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 action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on December 3, 2024.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-22 are pending in this action. Claims 9 and 10 have been amended. Claims 8 and 11 have been canceled. Claims 12-22 have been newly added.
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 1-7, 9-10, and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an
abstract idea of audio encoding. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of audio encoding. The claim is drawn to process (a series of steps or acts) that similar to an idea ‘Of itself such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’.
The claim does not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine. The method does not require a particular transformation of a particular article. There is not transformation of a physical objects or data into a different state or thing. This audio encoding is similar to encoding and decoding image data found by the courts to be abstract idea (RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017)) and Organizing information through mathematical correlations found by the courts to be abstract idea (Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and also displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found by the courts to be abstract idea (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims broadly recite the result (obtained encoded audio, acquiring an initial encoding rate, determining a main frame encoding rate), rather than sufficiently claiming a technical means of achieving the result. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commons, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim requires the functional results ... but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”).
The claims recite a Judicial exception relating to “audio encoding, along with a generic processor device (claims 9 and 10) that simply used as tool to implement the abstract idea”. Here the claims do not change the underlying or other technology, rather the claimed techniques playing using computing device as pedagogical tool. The claimed additional elements - -processor device - -“merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” or “do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No. 2018- 2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) (“We have held that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.”).
Accordingly, claims 17, 9-10, and 12-22 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to the .. . judicial exception.” Id. at 54.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic processor. The claim amounts to no more than audio encoding. Taking the claimed elements either individually or as ordered combination, that transform claims into patent-eligible application, since claims merely recite use of already existing mathematical calculation, and there is no “inventive concept” in play using computing device well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry of encoding, since claims, at most, attempt to limit abstract idea to particular technological environment, and such limitation has been held insufficient to save claims in this context, and since dependent claims are not rendered patent-eligible by recitation of additional steps, such as dependent claims, as per claims 2, 12, and18 recites, “determining a preset main frame encoding proportion as a final main frame encoding proportion”; as per claims 3 and 13, and 19, recites, “determining total overuse bits of encoded audio frames, determining a first adjustment amount . ..”; as per claims 4 and 14, recites, “acquiring an overuse bit of a previous audio frame; determining a second adjustment amount . . .”; as per claims 5, 15, and 20, recites, “obtaining a product result by multiplying the initial encoding rate by the main frame encoding proportion . . .”; even though additional limitations may narrow scope of claims. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-22, are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2018/0184089) discloses, target bit allocation for video coding.
Martel et al. (US 2012/0201292) discloses, system and method for controlling the long term generation rate of compressed data.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
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).
June 9, 2026
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights