DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendment filed on January 17, 2025. As set forth in the Applicant’s response, claims 1-17 are canceled and claims 18-29 are newly added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 9,099,078 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
In accordance with MPEP 1405, 35 U.S.C. 251 prescribes the effect of reissue on the patent term by stating that "the Director shall… reissue the patent… for the unexpired term of the original patent." The Examiner notes that the maximum term of the original patent is fixed at the time the patent is granted, subject to any adjustments to the number of days of extension or adjustment. See MPEP § 2720 and § 2734. While the term may be subsequently shortened, it cannot be extended through the filing of a reissue.
The Examiner notes that in accordance with 37 CFR 1.177, “i[f] any one of the several reissue applications by itself fails to correct an error in the original patent as required by 35 U.S.C. 251 but is otherwise in condition for allowance, the Office may suspend action in the allowable application until all issues are resolved as to at least one of the remaining reissue applications. The Office may also merge two or more of the multiple reissue applications into a single reissue application.” See also 37 CFR 1.78(f).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The amendment to the specification, filed on January 17, 2025 includes a list of copending reissue applications marked with “XX/XXX,XXX”. Since each of the copending application have now been assigned an application number, the specification must be amended to specify each copending application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The Examiner notes that the reissue declaration states that the Applicant “…erred in claiming too broadly and did not claim further limitation in the audio encoder claims”.
The Examiner finds that the pending claims do not specifically recite an “audio encoder”.
The Examiner acknowledges that the added limitation “wherein the upmixer is configured to achieve the decorrelated signal such that the decorrelated signal is a decorrelated version of the downmix audio signal.” has been identified as well as claims 18, 24 and 26, however, the statement that the error relates to claiming further limitations in the “audio encoder claims” is not specifically linked to any of claims 18 (upmixer claim), 24 (method), and 26 (non-transitory computer readable medium).
Claims 18-29 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “upmixer” and “parameter applier” in claim 18; “parameter applier” and “matrix-vector multiplier”, and upmix parameter determinator” in claim 19; “matric-vector multipler”, “upmix parameter determinator” in claim 20; “matrix-vector multiplier” in claim 21; and “upmix parameter real-value determinator”, “upmix parameter phase-shift angle determinator” and “upmix parameter rotator” and “apparatus” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The Examiner notes that 112 sixth paragraph will apply if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
As to “parameter applier”, the Examiner finds that the term “parameter applier” is a generic placeholder since the term lacks sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The Examiner notes that the standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner finds that a reading of the specification does not clearly set forth that ‘parameter applier’ has a sufficiently definite meaning for the structure that performs the function.
In addition, “parameter applier” is followed by a linking word “configured to’ and is modified by the functional language of: “to apply upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal in order to achieve the upmixed audio signal”, “to apply a phase shift to the downmix audio signal to achieve a phase-shifted version of the downmix audio signal while leaving a decorrelated signal unmodified by the phase shift, and to combine the phase-shifted version of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal to achieve the upmixed audio signal”, “to apply the upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal using the decorrelated signal in order to achieve a first upmixed audio channel signal and a second upmixed audio channel signal”, “to apply a time-variant phase shift to the downmix audio signal to achieve at least two versions of the downmix audio signal comprising a time-variant phase shift with respect to each other” and “to combine the at least two versions of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal to achieve at least two upmixed audio channel signals such that the decorrelated signal remains unaffected by the time-variant phase shift”.
The Examiner also finds that “parameter applier” is not modified by sufficient structure for achieving the specified function.
The Examiner acknowledges that the claim further recites, “wherein the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer.” It is noted that as shown in at least claim 18, the upmixer comprises the parameter applier. The Examiner finds that in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B), “[i]n cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
It is also noted that although the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus or computer or combinations thereof, this is not sufficient structure for the upmixer, since this limitation makes it clear that an upmixer is something other than a hardware apparatus or a computer. That is, that the upmixer is not itself a hardware apparatus or a computer—it is only ‘implemented’ by a hardware apparatus or a computer.
In view of the above comments, “parameter applier” is interpreted under 112, sixth paragraph.
As to “upmixer”, the Examiner finds that the term “upmixer” is a generic placeholder since the term lacks sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The Examiner notes that the standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner finds that a reading of the specification does not clearly set forth that ‘upmixer’ has a sufficiently definite meaning for the structure that performs the function.
The Examiner also determines that “upmixer “is followed by a linking word “configured to” and is modified by the functional language of “to upmix the downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing a plurality of upmixed audio channels” and “to achieve the decorrelated signal such that the decorrelated signal is a decorrelated version of the downmix audio signal”. Lastly, the Examiner finds that “upmixer” is not modified by sufficient structure for achieving the specified function.
The Examiner acknowledges that the claim recites, “wherein the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer.” However, as set forth above, although the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus or computer, this is not sufficient structure for the upmixer, since this limitation makes it clear that an upmixer is something other than a hardware apparatus or a computer. That is, that the upmixer is not itself a hardware apparatus or a computer—it is only ‘implemented’ by a hardware apparatus or a computer.
In accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B), “[i]n cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
In view of the above comments, “upmixer” is interpreted under 112, sixth paragraph.
As to “matrix-vector multiplier”, the Examiner finds that the term “matrix-vector multiplier” is a generic placeholder since the term lacks sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The Examiner notes that the standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner finds that a reading of the specification does not clearly set forth that ‘matrix-vector multiplier’ has a sufficiently definite meaning for the structure that performs the function.
In addition, “matrix-vector multiplier” is followed by a linking word “configured to’ and is modified by the functional language of “to multiply an input vector representing one or more samples of the downmix audio signal and one or more samples of the decorrelated signal with a matrix comprising matrix entries representing the upmix parameters”, “to receive the samples of the downmix audio signal and the samples of the decorrelated signal in a complex-valued represent” and “to apply complex-valued matrix entries to one or more entries of the input vector in order” and “to achieve the output vector
PNG
media_image1.png
100
50
media_image1.png
Greyscale
according to the equation
PNG
media_image2.png
102
134
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”.
In addition, the Examiner finds that “matrix-vector multiplier” is not modified by sufficient structure for achieving the specified function.
Therefore, “matrix-vector multiplier” is interpreted under 112, sixth paragraph.
As to “upmix parameter determinator”, the Examiner finds that the term “upmix parameter determinator” is a generic placeholder since the term lacks sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The Examiner notes that the standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner finds that a reading of the specification does not clearly set forth that ‘upmix parameter determinator’ has a sufficiently definite meaning for the structure that performs the function.
In addition, “upmix parameter determinator” is followed by a linking word “configured to’ and is modified by the functional language of “to achieve the matrix entries on the basis of spatial cues associated with the downmix audio signal”, and “to apply a time-variant phase rotation only to matrix entries to be applied to one or more samples of the downmix signal,” and “to compute real values or magnitude values of the matrix entries on the basis of inter-channel level difference parameters, inter-channel correlation parameters or inter-channel coherence parameters associated with the downmix audio signal, to compute phase values of matrix entries to be applied to the one or more samples of the downmix signal on the basis of inter-channel phase difference parameters associated with the downmix audio signal, and to apply a complex rotation to the real values or magnitude values of the matrix entries to be applied to the one or more samples of the downmix signal in dependence on the corresponding phase values to achieve the matrix entries to be applied to the one or more samples of the downmix signal”.
In addition, the Examiner finds that “upmix parameter determinator” is not modified by sufficient structure for achieving the specified function.
Therefore, “upmix parameter determinator” is interpreted under 112, sixth paragraph.
As to “upmix parameter real-value determinator”, the Examiner finds that the term “upmix parameter real-value determinator” is a generic placeholder since the term lacks sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The Examiner notes that the standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner finds that a reading of the specification does not clearly set forth that ‘upmix parameter real-value determinator’ has a sufficiently definite meaning for the structure that performs the function.
In addition, “upmix parameter real-value determinator” is followed by a linking word “configured to’ and is modified by the functional language of “to achieve real-valued upmix parameters describing a desired intensity of contributions of the downmix signal and of a decorrelated signal to the upmixed audio channel signals in dependence on one or more spatial cues representing the intensity of the contributions”.
In addition, the Examiner finds that “upmix parameter real-value determinator” is not modified by sufficient structure for achieving the specified function.
The Examiner acknowledges that the claim recites, wherein the apparatus is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer. The Examiner however, notes that the apparatus being ‘implemented’ using a hardware apparatus or computer does not show that the apparatus itself is a hardware apparatus or a computer.
Nonetheless, in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B), “[i]n cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
Thus, “upmix parameter real-value determinator” is interpreted under 112, sixth paragraph.
As to “upmix parameter phase-shift determinator”, the Examiner finds that the term “upmix parameter phase-shift determinator” is a generic placeholder since the term lacks sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The Examiner notes that the standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner finds that a reading of the specification does not clearly set forth that ‘upmix parameter phase-shift determinator’ has a sufficiently definite meaning for the structure that performs the function.
In addition, “upmix parameter phase-shift determinator” is followed by a linking word “configured to’ and is modified by the functional language of “to achieve one or more phase-shift-angle values describing a desired phase shift between downmix audio signal components in different upmixed audio channel signals in dependence on one or more spatial cues representing an inter-channel phase difference”.
In addition, the Examiner finds that “upmix parameter phase-shift determinator” is not modified by sufficient structure for achieving the specified function.
Therefore, “upmix parameter phase-shift determinator” is interpreted under 112, sixth paragraph.
As to “upmix parameter rotator”, the Examiner finds that the term “upmix parameter rotator” is a generic placeholder since the term lacks sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The Examiner notes that the standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner finds that a reading of the specification does not clearly set forth that ‘upmix parameter rotator’ has a sufficiently definite meaning for the structure that performs the function.
In addition, “upmix parameter rotator” is followed by a linking word “configured to’ and is modified by the functional language of “to rotate real-valued upmix parameters provided by the upmix parameter real-value determinator and intended to be applied to the downmix audio signal in dependence on the phase-shift-angle values, while leaving real-valued upmix parameters provided by the upmix parameter real-value determinator and intended to be applied to the decorrelated signal unaffected by the phase-shift-angle values”.
In addition, the Examiner finds that “upmix parameter rotator” is not modified by sufficient structure for achieving the specified function.
Therefore, “upmix parameter rotator” is interpreted under 112, sixth paragraph.
As to “apparatus”, the Examiner finds that the term “apparatus” is a generic placeholder since the term lacks sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The Examiner notes that the standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner finds that a reading of the specification does not clearly set forth that ‘apparatus’ has a sufficiently definite meaning for the structure that performs the function.
In addition, “apparatus” is followed by a linking word “configured to’ and is modified by the functional language of ““to achieve the completed upmix parameters such that upmix parameters to be applied to the downmix signal comprise a phase which is dependent on spatial cues received by the apparatus, while upmix parameters to be applied to the decorrelated signal comprise a predetermined phase value which is independent from the spatial cues”.
In addition, the Examiner finds that “apparatus” is not modified by sufficient structure for achieving the specified function.
The Examiner acknowledges that the claim (claim 22) recites, wherein the apparatus is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer. However, as set forth above, although the apparatus is implemented using a hardware apparatus or computer or combinations thereof is not sufficient structure for the apparatus, this limitation makes it clear that an apparatus is something other than a hardware apparatus or a computer. That is, that the apparatus is not itself a hardware apparatus or a computer—it is only ‘implemented’ by a hardware apparatus or a computer.
In accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B), “[i]n cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Therefore, a hardware apparatus or computer or combinations thereof is not sufficient structure.
Thus, “apparatus” is interpreted under 112, sixth paragraph.
Corresponding Structure
Parameter Applier
The Examiner finds that the specification discloses the combination of microprocessor or processing means such as a computer or programmable logic device, along with an algorithm for performing the claimed function directed to “apply upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal in order to achieve the upmixed audio signal”, “to apply a phase shift to the downmix audio signal to achieve a phase-shifted version of the downmix audio signal while leaving a decorrelated signal unmodified by the phase shift, and to combine the phase-shifted version of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal to achieve the upmixed audio signal”.
This is disclosed with respect to Figure 3a and col. 12, lines 20-32 which discloses that “Figure 3a shows a flow chart of a method 300 for upmixing a downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing one or more upmixed audio signals”. In reviewing the description, the Examiner finds that the corresponding structure as to parameter applier as it relies to these specific claimed function include the combination of a microprocessor or processing means such as a computer or programmable logic device, along with the algorithm as set forth in Figure 3a and col. 12, lines 20-32 as it relates to these specific claimed functions.
The Examiner notes however, as to the recited functions “to apply the upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal using the decorrelated signal in order to achieve a first upmixed audio channel signal and a second upmixed audio channel signal”, “to apply a time-variant phase shift to the downmix audio signal to achieve at least two versions of the downmix audio signal comprising a time-variant phase shift with respect to each other” and “to combine the at least two versions of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal to achieve at least two upmixed audio channel signals such that the decorrelated signal remains unaffected by the time-variant phase shift”, a review of the ‘078 patent specification shows in Figure 1 a parameter applier 130. In addition, Figure 2A also shows a parameter applier 240 with a matrix vector multiplier”. See col. 2, lines 27-38.
The Examiner finds that the figures and corresponding text do not specifically disclose of any corresponding structure for the parameter applier along with an algorithm for these claimed functions. In addition, as set forth in col. 7, lines 5-16, the ‘078 patent discloses, “the upmixer comprises a parameter-applier 130, which is configured to apply upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal 110 in order to obtain the upmixed audio signal 120. The parameter-applier 130 is configured to apply a phase shift (shown at reference numeral 140) to the downmix audio signal 110 to obtain a phase-shifted version 142 of the downmix audio signal 110, while leaving the decorrelated signal 150 unmodified by the phase shift. The parameter-applier 130 is further configured to combine (shown at reference numeral 160) the phase-shifted version 142 of the downmix audio signal 110 with the decorrelated signal 150 to obtain the upmixed audio signal 120.” The Examiner finds that this citation does not provide any corresponding structure along with algorithm for the “parameter applier” to perform this function.
In addition, the Examiner acknowledges that in col. 13, lines 45-50, the ’078 patent discloses, “[i]n some embodiments, a programmable logic device (for example a field programmable gate array) may be used to perform some or all of the functionalities of the methods described herein. In some embodiments, a field programmable gate array may cooperate with a microprocessor in order to perform one of the methods described herein.” However, this citation is a general statement that is not specifically linked to performing the claimed functions.
In addition, col. 13, lines 38-41, recites “further embodiment comprises a processing means, for example a computer, or a programmable logic device, configured to or adapted to perform one of the methods described herein”. The Examiner finds however that this citation is a general citation that does not specifically state that it is corresponding structure or algorithm for performing each of the claimed functions.
The Examiner finds that in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B), “[f]or a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).”
In this case, the Examiner acknowledges that the claim recites a “hardware apparatus or computer” and the specification recites further processing means (see col. 13, lines 38-50); however the citations discussed above do not specifically disclose an algorithm being performed by a processing means.
Upmixer
As to the recited function “to upmix the downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing a plurality of upmixed audio channels” and “to achieve the decorrelated signal such that the decorrelated signal is a decorrelated version of the downmix audio signal” a review of the ‘078 patent shows that in figure 1 a diagram of an upmixer is illustrated. In addition, col. 6, lines 62 – col. 7, line 4 explains that an upmixer is configured to receive a downmix audio signal and to upmix the downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal. The upmixer is also described as included a parameter-applier 130. The Examiner notes however, that the specification shows does not provide any corresponding structure along with an algorithm for the “upmixer” to perform this function.
In addition, the Examiner acknowledges that in col. 13, lines 45-50, the ’078 patent discloses, “[i]n some embodiments, a programmable logic device (for example a field programmable gate array) may be used to perform some or all of the functionalities of the methods described herein. In some embodiments, a field programmable gate array may cooperate with a microprocessor in order to perform one of the methods described herein.” However, this citation is a general statement that is not specifically linked to performing the claimed functions.
In addition, col. 13, lines 38-41, recites “further embodiment comprises a processing means, for example a computer, or a programmable logic device, configured to or adapted to perform one of the methods described herein”. The Examiner finds however that this citation is a general citation that does not specifically state that it is corresponding structure for performing each of the claimed functions. Further, the citations do not clearly show an algorithm corresponding to the claimed functions.
The Examiner finds that in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B), “[f]or a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).”
In this case, the Examiner acknowledges that the claim recites that the upmixer is ‘implemented’ by a “hardware apparatus or computer” and the specification recites further processing means; however the citations discussed above do not specifically disclose an algorithm. In addition, as set forth above, an upmixer, as claimed, is something other than a hardware apparatus or a computer since it is ‘implemented’ by a hardware apparatus or a computer.
Matrix-Vector Multiplier
As to the recited function “to multiply an input vector representing one or more samples of the downmix audio signal and one or more samples of the decorrelated signal with a matrix comprising matrix entries representing the upmix parameters”, “to receive the samples of the downmix audio signal and the samples of the decorrelated signal in a complex-valued represent” and “to apply complex-valued matrix entries to one or more entries of the input vector in order to apply a phase shift
As to the recited function, “to achieve the output vector
PNG
media_image1.png
100
50
media_image1.png
Greyscale
according to the equation
PNG
media_image2.png
102
134
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”, a review of the ‘078 patent specification shows that a matrix-vector multiplier is depicted in Figure 2A. In col. 9, lines 62-66 and col. 10, lines 11-14, 53-67, the ‘078 patent describes the claimed functions, however, this these citation does not provide any corresponding structure for the “matrix-vector multiplier” to perform the functions.
In addition, the Examiner acknowledges that in col. 13, lines 45-50, the ’078 patent discloses, “[i]n some embodiments, a programmable logic device (for example a field programmable gate array) may be used to perform some or all of the functionalities of the methods described herein. In some embodiments, a field programmable gate array may cooperate with a microprocessor in order to perform one of the methods described herein.” However, this citation is a general statement that is not specifically linked to performing the claimed functions.
In addition, col. 13, lines 38-41, recites “further embodiment comprises a processing means, for example a computer, or a programmable logic device, configured to or adapted to perform one of the methods described herein”. The Examiner finds however that this citation is a general citation that does not specifically state that it is corresponding structure along with an algorithm for performing each of the claimed functions. Further, the citations do not clearly show an algorithm corresponding to the claimed functions.
The Examiner finds that in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B), “[f]or a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).”
In this case, the Examiner acknowledges that the claim recites a “hardware apparatus or computer” and the specification recites further processing means; however the citations discussed above do not specifically disclose an algorithm.
Upmix Parameter Determinator
As to the recited function “to achieve the matrix entries on the basis of spatial cues associated with the downmix audio signal”, and “to apply a time-variant phase rotation only to matrix entries to be applied to one or more samples of the downmix signal,”, and “to compute real values or magnitude values of the matrix entries on the basis of inter-channel level difference parameters, inter-channel correlation parameters or inter-channel coherence parameters associated with the downmix audio signal, to compute phase values of matrix entries to be applied to the one or more samples of the downmix signal on the basis of inter-channel phase difference parameters associated with the downmix audio signal, and to apply a complex rotation to the real values or magnitude values of the matrix entries to be applied to the one or more samples of the downmix signal in dependence on the corresponding phase values to achieve the matrix entries to be applied to the one or more samples of the downmix signal“ a review of the ‘078 patent specification shows that in Figure 2B, a parameter determinator is equivalent to ‘side information processing unit’. As set forth in col. 9, lines 4-8, the ‘078 emphasizes that the “side information-processing unit 260 can therefore, also be considered as “parameter determinator.” With respect to Figure 4 and its related text, the decoder is disclosed to comprising a “side information processor”.
In addition, col. 12, lines 19-58 disclose an algorithm for upmixing a downmix signal which includes performing the claimed functions.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the ‘078 patent provides corresponding structure for the upmix parameter determinator as a processor in combination with the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
Upmix Parameter Real-Value Determinator
As to the recited function “to achieve real-valued upmix parameters describing a desired intensity of contributions of the downmix signal and of a decorrelated signal to the upmixed audio channel signals in dependence on one or more spatial cues representing the intensity of the contributions”, a review of the ‘078 patent specification shows that the upmix-paramter real-value determinator is part of the side information processing unit 260. As set forth in col. 9, lines 4-8, the ‘078 emphasizes that the “side information-processing unit 260 can therefore, also be considered as “parameter determinator.” With respect to Figure 4 and its related text, the decoder is disclosed to comprising a “side information processor”.
In addition, col. 12, lines 37-58, discloses, “a method 350 for obtaining a set of upmix parameters, according to an embodiment of the invention. The method 350 comprises a first step 360 of obtaining real-valued upmix parameters (for example, real-valued matrix entries) describing a desired intensity of contributions of the downmix signal (e.g. the signal x) and of the decorrelated signal (e.g. the signal q) to the upmixed audio channel signals (e.g. y1, y2) in dependence on one or more spatial cues (e.g. ILD, ICC) representing the intensity of the contributions.”
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the ‘078 patent provides corresponding structure for the upmix parameter real-value determinator as a side information processor in combination with the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
Upmix Parameter Phase-Shift Determinator
As to the recited function “to achieve one or more phase-shift-angle values describing a desired phase shift between downmix audio signal components in different upmixed audio channel signals in dependence on one or more spatial cues representing an inter-channel phase difference”, a review of the ‘078 patent specification shows that the upmix-parameter phase-shift determinator is part of the side information processing unit 260. As set forth in col. 9, lines 4-8, the ‘078 emphasizes that the “side information-processing unit 260 can therefore, also be considered as “parameter determinator.” With respect to Figure 4 and its related text, the decoder is disclosed to comprising a “side information processor”.
In addition, col. 12, lines 37-58, discloses, The method 350 further comprises a second step 370 of obtaining phase-shift-angle values (e.g. α1, α2) describing a desired phase shift between downmix audio signal components in different upmixed audio channel signals (e.g. y1, y2) in dependence on one or more spatial cues representing an inter-channel phase shift (e.g. IPD).
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the ‘078 patent provides corresponding structure for the upmix parameter phase-shift determinator as a side information processor in combination with the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
Upmix Parameter Rotator
As to the recited function “to rotate real-valued upmix parameters provided by the upmix parameter real-value determinator and intended to be applied to the downmix audio signal in dependence on the phase-shift-angle values, while leaving real-valued upmix parameters provided by the upmix parameter real-value determinator and intended to be applied to the decorrelated signal unaffected by the phase-shift-angle values”, a review of the ‘078 patent specification shows that the upmix parameter rotator is part of the side information processing unit 260. As set forth in col. 9, lines 4-8, the ‘078 emphasizes that the “side information-processing unit 260 can therefore, also be considered as “parameter determinator.” With respect to Figure 4 and its related text, the decoder is disclosed to comprising a “side information processor”.
In addition, col. 12, lines 37-58, discloses, “[t]he method 350 further comprises a step 380 of rotating (i.e. phase-shifting) real-valued upmix parameters intended to be applied to the downmix audio signal in dependence on the phase-shift-angle values, while leaving real-valued upmix parameters, intended to be applied to the decorrelated signal, unaffected by the phase-shift-angle values, to obtain completed upmix parameters of the set of upmix parameters.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the ‘078 patent provides corresponding structure for the upmix parameter rotator as a side information processor in combination with the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
Apparatus
As to the recited function “to achieve the completed upmix parameters such that upmix parameters to be applied to the downmix signal comprise a phase which is dependent on spatial cues received by the apparatus, while upmix parameters to be applied to the decorrelated signal comprise a predetermined phase value which is independent from the spatial cues”, a review of the ‘078 patent specification shows that in col. 8 , line 61 – col. 9, line 30, that the function involving spatial cue is performed by the side information-processing unit. With respect to Figure 4 and its related text, the decoder is disclosed to comprising a “side information processor”.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the ‘078 patent provides corresponding structure for the ‘the apparatus’ as a side information processor in combination with the algorithm for performing the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As set forth above in the claim interpretation section, in consideration of the language in the claims, the specification, and how those of ordinary skill in the art would understand the language in the claims in light of the disclosure, the Examiner finds that the disclosure does not disclose sufficient structure for the claimed parameter applier, upmixer and matrix-vector multiplier.
The Examiner finds that to satisfy the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the written description must clearly link or associate the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1376, 95 USPQ2d 1673, 1682 (Fed. Cir. 2010). It is noted that a bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used would not be a sufficient disclosure to support a means-plus-function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, in accordance with MPEP 2181(II), for a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer.
In addition, the Examiner notes that with respect to “the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer”, the Examiner notes that this limitation does not specifically disclose the specific structure of the upmixer. The Examiner finds that this limitation recites an upmixer as being an entity other than a hardware apparatus or a computer and that it is only ‘implemented’ by a hardware apparatus or a computer.
Double Patenting1
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 referenc