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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in Figures 1, 4, 7, and 8 should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 3-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12223968. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are anticipated by the conflicting patented claims.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8 of the present application are anticipated fully by claim 1 of the conflicting patent.
Claims 4-6 are anticipated fully by claim 2 of the conflicting patent.
Claims 9-10 are anticipated fully by claim 3 of the conflicting patent.
Claims 11, 13, 17-18 anticipated fully by claim 7 of the conflicting patent.
Claim 12 anticipated fully by claim 13 of the conflicting patent.
Claims 14-16 anticipated by claims 2 and 7 of the conflicting patent.
Claims 19-20 anticipated by claims 3 and 7 of the conflicting patent.
Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12223968 in view of Disch (US 20200020349 A1).
The parent of claim 2 is claim 1, which is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim as explained above. The conflicting patented claim does not explicitly mention outputting a bitstream based on the encoded representation.
Disch does teach outputting a bitstream based on the encoded representation. ([0199]: the coded audio signal is multiplexed to form a single bit stream)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to output the encoded representation as a bitstream because it allows the information to be transmitted to a recipient (see Disch [0199]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US 20180158466 A1).
Claim 1. Kawashima discloses:
A method of encoding an audio signal, comprising:
generating a plurality of subband audio signals based on the audio signal; ([0053]: divide the low band spectrum into a plurality of subbands)
determining a spectral envelope based on the plurality of subband audio signals; ([0072]: calculate an envelope of the signal)
determining autocorrelation information for each subband audio signal; and ([0056]-[0057], [0064]: calculating correlation values for subbands)
encoding the spectral envelope and the autocorrelation information into an encoded representation. ([0059]: encode the audio signal using the calculated information)
Claim 3. Parent claim 1 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the autocorrelation information includes an autocorrelation value for the subband audio signal. ([0057]: correlation value indicating correlation information for a particular subband)
Claim 4. Parent claim 3 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein autocorrelation value corresponds to a local maximum of an autocorrelation function. ([0057]: output a lag candidate exhibiting a highest correlation value)
Claim 5. Parent claim 4 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the autocorrelation information includes a lag value. ([0057]: indicate the lag candidate having the highest correlation)
Claim 6. Parent claim 5 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the lag value corresponds to a delay value for which the autocorrelation value attains the local maximum. ([0055]-[0057]: search subbands for a lag candidates with the highest correlation value; “lag” is synonymous with “delay”)
Claim 9. Parent claim 1 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein generating the plurality of subband audio signals includes flattening the audio signal. ([0007]: processing of audio signal is computed after flattening the signal)
Claim 10. Parent claim 9 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein generating the plurality of subband audio signals includes decomposing the flattened audio signal into the plurality of subband audio signals. ([0053]: dividing the audio signal into normalized/flattened subbands)
Claim 11. Kawashima discloses:
A method of decoding an encoded representation of an audio signal, comprising:
determining a plurality of reconstructed subband audio signals based on a spectral envelope and autocorrelation information of the encoded representation; ([0065]-[0067]: receive low band spectrum from decoding process and divide into sub-bands)
generating a reconstructed audio signal based on the plurality of reconstructed subband audio signals; (Fig 10: core decoding 202 is followed by frequency-time transform section 205, which then outputs the reconstructed signal)
wherein the spectral envelope is determined based on a plurality of original subband audio signals, the plurality of original subband audio signals are generated based on the audio signal, and the autocorrelation information is determined for each original subband audio signal. ([0053]-[0072]: original audio is divided into subbands; determine spectral shape and correlation values per subband based on these subbands)
Claim 12. Parent claim 11 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the reconstructed audio signal is determined via a machine learning-based generative model and/or based on spectral synthesis. ([0127]-[0128]: harmonic modelling of signal for encoding and decoding; i.e. spectral synthesis)
Claim 13. Parent claim 11 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the autocorrelation information includes an autocorrelation value for each original subband audio signal. ([0064]: encoded data includes correlation information)
Claim 14. Parent claim 13 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the autocorrelation value corresponds to a local maximum of an autocorrelation function. ([0064]: information indicating particular bands having a largest correlation value between a spectrum)
Claim 15. Parent claim 14 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the autocorrelation information includes a lag value. ([0067]: obtain lag information)
Claim 16. Parent claim 15 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the lag value corresponds to a delay value for which the autocorrelation value attains the local maximum. ([0055]-[0057]: lag information includes the lag candidate with the highest correlation)
Claim 19. Parent claim 11 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the plurality of original subband audio signals are generated by flattening the original audio signal. ([0066]: normalized signal)
Claim 20. Parent claim 19 is addressed above. Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the plurality of original subband audio signals are generated by decomposing the flattened original audio signal into the plurality of original subband audio signals. ([0066]: normalized signal divided into subbands)
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US 20180158466 A1) in view of Disch (US 20200020349 A1).
Claim 2. Parent claim 1 is addressed above. Kawashima does not explicity mention outputting a bitstream based on the encoded representation.
Disch does teach outputting a bitstream based on the encoded representation. ([0199]: the coded audio signal is multiplexed to form a single bit stream)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to output the encoded representation as a bitstream because it allows the information to be transmitted to a recipient (see Disch [0199]).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US 20180158466 A1) in view of Borgstrom (US 20140270226 A1).
Claim 7. Parent claim 1 is addressed above. Kawashima does not explicitly disclose the method wherein:
the spectral envelope is determined at a first update rate;
the autocorrelation information is determined at a second update rate;
and the first update rate is different from the second update rate.
However, Borgstrom does teach the method wherein:
the spectral envelope is determined at a first update rate; ([0029]: extract spectral features per each frame)
the autocorrelation information is determined at a second update rate; ([0034]-[0035]: autocorrelation coefficient may be based on a running average for frames received within a given time interval)
and the first update rate is different from the second update rate. ([0029], [0034]-[0035]: spectral features are determined per frame, but autocorrelation may be determined once every few frames)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to update the autocorrelation value less frequently because it makes the audio processing more robust to acoustic distortion over a lengthy period (see Borgstrom [0005], [0037]).
Claim 8. Parent claim 7 is addressed above. Borgstrom further teaches:
wherein the first update rate is higher than the second update rate. ([0029], [0034]-[0035]: spectral features are updated every frame, while autocorrelation may be updated over several frames).
Claim 17. Parent claim 11 is addressed above. Kawashima does not explicitly disclose the method wherein:
the spectral envelope is determined at a first update rate;
the autocorrelation information is determined at a second update rate;
and the first update rate is different from the second update rate.
However, Borgstrom does teach the method wherein:
the spectral envelope is determined at a first update rate; ([0029]: extract spectral features per each frame)
the autocorrelation information is determined at a second update rate; ([0034]-[0035]: autocorrelation coefficient may be based on a running average for frames received within a given time interval)
and the first update rate is different from the second update rate. ([0029], [0034]-[0035]: spectral features are determined per frame, but autocorrelation may be determined once every few frames)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to update the autocorrelation value less frequently because it makes the audio processing more robust to acoustic distortion over a lengthy period (see Borgstrom [0005], [0037]).
Claim 18. Parent claim 17 is addressed above. Borgstrom further teaches:
wherein the first update rate is higher than the second update rate. ([0029], [0034]-[0035]: spectral features are updated every frame, while autocorrelation may be updated over several frames).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN ISKENDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, HAI PHAN 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.
/ALVIN ISKENDER/Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights