DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-16 are currently pending and examined below.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed on 11/12/2024 have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Priority
3. The Applicants priority to United States Provisional Application # 61475767 filed on April 15, 2011, has been accepted and considered in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Statement (IDS) filed on 11/12/2024 has been accepted/considered and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed e-terminal disclaimer (e-TD) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign an e-terminal disclaimer. An e-terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1-16 of the instant Application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent # 12159634. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 12159634 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 12159634 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 12159634 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 12159634 both teach a method in an encoder for allocating bits to a gain adjustment quantizer and a shape quantizer to be used for encoding a gain shape vector, the method comprising mapping a bit allocation to the gain adjustment quantizer and the shape quantizer based on a current bitrate for the encoder and a signal bandwidth for a signal being encoded; and applying the bit allocation when encoding the gain shape vector. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 12159634 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Claim 1-16 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent # 10770078. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 10770078 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 10770078 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 10770078 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 10770078 both teach a method in an encoder for allocating bits to a gain adjustment quantizer and a shape quantizer to be used for encoding a gain shape vector, the method comprising mapping a bit allocation to the gain adjustment quantizer and the shape quantizer based on a current bitrate for the encoder and a signal bandwidth for a signal being encoded; and applying the bit allocation when encoding the gain shape vector. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 10770078 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Claim 1-16 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent # 10192558. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 10192558 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 10192558 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 10192558 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 10192558 both teach a method in an encoder for allocating bits to a gain adjustment quantizer and a shape quantizer to be used for encoding a gain shape vector, the method comprising mapping a bit allocation to the gain adjustment quantizer and the shape quantizer based on a current bitrate for the encoder and a signal bandwidth for a signal being encoded; and applying the bit allocation when encoding the gain shape vector. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 10192558 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Claim 1-16 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent # 9548057. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 9548057 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 9548057 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 9548057 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 9548057 both teach a method in an encoder for allocating bits to a gain adjustment quantizer and a shape quantizer to be used for encoding a gain shape vector, the method comprising mapping a bit allocation to the gain adjustment quantizer and the shape quantizer based on a current bitrate for the encoder and a signal bandwidth for a signal being encoded; and applying the bit allocation when encoding the gain shape vector. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 9548057 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
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.
6. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being nothing more than an abstract idea. As an example, regarding claim 1, the limitations of mapping a bit allocation and applying during encoding are mental activities that can be accomplished by a human being using their mind and at most pen/paper. Hence, all these steps fall under the category of mental processes. These steps are drafted at a high level of generality without tying it to a specific technological field (e.g. audio or video encoding) or any improvement in said field. Further, any device recited herein (e.g. encoder) can be a general-purpose computing device. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
recitation of an encoder merely read to generalized computer components, based upon the claim interpretation wherein the structure is interpreted using the specification. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generalized computer components to generate, extract, determine, and generate, 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. The claim is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, merely provide certain pre-determined design choices for the process of claim 1, e.g. what signal length, what signal bandwidth and what or encoder type are used etc. These are all steps which themselves can also be accomplished by a human being with at most the aid of a pen/paper and hence also do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 9-12 are device claims corresponding to method claims 1-4 and thus are also rejected under the same rationale. Claims 5-8 are decoding method claims corresponding to encoding method claims 1-4 and thus are also rejected under the same rationale. Claims 13-16 are device claims corresponding to decoding method claims 5-8 and thus are also rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Cohen (U.S. Patent # 6064954).
With regards to claim 1, Cohen teaches a method in an encoder for allocating bits to a gain adjustment quantizer and a shape quantizer to be used for encoding a gain shape vector (Col. 7, lines 30-32, teach utilizing a gain-shape split vector quantization), the method comprising mapping a bit allocation to the gain adjustment quantizer and the shape quantizer based on a current bitrate for the encoder and a signal bandwidth for a signal being encoded (Col. 6, lines 31-43, teach that the quantized gain value is calculated from a bit allocation value and the average log-gain. Col. 2, lines 25-30, teach performing these calculations for both 16kHz and 7kHz bandwidth);
and applying the bit allocation when encoding the gain shape vector (Col. 7 lines 30-32, teach performing the bit allocation on the used gain shape split VQ. Notice that the number of bits is variable, with the statement “sufficient accuracy is achieved at less than 20 bits”);
With regards to claim 2, Cohen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein mapping the bit allocation is based further on a signal length (Col. 8, lines 31-35, teach that bit allocation is adaptive and allocating extra bits to the coefficients based on size/energy).
With regards to claim 3, Cohen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the signal bandwidth is fixed and known at the encoder (Col. 2, lines 25-32, teach knowing the bandwidth and processing at fixed frequencies. Col. 5 lines 30-32, teach preserving a fixed bandwidth of 7kHz).
With regards to claim 4, Cohen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the encoder is a transform domain audio encoder (Col. 2 lines 29-33, teach using transform-based functions along with differing examples of DCT/DFT’s).
With regards to claims 5-8, these are decoding steps that perform reverse operations of the steps found in the encoding claims 1-4. Cohen explicitly teaches that the decoding steps are reverse operations of the encoding steps (Col. 7, line 33). Hence, please see Cohen above in the rejection of claims 1-4 and furthermore, col. 8, lines 63-67, towards the gain shape VQ.
With regards to claims 9-12, these are encoder claims that perform the method steps found in claims 1-4 above and as such, claims 9-12 are similar in scope and content to claims 1-4; therefore, claims 9-12 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-4 above.
With regards to claims 13-16, these are decoding steps that perform reverse operations of the steps found in the encoding claims 1-4. Cohen explicitly teaches that the decoding steps are reverse operations of the encoding steps (Col. 7, line 33). Hence, please see Cohen above in the rejection of claims 1-4 and furthermore, col. 8, lines 63-67, towards the gain shape VQ.
Conclusion
8. The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wilson (U.S. Patent # 4964166), Yamanashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2010/0169081 A1). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
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. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). In case 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJ SHARMA whose contact information is given below. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis-Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799 (Direct Phone). The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NEERAJ SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
571-270-5487 (Direct Phone)
571-270-6487 (Direct Fax)
neeraj.sharma@uspto.gov (Direct Email)
Prosecution Insights