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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 recite “determining whether rmax(m) is greater than a threshold …”, “determining whether and ITD hangover criterion is met”, and “selecting a previous ITD … otherwise setting the ITD value … to zero”. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing”. For example, but for the “processing” language, these steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining whether rmax(m) is greater than a threshold, and if not, then determining an ITD criterion is met, and if met, selecting a previous ITD for the current frame, and if not met, set it to zero. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements - using a processor to perform these steps. The use of a processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional step of “obtaining …” is merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount 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 not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, the step of “… determining a lag value …” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15, the step of “… determining an ITD hangover counter value (ITDHO) is greater than zero …” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are potentially allowable. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Briand et al. (USPG 2013/0301835, hereinafter Briand) discloses a method for inter-channel time difference, ITD, stabilization, the method comprising: obtaining a candidate ITD value for an mth frame of a multi-channel audio signal, wherein the candidate ITD value for the mth frame is denoted ITDcand(m) (figure 10, ICTD 38; also see paragraph 104, “determining an inter-channel time difference of a multi-channel audio signal having at least two channels”); determining whether rmax(m) is greater than a threshold (rthr(m)), where rmax(m) = rxy(ITDcand(m)) and rxy() is a cross-correlation function (paragraphs 105-109, comparing ICC with threshold to “determine whether the corresponding current value of the inter-channel time difference is relevant”). The central purpose of the method disclosed by Briand is to determine whether or not a current ICTD value is relevant. If relevant, update the ICTD with the current ICTD, and otherwise, the current ICTD should not be used (paragraph 112). This is different from the claimed invention in that if rmax(m) is not greater rthr(m), then: 1) determining whether an ITD hangover criterion is met; and 2) if it is determined that the ITD hangover criterion is met, then selecting a previous ITD value for frame m, otherwise setting the ITD value for frame m to zero. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 21-38 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Briand (USPG 2013/0304481) teaches a method for determining ICTD. Ojala (USPG 201 1/0206209) teach a method for determining a reliability value for phase difference estimate. These references are considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights