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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in a parent Application No. 15/017,075 (filed on 04/18/2016). The certified copy has also been filed in a parent Application No. 16/108,668 (filed on 09/14/2018).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 and 01/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the instant application is directed to classifying an audio frame as a speech frame or a music frame using a linear prediction residual energy tilt. The Abstract is related to using a frequency spectrum fluctuation for classifying an audio frame. The abstract (filed on 12/16/2024) is related to claimed features in a parent application (18/360,675, now US Pat. 12,198,719).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
The instant claims recite limitations using enumerated terms: “first statistics”, “second statistics”, “third statistics”, “fourth statistics”, “fifth statistics”, “sixth statistics”, … etc.
The specification describes various variances and average values relate to different data such as valid frequency spectrum fluctuation / effective data, a part of data / all data of linear prediction residual energy, etc. The specification does not refer to any of the variances or average values as the enumerated “first statistics, second statistics, …, sixth statistics”.
Since the specification does not provide antecedent basis for the claimed terms (1st statistics, 2nd statistics, … 6th statistics), the people could not determine (or guess) which values these enumerated terms refer to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 Ornum, 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 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 a nonstatutory 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 a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11289113. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this continuation application, independent claims are broader than independent claims of its grandparent ‘113 patents. In other words, corresponding grandparent claims anticipate the instant claims. Anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)). The examiner compares instant claim 1 with a corresponding claim 1 in its grandparent parent (11289113).
Instant claim 1
Claim 1 of grandparent patent (11289113)
performing frame division processing on an input audio signal to obtain a current audio frame
performing frame division processing on an input audio signal
obtaining a linear prediction residual energy tilt of the current audio frame, wherein the linear prediction residual energy tilt denotes an extent to which linear prediction residual energy of the input audio signal changes as a linear prediction order increases;
obtaining a linear prediction residual energy tilt of a current audio frame of the input audio signal, wherein the linear prediction residual energy tilt denotes an extent to which linear prediction residual energy of the input audio signal changes as a linear prediction order increases;
(a limitation is omitted to broaden claim)
determining whether to store the linear prediction residual energy tilt in a memory according to voice activity of
the current audio frame
(reciting broad limitation)
storing the linear prediction residual energy tilt in a first memory
storing the linear prediction residual energy tilt in the memory in response to determining that the linear prediction residual energy tilt needs to be stored according to the voice activity of the current audio frame; and
classifying the current audio frame according to first statistics of prediction residual energy tilts in the first memory,
classifying the current audio frame according to statistics of prediction residual energy tilts in the memory
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows. MPEP §2106(III) states that examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the flowchart in this section.
Claims 1-2, 11-13 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101. The claimed invention is directed to unpatentable subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The examiner analyzes the instant claims according to a flowchart for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes (MPEP 2106).
Eligibility Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03, Statutory category):
Claims 1-2 and 11 are directed to a method, claims 12-13 and 20 are directed to a system and claims 21-22 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The claims 1-2, 11-13 and 20-22 fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention (YES branch of step 1).
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One (does a claim recites a judicial exception?) (MPEP 2106.04(a) – (c)):
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception (See a flowchart in MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)). In the prone one of the two prong inquiry, the above limitations recited in claims are directed to at least one of groups of abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a), “Mathematical concepts”, “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, “Mental Processes”). It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Although claims 1-2, 11-13 and 20-22 fall into one of the four statutory categories the patent eligible subject matter, independent claims 1, 12 and 21 recite a number of steps of (“performing …”, “obtaining…”, “classifying …”). These limitations fall into a judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04 (II), “laws of nature”, “natural phenomena” and “abstract idea”). The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are "the basic tools of scientific and technological work", and are thus excluded from patentability because "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980. It should be noted that there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions, and that many of the concepts identified by the courts as exceptions can fall under several exceptions (MPEP 2106.04 (I) and (II)).
In light of the disclosure, the claimed invention is related to classifying a frame of audio signal based on a measurement (claimed “a linear prediction residual energy tilt”). In light of the specification ([0035], [0044]) and a dependent claim 11, the claimed “obtaining a linear prediction residual energy tilt …” means a mathematical calculation using an equation, which is defined in claim 11. The other limitations “performing…” and “classifying …” are also refer to mathematical operations. The limitation “storing the linear prediction residual energy tile in a first memory” is just an insignificant extra solution (or data manipulation).
The examiner notices that a claimed “an input audio signal” is interpreted as data representing an audio signal. The recited claim limitations are directed to calculating / manipulating data using mathematical operations (e.g., dividing data, calculating an energy tilt by using data as input as evidenced in Claim 11).
Claims 2, 12 and 22 recite a limitation related to storing the calculated energy tilt according to a condition. The added limitation belongs to insignificant extra solution / activity to a judicial exception. Claims 11 and 20 provide further evidence that claims are mathematical operations.
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.” In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1,12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) ).
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong two (integrated into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Since the claimed invention falls into a judicial exception according above analysis (YES branch of PRONG ONE in the step 2A), a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Prong Two asks whether the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer was not a patentable application of that principle. Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible.
Eligibility Step 2B (Inventive concept / significantly more consideration; MPEP 2106.05).
MPEP §2106.05 describes step 2B test to determine whether a claim amounts to significantly more. The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014). The Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept (See MPEP §2106.05(I)(A)). It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility.
The Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept. By considering limitations recited in the instant claims, the claims do not improve the functions of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. The claims also do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine. The claims also do not have effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims fail to include a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application. The recited “processor” / “memory” are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, that recited element does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Please notes simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The court also found “adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” is not enough to be qualify as “significantly more” considerations.
By reviewing limitations recited in the claims, none of the limitations meet the significantly more considerations. Therefore, claims are directed to unpatentable subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP §2106, flowchart, Step 2B, NO branch).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 11-13 and 20-22 maybe be allowable if overcome the rejection under §101 and the double patent rejection set forth in this office action.
Claims 3-10, 14-19 and 23-25 would be allowable if filing a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patent rejection set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Although the instant independent claims are broader than the claims of its grandparent patent (US Pat. 11,289,113), independent claims still include similar allowable features as that in the grandparent patent. In particular, independent claims 1, 12 and 21 recite:
“obtaining a linear prediction residual energy tilt of the current audio frame, wherein the linear prediction residual energy tilt denotes an extent to which linear prediction residual energy of the input audio signal changes as a linear prediction order increases;
The above limitation defines a measurement: “a linear prediction residual energy tilt” as “linear prediction residual energy of the input audio signal changes as a linear prediction order increases”.
Prior art references in the record fail to teach a feature of using “a linear prediction residual energy tilt” as a measurement for classifying an audio frame. When considering all limitations as a whole, prior art of record, either alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above limitation. Therefore, prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Dependent claims further limit their corresponding independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner discovered several relevant prior art references that are related to one or more concepts disclosed by the instant application. These references are included in the attached PTO-892 form for completeness of the record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jialong He, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5359. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00AM – 4:30PM, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Desir can be reached on (571) 272-7799. 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.
/JIALONG HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights