se 0080 and 0085 with fig. 1b… a neural network PLUS an encoder/decoder scheme with MDCT, extracting amplitude, and otherwise compression via NN + encoder/decoder i.e. an autoencoder 0035, 0038, 0080)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of NÄSLUND to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by XIAO to allow for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as a neural network as part of the codec operations to allow for improvement of reconstruction which reduces complex data into a lower-dimensional format, enhancing tasks like classification, denoising, and generative reconstruction via an autoencoder for instance, which takes high-dimensions and create a compact, low-dimensional latent space per se, allowing for faster, more efficient processing, storage, and transmission of large datasets in real time.
Re claim 4, NÄSLUND teaches
4. (Currently Amended) The coding method as claimed in claim 1, comprising, the decomposing, obtaining the audio signal bya modified discrete transform (MDCT transform} applied to an input audio signal. (using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
Re claim 7, NÄSLUND teaches
7. (Currently Amended) The coding method as claimed in claim 1, wherein all of the sign or phase components of the audio signal are coded. (using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
Re claim 8, NÄSLUND teaches
8. (Currently Amended) The coding method as claimed in claim 1, wherein only the sign or phase components corresponding to
Re claim 9, NÄSLUND teaches
9. (Currently Amended) The coding method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sign or phase components corresponding to
Re claim 10, NÄSLUND teaches
10. (Currently Amended) The coding method as claimed in claim 9, wherein
Re claim 11, NÄSLUND teaches
11. (Currently Amended) The coding method as claimed in claim 9, wherein
Re claim 13, NÄSLUND teaches
13. (Currently Amended) The decoding method as claimed in claim 8, wherein, if in response to the decoded phase components correspond corresponding to one portion of the phase components of the audio signal, the other another portion of the phase components is reconstructed before the combining step. (using MDCT with codec as part of a decoder operation e.g. fig. 9 and 11 including subsequent decoded state data within the decoder per se ready for output, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof, using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, 0041 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
Re claim 16, NÄSLUND teaches
16. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory storage medium able to be read by a processor and storing a computer program comprising instructions for executing the coding method as claimed claim 1. (using MDCT with codec, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
Re claim 17, NÄSLUND teaches
17. (New) A non-transitory storage medium able to be read by a processor and storing a computer program comprising instructions for executing the decoding method as claimed in claim 12. (using MDCT with codec as part of a decoder operation e.g. fig. 9 and 11 including subsequent decoded state data within the decoder per se ready for output, which is a compression, for low frequency areas for amplitude, sign, and phase per se, the data is combined to reconstruct for each frame into an output for a decoder or the inverse operation thereof 0041 0049 0077 fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8)
Claims 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150379998 A1 NÄSLUND; Sebastian et al. (hereinafter NÄSLUND) in view of US 20210407526 A1 XIAO; Wei (hereinafter XIAO) and further in view of US 20160019902 A1 Lamblin; Claude et al. (hereinafter Lamblin).
Re claim 3, while the combination teaches known MDCT analysis for amplitude, phase, and sign for specific frequency bands for a codec, it fails to teach:
3. (Currently Amended) The coding method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the amplitude components are compressed by a logarithmic function. (Lamblin in a multi-channel system using logarithmic functions such as u-law or a-law in a coder under an MDCT premise e.g. g.711 0165 and 0167)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of NÄSLUND in view of XIAO to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Lamblin to allow for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as using MDCT in addition to a logarithmic function to allow for improvement of compression aside from MDCT fundamental compression by incorporating u-law or a-law for instance, for managing a wide dynamic ranges (0–120 dB) efficiently, increase noise reduction in specific channels, and enhance low-level audio details, such as to mirror how the ear perceives loudness, and reducing the saliency of unwanted streams, such as background noise that is common in multi-channel systems e.g. not below noise floor.
Re claim 5, while the combination teaches known MDCT analysis for amplitude, phase, and sign for specific frequency bands for a codec, it fails to teach:
5. (Currently Amended) The coding method as claimed in one of the preceding claim1,wherein the audio signal is a multichannel signal. (Lamblin in a multi-channel system using logarithmic functions such as u-law or a-law in a coder under an MDCT premise e.g. g.711 0165 and 0167)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of NÄSLUND in view of XIAO to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Lamblin to allow for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as using MDCT in multiple channels in addition to a logarithmic function for multichannel systems, to allow for improvement of compression aside from MDCT fundamental compression by incorporating u-law or a-law for instance, for managing a wide dynamic ranges (0–120 dB) efficiently, increase noise reduction in specific channels, and enhance low-level audio details, such as to mirror how the ear perceives loudness, and reducing the saliency of unwanted streams, such as background noise that is common in multi-channel systems e.g. not below noise floor.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150379998 A1 NÄSLUND; Sebastian et al. (hereinafter NÄSLUND) in view of US 20210407526 A1 XIAO; Wei (hereinafter XIAO) and further in view of US 20080312912 A1 CHOO; Ki-hyun et al. (hereinafter CHOO).
Re claim 6, while the combination teaches known MDCT analysis for amplitude, phase, and sign for specific frequency bands for a codec, it fails to teach:
6. (Currently Amended) The coding method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the audio signal is a complex signal comprising a real and an imaginary part resulting from a transformation of an input audio signal, the amplitude components resulting from the decomposition step decomposing corresponding to the amplitudes of the combined real and imaginary parts and the sign or phase components corresponding to the signs or phases of the combined real and imaginary parts. (CHOO MDCT with real and imaginary derivatives for amplitude phase 0059)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of NÄSLUND in view of XIAO to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by CHOO to allow for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as real and imaginary components in MDCT which are already parallel to MDST or sister operations, to allow for improvement of MDCT operations by adding a shift-invariant representation of signals which overcomes the limitations of standard real-valued MDCT. By representing the signal as a complex number in addition to real, the amplitude and phase can be directly derived, such as by combining MDCT real numbers with the sine option, producing a more stable, shift-invariant representation of the signal's energy, which is better for tracking sinusoidal components, or in simplistic forms of mathematics, the concept may be fundamental e.g. amplitude is directly proportional to the magnitude of the complex number, while the phase is the angle.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150379998 A1 NÄSLUND; Sebastian et al. (hereinafter NÄSLUND) in view of US 20210407526 A1 XIAO; Wei (hereinafter XIAO) and further in view of US 20130006646 A1 Grancharov; Volodya et al. (hereinafter Grancharov).
Re claim 18, while the combination teaches amplitude and sign extraction as well as autoencoder i.e. NN + codec in latent space vectors, it fails to teach:
18. (New) The coding method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the coding of at least a portion of the sign or phase components is performed separately from the coding of the obtained latent space. (Grancharov 0056 a component to detect a change in the signal, in which case ampoule and sign would be encoded separately)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of NÄSLUND in view of XIAO to incorporate the above claim limitations as taught by Grancharov to allow for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as a component to detect a change in the signal, in which case ampoule and sign would be encoded separately, thereby demonstrating that the signal quality of the broadband signal is improved and to improve signal quality of the broadband signal, thereby further improving the listening experience of users, at least yielding known concepts where a more accurate correlation parameter that can be obtained based on the low-frequency spectral envelope and the low-frequency spectrum (when the time-frequency transform is an MDCT).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10847167 B2 Disch; Sascha et al.
MDCT and compression
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLUCCI whose telephone number is (571)270-1847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 7 PM.
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 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). If 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.
/MICHAEL COLUCCI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 (571)-270-1847
Examiner FAX: (571)-270-2847
Michael.Colucci@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights