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 18-20 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.
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 Application
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 Applicant’s error statement states that they “erred in claiming too broadly and did not claim further limitations in the audio encoder claims”. The Examiner finds that the reissue claims do not specifically recite “encoder”. In addition, the error stated the limitations “have been added to the audio encoder device” but the statement did not specifically identify a claim which corresponds to the audio encoder device. The Examiner notes that claim 18 is directed to “an upmixer”, claim 19 is directed to “a method” and claim 20 is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable medium”. Thus, the error statement is not clear as to which claims is specifically “an audio encoder device”. It is further noted that the error statement appears on a page title Statement of Status and Support of Clams Pursuant to 37 CFR SECTION 1.173(c). The Examiner finds that this does not pertain to the error statement.
In addition, the reissue declaration checks the 1.46 box which states that “the application for the original patent was field under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest.” However, a review of the application for the original patent does not show that it was filed under 37 CFR 1.46.
Claims 18-20 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.
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”.
In addition, the Examiner 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 notes 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.
The Examiner maintains 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” and “to receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information”. 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 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 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.
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 processing unit 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; however the citations discussed above do not specifically disclose an algorithm in combination with a processing unit.
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 receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information.” 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 including 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.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 and upmixer.
The Examiner maintains 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”, this limitation does not relate to the upmixer or the parameter applier itself. The Examiner maintains that the limitation recites an upmixer as being an entity other than a hardware apparatus or a computer that it is only ‘implemented’ by a hardware apparatus or a computer.
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 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 24 and 26 of copending Application No. 19/030,638 in view of Herre et al. 2006/0009225.
Application
19/030,864
19/030,638
Claim 18
An upmixer for upmixing a downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing one or more upmixed audio channels, the upmixer comprising:
a parameter applier configured to apply upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal in order to achieve the upmixed audio signal, wherein the parameter applier is configured 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, andto combine the phase-shifted version of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal to achieve the upmixed audio signal;
wherein the upmixer is configured to upmix the downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing a plurality of upmixed audio channels,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer; and
wherein the upmixer is configured to receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information.
An upmixer for upmixing a downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing one or more upmixed audio channels, the upmixer comprising:
a parameter applier configured to apply upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal in order to achieve the upmixed audio signal, wherein the parameter applier is configured 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, andto combine the phase-shifted version of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal to achieve the upmixed audio signal;
wherein the upmixer is configured to upmix the downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing a plurality of upmixed audio channels,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer; and
wherein the upmixer is configured to achieve the decorrelated signal such that the decorrelated signal is a decorrelated version of the downmix audio signal.
The Examiner finds that in the instant application, the claims of the instant application are broader than the claims of US Patent Application No. 19/030,638 since it does not require, “wherein the upmixer is configured to achieve the decorrelated signal such that the decorrelated signal is a decorrelated version of the downmix audio signal” The Examiner maintains that broader claims are not patentably distinct.
In addition, the Examiner acknowledges that the claims of the instant application are also narrower that the copending application since it recites, “wherein the upmixer is configured to receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information”. However, the Examiner determines that this is not a patentable distinction and that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a function.
With respect to wherein the upmixer is configured to receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information, the Examiner finds that Herre discloses that a typical scheme for multi-channel audio coding includes receiving side information and the calculation of inter-channel level differences. See paragraphs [0010], [0016] and [0021]. As set forth in paragraph [0054], Herre discloses that side information is necessary for computing all parameters for the decoder output signal and that inter-channel level differences are transmitted as side information. See paragraph [0055]. In paragraph [0108], Herre discloses that the parametric side information for the channel level difference uses inter-channel level difference for the generation of the first channel. See also paragraph [0115]. As explained in paragraph [0010-0011], the inter-channel level differences are used to perform a weighting operation of the signal in order to synthesize the multi-channel signals which represents a reconstruction of the original multi-channel signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide side information which comprises an inter-channel level difference information in order to generated the reconstruction of the original multi-channel signal. In addition, the Examiner notes that Herre discloses in paragraph [0091], in relation to Figure 13 that the determination of inter-channel level difference is ‘well-known’ in the prior art. Thus, it would have been predictable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to relying upon well-known side information in order to reconstruct the original multi-channel signal. Herre explains that this process results in providing a higher-quality multi-channel reconstruction concept which results in a multi-channel output signal having an improved sound perception. See paragraphs [0062] and [0092].
Thus, the Examiner finds that the current claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of US Patent Application 19/030,638. The Examiner finds that claims 18-20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 18, 24 and 26 of the copending application respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-20 of copending Application No. 19/030,830 in view of Herre et al. 2006/0009225.
Application
19/030,864
19/030,830
Claim 18
An upmixer for upmixing a downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing one or more upmixed audio channels, the upmixer comprising:
a parameter applier configured to apply upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal in order to achieve the upmixed audio signal, wherein the parameter applier is configured 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, andto combine the phase-shifted version of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal to achieve the upmixed audio signal;
wherein the upmixer is configured to upmix the downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing a plurality of upmixed audio channels,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer; and
wherein the upmixer is configured to receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information.
An upmixer for upmixing a downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing one or more upmixed audio channels, the upmixer comprising:a parameter applier configured to apply upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal in order to achieve the upmixed audio signal,wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the upmixer is configured to upmix the downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing a plurality of upmixed audio channels,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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,
wherein the parameter applier is configured to apply atime-variant phase shift to the downmix audio signal to achieve at least two versions of the downmix audio signal comprising atime-variant phase shift with respect to each other;
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer; and
wherein the upmixer comprises a parameter determinator configured to determine the phase shift on the basis of an inter-channel phase difference parameter.
The Examiner finds that in the instant application, the claims of the instant application are broader than the claims of US Patent Application No. 19/030,830 since it does not require, “wherein the upmixer comprises a parameter determinator configured to determine the phase shift on the basis of an inter-channel phase difference parameter.” The Examiner maintains that broader claims are not patentably distinct.
In addition, the Examiner acknowledges that the claims of the instant application are also narrower that the copending application since it recites, “wherein the upmixer is configured to receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information”. However, the Examiner determines that this is not a patentable distinction and that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a function.
With respect to wherein the upmixer is configured to receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information, the Examiner finds that Herre discloses that a typical scheme for multi-channel audio coding includes receiving side information and the calculation of inter-channel level differences. See paragraphs [0010], [0016] and [0021]. As set forth in paragraph [0054], Herre discloses that side information is necessary for computing all parameters for the decoder output signal and that inter-channel level differences are transmitted as side information. See paragraph [0055]. In paragraph [0108], Herre discloses that the parametric side information for the channel level difference uses inter-channel level difference for the generation of the first channel. See also paragraph [0115]. As explained in paragraph [0010-0011], the inter-channel level differences are used to perform a weighting operation of the signal in order to synthesize the multi-channel signals which represents a reconstruction of the original multi-channel signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide side information which comprises an inter-channel level difference information in order to generated the reconstruction of the original multi-channel signal. In addition, the Examiner notes that Herre discloses in paragraph [0091], in relation to Figure 13 that the determination of inter-channel level difference is ‘well-known’ in the prior art. Thus, it would have been predictable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to relying upon well-known side information in order to reconstruct the original multi-channel signal. Herre explains that this process results in providing a higher-quality multi-channel reconstruction concept which results in a multi-channel output signal having an improved sound perception. See paragraphs [0062] and [0092].
Thus, the Examiner finds that the current claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of US Patent Application 19/030,830. The Examiner finds that claims 18-20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 18-20 of the copending application respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-20 of copending Application No. 19/030,770 in view of Herre et al. 2006/0009225.
Application
19/030,864
19/030,770
Claim 18
An upmixer for upmixing a downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing one or more upmixed audio channels, the upmixer comprising:
a parameter applier configured to apply upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal in order to achieve the upmixed audio signal, wherein the parameter applier is configured 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, andto combine the phase-shifted version of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal to achieve the upmixed audio signal;
wherein the upmixer is configured to upmix the downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing a plurality of upmixed audio channels,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer; and
wherein the upmixer is configured to receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information.
An upmixer for upmixing a downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing one or more upmixed audio channels, the upmixer comprising:a parameter applier configured to apply upmixing parameters to upmix the downmix audio signal in order to achieve the upmixed audio signal,wherein the parameter applier is configured 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, andto combine the phase-shifted version of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal to achieve the upmixed audio signal;
wherein the upmixer is configured to upmix the downmix audio signal into an upmixed audio signal describing a plurality of upmixed audio channels,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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,
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the parameter applier is configured 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;
wherein the upmixer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer; and
wherein the parameter applier is configured to combine the at least two versions of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal, such that a signal portion of the first upmixed audio channel signal representing the decorrelated signal and a signal portion of the second upmixed audio channel signal representing the decorrelated signal are in-phase or 180º out-of-phase with respect to each other.
The Examiner finds that in the instant application, the claims of the instant application are broader than the claims of US Patent Application No. 19/030,770 since it does not require, “wherein the parameter applier is configured to combine the at least two versions of the downmix audio signal with the decorrelated signal, such that a signal portion of the first upmixed audio channel signal representing the decorrelated signal and a signal portion of the second upmixed audio channel signal representing the decorrelated signal are in-phase or 180º out-of-phase with respect to each other.” The Examiner maintains that broader claims are not patentably distinct.
In addition, the Examiner acknowledges that the claims of the instant application are also narrower that the copending application since it recites, “wherein the upmixer is configured to receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information”. However, the Examiner determines that this is not a patentable distinction and that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a function.
With respect to wherein the upmixer is configured to receive a side information describing the upmixing parameters and comprising an inter-channel level difference information, the Examiner finds that Herre discloses that a typical scheme for multi-channel audio coding includes receiving side information and the calculation of inter-channel level differences. See paragraphs [0010], [0016] and [0021]. As set forth in paragraph [0054], Herre discloses that side information is necessary for computing all parameters for the decoder output signal and that inter-channel level differences are transmitted as side information. See par