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 communication filed on December 17, 2024.
Claims 1-25 are pending in this action.
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 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,242,688. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed language of claims 1-25 merely broadens the claimed subject matter of claims 1-17 of the patent.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No.11,037,580. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed language of claims 1-25 merely broadens the claimed subject matter of claims 1-19 of the patent.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,704. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed language of claims 1-25 merely broadens the claimed subject matter of claims 1-24 of the patent.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,897. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed language of claims 1-25 merely broadens the claimed subject matter of claims 1-25 of the patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
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) 1-8, 11, 16-20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustapha et al. (An Adaptive Post-filtering technique Based on a least square approach) in view of Li et al. (An improved 1.2KB/S speech coder based on MELP).
As per claim 1, Mustapha discloses, an apparatus for processing an audio signal, comprising:
a domain converter configured for converting a first domain representation of the audio signal into a second domain representation of the audio signal (Abstract, a domain converter is inherent),
wherein the audio signal has associated therewith a pitch lag information (Section 3. New Post-filer design).
Mustapha does not explicitly disclose, but Li discloses, wherein the pitch lag information indicates a pitch lag having a fractional part; and a harmonic post-filter configured for filtering the second domain representation of the audio signal, wherein the harmonic post-filter is configured to account for the fractional part of the pitch lag (Section 2. Pitch Calculation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mustapha by including harmonic post-filter is configured to account for the fractional part of the pitch lag as taught by Li for the advantage of listening reduce bit rate as well as improve speech quality (Abstract).
As per claim 2, Mustapha discloses, wherein the second domain representation is a time domain representation (Abstract, “a new time-domain post-filter”).
As per claim 3, Mustapha discloses, wherein the harmonic post-filter comprises filter parameters comprising the pitch lag, wherein the filter parameters comprising the pitch lag are determined from parameters decoded from a bitstream, the bitstream comprising the audio signal, the pitch lag information and a gain information (Fig. 2; Section 3. New Post-filter design).
As per claim 4, Mustapha discloses, wherein the bitstream further comprises a decision bit, and wherein the apparatus is configured to not decode any pitch lag information or gain information, when the decision bit is equal to zero, or to assume the pitch lag information and the gain information as not written into the bitstream, when the decision bit is equal to zero, or to assume the pitch lag and the gain as a zero value, when the decision bit is equal to zero (Section 1. Introduction).
As per claim 5, Mustapha discloses, wherein the harmonic post-filter comprises filter parameters, the filter parameters being the pitch lag and a gain derived from the pitch lag information and gain information associated with the audio signal, respectively, wherein the harmonic post-filter is configured to have different parameters from a frame to a next frame, and wherein the apparatus further comprises a discontinuity remover configured for reducing a discontinuity at a border between the frame and the next frame (Section 3. New Post-filter design).
As per claim 6, Mustapha discloses, wherein the discontinuity remover comprises at least one of a cross-fader, a low-pass filter, or an LPC filter (Fig. 2).
As per claim 7, Mustapha discloses, wherein the discontinuity remover is configured to fade out a post filtered audio signal of the frame and, at the same time, to fade in a post filtered audio signal of the next frame (Fig. 2).
As per claim 8, Mustapha discloses, wherein a cross-fading characteristic of the fading out and the fading in is so that fading factors add up to one throughout a cross-fading operation (Fig. 2).
As per claim 11, Mustapha does not disclose, but Li discloses, wherein the pitch lag information indicates a pitch lag having an integer part, and wherein the harmonic post-filter is configured to account for the integer part of the pitch lag (Section 2. Pitch Calculation).
As per claim 16, Mustapha discloses, wherein the harmonic post-filter is configured to comprise a negative spectral tilt for compensating a loss in energy at frequencies between harmonics (Fig. 4).
As per claim 17, Mustapha discloses, wherein the domain converter is a frequency-time converter, wherein the first domain is a frequency domain (Abstract, a domain converter is inherent), or
wherein the domain converter is an LPC residual-time converter, wherein the first domain is an LPC residual domain.
As per claim 18, Mustapha discloses, wherein the harmonic post-filter is configured to suppress an amount of energy between harmonics in a frame of the audio signal, wherein the amount of energy suppressed is smaller than 20% of a total energy of the time-domain representation in the frame (Table 3).
As per claim 19, Mustapha discloses, wherein the harmonic post-filter is based on a transfer function comprising a numerator and a denominator, wherein the numerator comprises a gain value indicated by the gain information, and wherein the denominator comprises the integer part of the pitch lag and a multi-tap filter depending on the fractional part of the pitch lag (Section 3. New Post-filter design).
As per claims 20 and 24, they are analyzed and thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 1, because the corresponding claims have similar limitations.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustapha et al. (An Adaptive Post-filtering technique Based on a least square approach) in view of Li et al. (An improved 1.2KB/S speech coder based on MELP) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiley IEEE Book (chapter 8, Backward-Adaptive Code Excited Linear Prediction).
As per claim 9, Mustapha in view of Li do not disclose, But Wiley discloses, wherein the harmonic post-filter is based on a transfer function comprising a numerator and a denominator, wherein the numerator comprises a multi-tap FIR filter for the fractional part of the pitch lag having a value of zero (Section 8.9.5. Low-Delay at 4.8 kbits/s).
As per claim 9, Mustapha in view of Li do not disclose, But Wiley discloses, wherein the harmonic post-filter is based on a transfer function comprising a numerator and a denominator, wherein the denominator comprises a product between a multi-tap filter and a gain value comprised by gain information associated with the audio signal Sections 8.6 and 8.9.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mustapha in view Li by including harmonic post-filter as taught by Wiley for the advantage of the post-filter designed scales the output, so that it has same power as the original as the original decoded speech (Page 83).
Claim(s) 21-23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustapha et al. (An Adaptive Post-filtering technique Based on a least square approach) in view of Li et al. (An improved 1.2KB/S speech coder based on MELP), and further in view of Gao (US 2010/0070270).
As per claims 21, 23 and 25, a system for processing an audio signal comprising:
a domain converter configured for converting a first domain representation of the decoded audio signal into a second domain representation of the decoded audio signal (Abstract, a domain converter is inherent),
wherein the decoded audio signal has associated therewith a pitch lag information (Section 3. New Post-filer design).
Mustapha does not explicitly disclose, but Li discloses, wherein the pitch lag information indicates a pitch lag having a fractional part; and a harmonic post-filter configured for filtering the time-domain representation of the decoded audio signal, wherein the harmonic post-filter is configured to account for the fractional part of the pitch lag (Section 2. Pitch Calculation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mustapha by including harmonic post-filter is configured to account for the fractional part of the pitch lag as taught by Li for the advantage of listening reduce bit rate as well as improve speech quality (Abstract).
Mustapha in view of Li do not explicitly disclose, but Gao discloses, an encoder configured for encoding the audio signal to obtain an encoded signal (Fig. 6, element 22); and
a decoder configured for decoding the encoded signal to obtain a decoded audio signal (Fig. 6, element 24), the decoder comprising a processor (Fig. 6, element 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mustapha in view of Li by including an encoder and decoder as taught by Gao for the advantage of the pitch postprocessing includes any pitch enhancement and any periodicity enhancement as long as the parameter of pitch lag is needed in the enhancement at the decoder (Paragraph 0048)
As per claim 22, Mustapha in view of Li do not explicitly disclose, but Gao discloses, wherein the encoder comprises: a pitch lag calculator configured for calculating the fractional part of the pitch lag; an encoded signal former configured for generating the encoded signal comprising the pitch lag information (Abstract).
Li discloses, the pitch lag information indicating a pitch lag comprising the fractional part (Section 2. Pitch Calculation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 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, and also overcoming the double patenting rejection.
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 11, 2026
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights