Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Detailed Action
The office action sent in response to Applicant’s communication received on 10/16/2024 for the application number 18917806. The office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following placed of record in the file: Specification, Abstract, Oath/Declaration and claims.
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/948,603, filed on September 20, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/414,020, filed on May 16, 2019, which claims the benefit of priority as a continuation of U.S. Application No. 15/809,493, filed on November 10, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/764,318, filed on July 29, 2015, which is a 35 U.S.C. § 371 national stage application of PCT International Application No. PCT/SE2014/050067, filed on January 22, 2014, which itself claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/760,814, filed on February 5, 2013.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure submitted on 10/16/2024 filed before the mailing data of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory 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 Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over combinations of claims 1-20 of US Patent 12148434 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over combinations of claims 1-16 of US Patent 11482232 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over combinations of claims 1-16 of US Patent 11482232. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over combinations of claims 1-23 of US Patent 10339939. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over combinations of claims 1-16 of US Patent 9847086. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
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.
Claim 1 includes - A frame loss concealment method, wherein when a segment of a coded signal cannot be reconstructed by a decoder, an available part of a signal prior to the segment is used as a prototype frame, where the prototype frame of length L is extracted from the available signal with a window function w(n) and transformed into a frequency domain, the method comprising: (a) identifying at least one peak of a magnitude spectrum of the prototype frame;(b) identifying frequencies in the vicinity of the at least one peak to identify a sinusoidal frequency fk with higher resolution than the frequency resolution of the used frequency domain transform;(c) calculating a phase shift θk for a sinusoid k; shifting a phase of all spectral coefficients in the prototype frame included in an interval Mk around the sinusoid k by θk while retaining the magnitude of those spectral coefficients; (d) randomizing phases of spectral coefficients that are not phase shifted; and (e) creating a substitution frame by performing an inverse frequency transform of a frequency spectrum of the prototype frame.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites the steps or acts of extracting a protype frame and creating a substitution frame, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The claim recites in steps (a) –(e) identifying frequencies of the spectrum, identifying frequenting within the peak vicinity with the frequency resolution higher than that frequency domain, calculating phase shift, randomizing the non shifted phase and calculating the substitution frame. In this claim the “identifying” , “calculating” and “creating” is a mental process since after receiving the spectrum a human can use algorithm to identify frequency, perform the peak detecting using frequencies using an interpolation method, which enhances the frequency resolution, calculate the phase shift which retains the shape of the spectrum and randomize the phase and determine the substitution frame by using mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a combination of mental and mathematical process. As explained in the MPEP, when a claim recites multiple abstract ideas that fall in the same or different groupings, examiners should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. As the steps falls within the mathematical operation and mental process grouping, these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). 19. The claim recites additional limitation of a decoder in the preamble. As claimed decoder is recited at a high level of generality. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. The only element recited is a decoder which is well-known routine and conventional. The additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 15-17 recites additional mental process which can be performed by the human using mathematical operation. Similar analysis analogous to claim 1, are applicable.
Claims 5-6, 12, and 18-19, recites speaker playback. However, Under step 2A, prong 2 and step 2b, these are generic computer component which represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer component. Hence, patent ineligible.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, analysis analogous to claim 1, are applicable. In addition, claims recites generic component of processor, memory and computer readable medium. Under step 2A, prong 2 and step 2b, these are generic computer component which represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer component. Hence, patent ineligible.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 7, 13 and 20 are not rejection under 101 since the additional elements transforms the abstract idea into practical application which is an improvement in a particular technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
And
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determination.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huan ( Real-time Audio Error Concealment Method Based on Sinusoidal Model) and further in view of Kamil ( Importance of the Dynamic Range of an Analysis Window Function for Phase-only and Magnitude-only Reconstruction of Speech) and further in view of Yeldener( US Pat 5890108)
Regarding claim, Huan teach a frame loss concealment(synthesis for error concealment for the lost frames, Abstract, Fig 1) method, wherein when a segment of a coded signal cannot be reconstructed by a decoder, an available part of a signal prior to the segment is used as a prototype frame, where the prototype frame of length L is extracted from the available signal with a window function w(n) and transformed into a frequency domain ( An analysis and synthesis of the windowed previous frame of the lost one and the residual samples are used to synthesize a new frame, Abstract; the window length, which corresponds to the frequency resolution, must be large enough and may be a power of 2 for the reduction of computational complexity. If the window length N is larger than the size of the lost samples, zero must be padded and the center of the window should be moved to the center of the sample signals to ensure the elimination of the linear phase term after the time-to-frequency transform, Section 2) the method comprising:
identifying at least one peak of a magnitude spectrum of the prototype frame(Then the spectral peaks are picked by finding the frequency components the energies of which are higher than their two neighbors, Section 2); identifying frequencies in the vicinity of the at least one peak to identify a sinusoidal frequency fk with higher resolution than the frequency resolution of the used frequency domain ( If the window length can't be enlarged to enhance the frequency resolution, an inter-peak compensation may be required. Besides picking the peaks, the peak neighbors are kept with an attenuation of a fixed factor while the other Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) coefficients are zeroed- which implies The peak may be just between two discrete samples, so the peak location doesn't specify an exact frequency component. If the window length can't be enlarged to enhance the frequency resolution, an inter-peak compensation may be require, Section 2.1) ; calculating a phase shift θk for a sinusoid k ( phase shift is calculated based on formula (2), Section 2.1); shifting a phase of all spectral coefficients in the prototype frame included in an interval Mk around the sinusoid k by θk ( adjustment of the frequency and phase, Page 24, left col; ( if the number of samples between the start of the analysis model and the start of the lost frame is M, then the phase adjustment for the ith frequency component is given by eq 2, Page 24, left col) ; and creating a substitution frame by performing an inverse frequency transform of a frequency spectrum of the prototype frame (An inverse FFT (IFFT) is performed to generate the time-domain waveform. The synthesized signal is scaled by the windowing scaling factor is given by eq 3, Page 24, left Col ; the reconstructed waveform is to fill the lost frame, Section 2.1, Page 24, left Col; With the improved audio quality and no-extra delay and comparative implementation complexity, the error concealment method proposed is applicable for the real-time cable or wireless networks, Conclusion )
Huan does not teach shifting phase while retaining the magnitude of those spectral coefficients
However, Kamil teaches shifting phase while retaining the magnitude of those spectral coefficients ( retain only the magnitude information while shifting the phase, Under 2. ANALYSIS-MODIFICATION-SYNTHESIS PROCEDURE)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Huan to further include the concept of Kamil before effective filing date since for dynamic range the retaining of magnitude provided more intelligible signal ( Conclusion, Kamil)
Huan modified by Kamil does not explicitly teach randomizing phases of spectral coefficients that are not phase shifted;
However, Yeldener teaches randomizing phases of spectral coefficients that are not phase shifted; ( When corresponding harmonics in adjacent frames both fall within the unvoiced portion of the spectrum, the function .sigma.(t) is set to zero over the entire interval between frames, so that a random phase function can be used, Col 19, line 25-50; reconstruction of the waveform to fill the lost frame 2.1, Page 24, left Col. Using the system of the present invention the model spectrum S(.omega.) can be generated from the reconstructed output signal ( Col 22, line 45-67)
It would have been obvious having the teaching of Huan and Kamil to further include the concepts of Yeldener of randomizing before effective filing date since randomizing the phase is a known concept, and inserting in a gap where the interval has a gap to stretch or to fill by this method to reduce artifacts ( Col 19, line 25-50, Yeldener)
Regarding claim 2, Kamil as above in claim 1, teach wherein the window function w(n) is a hamming-rectangular window ( In our previous paper [1], we investigated the intelligibility resulting from magnitude-only and phase-only stimuli. The rectangular and Hamming analysis windows were used. For small window durations (20-40ms), the rectangular window produced phase-only stimuli with comparable intelligibility to that of magnitude-only stimuli; while, for the Hamming window, the intelligibility of magnitude-only stimuli was found to be significantly higher than that of phase-only stimuli. , Under Introduction ; where hamming-rectangular is an ambiguous terms not defined in the specification and hamming -rectangular window in the art can just mean hamming window itself)
Regarding claim 4, Huan as above in claim 5, teach wherein the phase shift θk depends on the sinusoidal frequency fk and a time shift between the prototype frame and a lost frame ( eq 2, Pge 24, left col)
Regarding claim 5, Huan as above in claim 1, teach wherein at least one of calculating, shifting, and/or creating is performed by a processor, the method further comprising: providing by the processor an audio signal for speaker playback (Inherent from -- we apply the proposed method to MPEG-2 AAC decoder and the complexity of the EC module is comparative to the optimized version of decoder. With the improved audio quality and no-extra delay and comparative implementation complexity, the error concealment method proposed is applicable for the real-time cable or wireless networks, Conclusion, Page 27), wherein the audio signal is provided using the substitution frame ( substituting the lost frames, left col, Second Para, Page 22)
Regarding claim 6, Huan as above in claim 1, teach using the substitution frame in place of the lost audio frame for playback of the audio signal (reconstructing the lost and inherently reconstruction the lost from will reduce the audible impact, Abstract)
Regarding claim 7, Kamil as above in claim 1, teach providing a decoded and reconstructed audio signal for speaker playback, wherein the decoded and reconstructed audio signal is provided using the substitution frame and the previously received or reconstructed audio signal; and transmitting the decoded and reconstructed audio signal through output circuitry towards a speaker for the speaker playback ( inherent- audio qualities, Fig 4-5, 3.1 Recording)
Regarding claim 8, rejection analogous to claim 1, are applicable.
Regarding claim 9, rejection analogous to claim 2, are applicable.
Regarding claim 11, rejection analogous to claim 4, are applicable.
Regarding claim 12, rejection analogous to claim 6, are applicable.
Regarding claim 13, rejection analogous to claim 7, are applicable.
Regarding claim 14, rejection analogous to claim 1, are applicable.
Regarding claim 15, rejection analogous to claim 2, are applicable.
Regarding claim 17, rejection analogous to claim 4, are applicable.
Regarding claim 18, rejection analogous to claim 5, are applicable.
Regarding claim 19, rejection analogous to claim 6, are applicable.
Regarding claim 20, rejection analogous to claim 7, are applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are being 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richa Sonifrank whose telephone number is (571)272-5357. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 7AM - 5:30PM.
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, Phan Hai can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights