Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s amendment made on 06/26/2026. Applicant’s submission filed has been entered and made of record.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
In view of the terminal disclaimer, double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
In response to “The Office Action's approach is inconsistent with USPTO guidance. In Subject Matter Eligibility Example 38 (Simulating an Analog Audio Mixer), the USPTO determined that claims did not recite a judicial exception because "[t]he claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claim does not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims."”.
Example 38 recites a method for providing a digital computer simulation of an analog audio mixer comprising:
initializing a model of an analog circuit in the digital computer, said model including a location, initial value, and a manufacturing tolerance range for each of the circuit elements within the analog circuit;
generating a normally distributed first random value for each circuit element, using a pseudo random number generator, based on a respective initial value and manufacturing tolerance range; and
simulating a first digital representation of the analog circuit based on the first random value and the location of each circuit element within the analog circuit.
Here, while the circuit element is based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims because the claims explicitly recited that the normally distributed first random value corresponds to a circuit element of the analog circuit in the first digital representation.
In contrast, in the current claims, encoding by a first coding / quantization method and by a second coding / quantization method do not correspond to any particular structure of an encoder but to mathematical quantization.
In response to “The Office Action's analysis improperly relies on the specification's explanatory references to 3GPP TS 26.445 sections and other portions of the present application to characterize the claims as reciting mathematical concepts… However, the claims themselves do not recite any of these exampled mathematical relationships and/or formulas provided as examples in the present application”, “While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims." The same analysis applies here. Independent Claim 1 recites "encoding spectral peak segments in the first region using a first coding method," "encoding at least one non-peak segment in the first region using a second coding method different from the first coding method," "encoding gains or an energy envelope of the second region to enable a decoder to reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill," and "introducing an encoded band in the second region if' certain conditions are met. These limitations recite specific audio encoding operations-not mathematical formulas, equations, or calculations. While the underlying implementations of the coding methods may involve mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits, that at least for these reasons, Claims 1, 7, and 14 are not directed to a mathematical relationship and/or formula as asserted in the Office Action as the claimed subject matter does not claim or attempt to claim the example mathematical representations provided as examples in the present application”.
According to the specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶37: “In an exemplifying embodiment, the encoding and decoding is performed in frequency transformed domain using the Modified Discrete Cosine Transform (MDCT). The harmonic structure is modelled using a specific peak coding method in the so-called “low band”, which is complemented with a vector quantizer (VQ) targeting the important low frequency (LF) coefficients of the MDCT spectrum and a BWE region where the higher frequencies are generated from the low band synthesis” and ¶51: “This second coding method may comprise vector quantization or pyramid vector quantization”.
At a minimum, first coding method is understood / interpreted as a first quantization method and the second coding method is understood / interpreted as a second quantization method. Here, quantization is a mathematical concept or mathematical calculation.
By reciting the first coding method and the second coding method, the claims are reciting a first mathematical calculation method and a second mathematical calculation method.
Finally, even when considering claims 1, 7, and 14 in isolation from the explicit recitation of mathematical calculations in the dependent claims, the ordered combination of limitations in claims 1, 7, and 14 are entirely focused on quantize / encode bands in a frequency spectrum of the audio signal divided into a first region / lower part of the frequency spectrum and a second region / higher part of the frequency spectrum; e.g., “a method for encoding an audio signal” effectively meant that the claims are entirely focused on quantizing an audio signal.
In response to “Encoding spectral peak segments using a first coding method, encoding non-peak segments using a different second coding method, encoding gains or energy envelopes of frequency regions, and conditionally introducing encoded bands based on multiple energy comparisons and bit availability are not steps that can practically be performed in the human mind. These operations require the specialized audio encoder recited in Claim 7 or the processor executing instructions recited in Claim 14”.
The Supreme Court and the CAFC distinguished between (1) computer-functionality improvements from the (2) uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on abstract ideas. Electric Power Grp., L.L.C. v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“…we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvement and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas”…”). Therefore, the inquiry is to ask whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While an audio encoder was recited in claim 7 and claim 14 described the audio encoder being an apparatus with a processor executing instructions, the entire focus of the audio encoder is on encoding or quantizing a frequency spectrum of the audio signal based on sufficient number of bits.
In other words, the encoder was recited as a computer tool to make quantization calculations.
The claims do not recite or specifically assert how the audio encoder applies or implements the quantized audio signal with a compression algorithm such that the audio signal can be processed for transmission over a channel with limited bandwidth.
Therefore, the claims do not specifically assert either a specialized audio encoder structure that implements or applies mathematical quantization / encoding to compress the audio signal or an audio encoder-decoder structure implementing the quantization / coding methods to improve the encoding and subsequent decoding / reconstruction of an audio signal.
In response to “The specification further describes the claimed solution and its improvement. The proposed technology relates to "adding decision logic for including a band or bands, a-priori assumed to be non-important, into the fine structure encoding. The decision logic is designed to maintain the 'conventional' behavior for signals where the a-priori assumption for the boundaries of coded and BWE regions is valid, while including parts of the a-priori assumed non-important BWE region in the coded region for signals which fall outside of this group." (See present application, pg. 3 lines 7-11). An advantage of the proposed technology is "to maintain the beneficial structure of a partially encoded band based on a-priori knowledge while extending it to handle specific cases of signals."” and “Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claims are not directed to simply calculating quantized representations; rather, they recite a complete audio encoding method that improves how the encoder handles signals that do not fit conventional a-priori assumptions about which frequency regions are perceptually important. The limitation "encoding gains or an energy envelope of the second region to enable a decoder to reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill" is not merely "apply it" language-it recites a specific encoding operation for enabling decoder reconstruction, which is an integral part of the claimed audio encoding process. Furthermore, the three-condition test for introducing an encoded band in the second region represents specific decision logic that provides the technological improvement disclosed in the specification”
However, encoding an audio signal to generate a quantized mathematical representation of the audio signal is not a specifically asserted technology. Even if the claims require decision logic (i.e., a mental process) to include bands / parts of the frequency spectrum of the audio signal for quantization or encoding based on bandwidth (i.e., sufficient number of bits for encoding) considerations, the claims still focus on calculating a quantized / coded representation of an audio signal.
The broad statement “enable a decoder to reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill” does not actually requires a decoder to reconstruct the second region because while the decoder is enabled to reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill, the claims recited no particular decoding means or decoding method to actually reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill.
Rather than focusing on encoding / quantizing audio signal, Examiner recommends focusing on encoding and then decoding the audio signal to render / reproduce the audio signal:
Claim 1 (currently amended) a method for encoding and decoding an audio signal, wherein a frequency spectrum of the audio signal is divided into a first and a second region, wherein the first region is a lower part of the spectrum than the second region and at least the second region comprises a number of bands, the method comprising:
encoding, by an encoder, spectral peak segments in the first region using a first coding method;
encoding, by the encoder, at least one non-peak segment in the first region using a second coding method different from the first coding method;
encoding, by the encoder, gains or an energy envelope of the second region;
:
introducing an encoded band in the second region;
decoding, by a decoder, the band in the second region using the second coding method;
otherwise reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill.1
Claim 7 recites an audio codec comprising an encoder for encoding an audio signal and a decoder for decoding the encoded audio signal,2
encode spectral peak segments in the first region using a first coding method;
encode at least one non-peak segment in the first region using a second coding method different from the first coding method;
encode gains or an energy envelope of the second region
:
introduce an encoded band in the second region;
decode the band in the second region using the second coding method;
otherwise reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill.3
Claim 14 recites a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of an apparatus, causes the processor to perform operations comprising:
encoding spectral peak segments in a first region using a first coding method, wherein a frequency spectrum of an audio signal is divided into the first region and a second region, wherein the first region is a lower part of the spectrum than the second region and at least the second region comprises a number of bands;
encoding at least one non-peak segment in the first region using a second coding method different from the first coding method;
encoding gains or an energy envelope of the second region
:
introducing an encoded band in the second region;
decoding, by a decoder, the band in the second region using the second coding method;
otherwise reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill.4
In response to “In contrast, the claims include comparing the energy of a band in the second region to "an energy estimate of a peak coded part in the first region." This is fundamentally different from Qi's intra-group peak-to-average ratio, which characterizes the distribution of subband normalization factors within a group rather than providing an energy estimate derived from peak- coded spectral segments.”.
Qi discloses acquiring a group parameter for each group of subbands so as to represent an energy attribute of each group comprising a peak to average ratio group _sharp of intra-group subband normalization factors (¶38 and ¶44).
Therefore, comparing the peak to average ratio group_sharp[i] of intra-group subband normalization factors of a first group with a peak to average ratio group_sharp[i-1] of intra-group subband normalization factors of a second group corresponds to comparing the energy of a band in the second region to an energy estimate of a peak coded part in the first region.
In response to “Moreover, Qi does not employ a first coding method for encoding spectral peaks and a second coding method for non-peak segments as recited in the claims. Qi is directed to bit allocation among subbands and groups based on normalized energies, not to a decision of whether to introduce an encoded band in a bandwidth extension region based on the three claimed conditions. Qi's technique addresses a different problem-ensuring "relatively stable allocation of previous and subsequent frames and reduc[ing] impact of partial discontinuity caused by global allocation." Even assuming, arguendo, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Grancharov and Qi, the combination still would not disclose or suggest the specific cross-region energy comparison recited in the claims. Grancharov describes selecting encoding modes based on available bits and balancing quantization errors versus reconstruction artifacts, but fails to disclose comparing a candidate band's energy to an energy estimate derived from peak-coded segments in a different region. Qi's peak-to-average ratio comparisons within groups do not remedy these deficiencies. Neither reference, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests "introducing an encoded band in the second region if energy in a band of the number of bands in the second region is high compared to an energy estimate of a peak coded part in the first region, the band has high energy compared to neighboring bands in the second region, and there is sufficient number of bits for encoding the band" as recited in Claims 1, 7, and 14”.
Grancharov discloses if enough bits are available, quantize the low-frequency regions with sufficient resolution according to preferred modes A and B of Fig. 8 because human perception is more sensitive to fine structure errors in the low frequency regions (Grancharov ¶77):
PNG
media_image1.png
270
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For high frequency regions, with decreasing bit-budget, the preference of the encoding / quantization modes goes from quantizing a larger portion of the spectrum to a smaller portion of the spectrum going from modes A-> D in Fig. 8 (Grancharov ¶77) to balance between high resolution quantization of low-frequency regions and introducing artifacts in high-frequency regions (Grancharov ¶78).
In other words, Grancharov discloses introducing artifacts in the high frequency region with decreasing bit-budget by quantizing a smaller portion of the spectrum going from encoding modes A->D.
Similarly, Qi discloses performing bit allocation to groups of subbands based on weighted energy of each group (Qi ¶18) where in case of low bit rate, only first two groups or first three groups are allocated bits (Qi ¶35).
Specifically, when group parameter representing an energy attribute of each group of subbands / region (Qi ¶38) being a peak to average ratio of the intra-group subband normalization factors (Qi ¶40) are acquired, compare the energy attribute / peak to average ratio group_sharp[i] of intra-group subband normalization factors of a first group of subbands and the energy attribute / peak to average ratio group_sharp [i-1] of intro-group subband normalization factors of a second group of subbands (Qi ¶47) such that if the energy attribute group parameter of one group of subbands / region is higher than energy attribute group parameter of the other group of subbands / region (Qi ¶48), increase a weight to allocate more signal bits (Qi ¶49).
Afte the bits are allocated to the groups, coding bits allocated to each group may further be allocated to subbands in the group (Qi ¶51) such that bits are mainly allocated with a subband in the group with a high energy (Qi ¶84).
Therefore, in case of decreasing bit-budget, quantizing a smaller portion of the spectrum to introduce artifacts in the high frequency region / group of subbands (Grancharov ¶77), one skilled in the art would look to Qi for allocating bits to introduce encoded band in the second region in case of low bit rate (Qi ¶35) by quantizing a smaller portion of the high frequency region based on if the energy attribute peak to average ratio group_sharp[i] of intra-group subband normalization factors of a group of subbands in the high frequency second region is high compared to the energy attribute peak to average ratio group_sharp [i-1] of intro-group subband normalization factors of a group of subbands in the low frequency first region (Qi ¶47), the band has high energy compared to neighboring bands in the second region (Qi ¶51 and ¶84), and there is sufficient number of bits for encoding the band (Grancharov ¶¶77-78, with decreasing bit budget, quantize a smaller portion of the spectrum to introduce artifacts in the high-frequency region).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directing toward non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-6 recite a method for encoding an audio signal (i.e., a process), claims 7-13 recite an audio encoder in a user equipment (i.e., a machine), and claim 14 recites a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instruction for execution by a processor (i.e., a manufacture). Reply to Decision on Appeal of June 8, 2021
To distinguish ineligible claims that merely recite a judicial exception from eligible claims that require an implementation of judicial exception, the Supreme Court uses a two-step framework: Step One (Step 2A), determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts; and Step Two (Step 2B), if so, ask “what else is there in the claims?” to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
Step One (Step 2A) is a two prong test that requires the determination of whether the claims at issue are directed to an enumerated patent ineligible concept. See MPEP 2106.04.
Step 2A Prong (1) requires the determination of the specific limitations in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea and determining whether the identified limitations falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
The enumerated patent ineligible concepts comprising:
(a) Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles / practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules / instructions) and
(c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a).
If the claim recites an enumerated patent ineligible concept, then Prong (2) of Step One (Step 2A) requires the determination of whether the claim integrates the patent ineligible concept into a practical application. Individually and in combination, identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Under Step 2B, if the claim does not integrate the ineligible concept into a practical application and therefore directed to a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim provides an inventive concept by determining whether there are additional elements, individually and in ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See MPEP 2106.04.
Step 2A Prong (1)
The “directed to” inquiry does not ask whether the claims involve a patent ineligible concept but, considered in light of the specification, whether the claim as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter or directed to an improvement to computer functionality. Enfish L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, Prong (1) of Step 2A requires identifying specific limitations in the claims that recites (“describes” or “set forth”) an abstract idea and determine whether the identified limitations falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated. See MPEP 2106.04 (“Thus, it is sufficient for this analysis for the examiner to identify that the claimed concept (the specific claim limitation(s) that the examiner believes may recite an exception) aligns with at least one judicial exception”).
Under Prong (1), claim 1 recites a method for encoding an audio signal, wherein a frequency spectrum of the audio signal is divided into a first and a second region, wherein the first region is a lower part of the spectrum than the second region and at least the second region comprises a number of bands, the method comprising:
encoding spectral peak segments in the first region using a first coding method;
(2) encoding at least one non-peak segment in the first region using a second coding method different from the first coding method;
(3) encoding gains or an energy envelope of the second region to enable a decoder to reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill; and
(4) introducing an encoded band in the second region (a) if energy in a band of the number of bands in the second region is high compared to an energy estimate of a peak coded part in the first region, (b) the band has high energy compared to neighboring bands in the second region, and (c) there is sufficient number of bits for encoding the band.
Claim 7 recites an audio encoder for encoding an audio signal, wherein a frequency spectrum of the audio signal is divided into a first and a second region, wherein the first region is a lower part of the spectrum than the second region and at least the second region comprises a number of bands, the audio encoder being configured to:
encode spectral peak segments in the first region using a first coding method;
(2) encode at least one non-peak segment in the first region using a second coding method different from the first coding method;
(3) encode gains or an energy envelope of the second region to enable a decoder to reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill; and
(4) introduce an encoded band in the second region (a) if energy in a band of the number of bands in the second region is high compared to an energy estimate of a peak coded part in the first region, (b) the band has high energy compared to neighboring bands in the second region, and (c) there is sufficient number of bits for encoding the band.
Claim 14 recites a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of an apparatus, causes the processor to perform operations comprising:
(1) encoding spectral peak segments in a first region using a first coding method, wherein a frequency spectrum of an audio signal is divided into the first region and a second region, wherein the first region is a lower part of the spectrum than the second region and at least the second region comprises a number of bands;
(2) encoding at least one non-peak segment in the first region using a second coding method different from the first coding method;
(3) encoding gains or an energy envelope of the second region to enable a decoder to reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill; and
(4) introducing an encoded band in the second region if (a) energy in a band of the number of bands in the second region is high compared to an energy estimate of a peak coded part in the first region, (b) the band has high energy compared to neighboring bands in the second region, and (c) there is sufficient number of bits for encoding the band.
With respect to (1), individually and considered in light of the specification, US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶51: “The first coding method is preferably a peak based coding method, such as described e.g. in 3GPP TS 26.445, section 5.3.4.2.5”.
3GPP TS 26.445, section 5.3.4.2.5. describes a hierarchical vector quantization (“HVQ”) procedure where the input comprises a set of Modified Discreet Cosine Transform (“MDCT”) coefficients XM(k), noise floor gains Gne, and spectral peaks.5 Each peak (with peak amplitude GP(k)) is normalized to unit energy and the surrounding 4 neighbors are normalized to with the peak gain. The peaks position, gain, and sign are quantized. A vector quantization is applied to the four MDCT bins surrounding each peak according to equation (1215):6
PNG
media_image2.png
52
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, (1) corresponds to a first method of mathematical calculations for analyzing relevant input vectors describing spectral peak segments in the first region to calculate a first quantized representation corresponding to the abstract concept of “mathematical calculations”. Analyzing information by mathematical algorithms are essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. Electric Power Grp., L.L.C. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
With respect to (2), individually and considered in light of the specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶51: “A second coding method is exemplified in the same document in section 5.3.4.2.7”.
3GPP TS 26.445, section 5.3.4.2.7. describes a pyramid vector quantization (“PVQ”) procedure that quantizes a N dimensional vector by allocating K signed pulses to match the shape of that vector.7 The goal of the PVQ search procedure is to find a vector xq, which is defined according to equation (1248): 8
PNG
media_image3.png
88
190
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where y = yN, K
PNG
media_image4.png
117
273
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, (2) corresponds to a second method of mathematical calculations for analyzing relevant input vectors describing non-peak segments in the first region to calculate a second quantized representation corresponding to the abstract concept of “mathematical calculations”. Analyzing information by mathematical algorithms are essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. Electric Power Grp., 830 F. 3d at 1354.
With respect to (3), individually and considered in light of the specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶34: “Typically, the high band is not encoded in the same way as the low band, but instead subjected to BWE. The BWE may comprise encoding of a spectral and a temporal envelope”.
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, (3) corresponds to a third method of mathematical calculations for analyzing relevant input vectors describing the second / high frequency region to calculate a mathematical representation of gains or energy envelope of the second / high frequency region corresponding to the abstract concept of “mathematical calculations”. Analyzing information by mathematical algorithms are essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. Electric Power Grp., 830 F. 3d at 1354.
With respect to (4)(a), individually and considered in light of the specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶¶55-56 and ¶¶58-59:
Assuming inputs comprising MDCT coefficients Y(k) where
PNG
media_image5.png
59
405
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, band log energies E(j) of the second region / high band region defined as:
PNG
media_image6.png
88
192
media_image6.png
Greyscale
spectral peaks in the first region encoded according to peak position p(m), an amplitude G(m) set to match the MDCT bin at given position Y(p(m)), and a shape vector V(m) representing four neighboring MDCT bins and Npeaks being the number of peaks used in the representation of the first region, energy of the first region is derived as:
PNG
media_image7.png
71
207
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and condition 1 (e.g., (4)(a)) is evaluated according to
PNG
media_image8.png
31
119
media_image8.png
Greyscale
or its mathematical equivalents
PNG
media_image9.png
43
157
media_image9.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image10.png
32
152
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to (4)(b), individually and considered in light of the specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶62, fulfillment of condition 2 (e.g., (4)(b)) is to compare the log energy of the candidate band to the average log energy of the entire second region
PNG
media_image11.png
57
131
media_image11.png
Greyscale
according to relationship
PNG
media_image12.png
33
101
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to (4)(c), individually and considered in light of the specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶65, “Another useful condition for avoiding waste of resources is to ensure that the bit rate for the selected band is high enough to represent the band with acceptable quality. If not, the bits spent on encoding the selected band will be wasted, and would be better spent on coding more of the low frequency part of the first region” and “Assume Blast denotes the number of bits allocated for the last band in the target vector for the PVQ encoder, then the condition for avoiding wasting resources may be written as:”
PNG
media_image13.png
23
180
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
Finally, according to the specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶65: “In case there are enough available bits to encode both at least one non-peak part of the first region (e.g., (4)(c)), and a selected band, which fulfills conditions 1-2 (e.g., (4)(a) and (4)(b)) above, the selected band may be encoded together with the at least one non-peak part of the first region using the second coding method (gain shape)”.
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, (4) corresponds to the second method of mathematical calculations for analyzing relevant input vectors describing the second / high frequency region to calculate a third quantized representation of the second / high frequency region given analysis by mathematical algorithms of (4)(a), (4)(b), and (4)(c) corresponding to the abstract concept of “mathematical calculations” and “analysis by mathematical algorithm”. Analyzing information by mathematical algorithms are essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. Electric Power Grp., 830 F. 3d at 1354.
In ordered combination, steps (1)-(4) correspond to using the first mathematical method to calculate the first quantized representation, using the second mathematical method to calculate the second quantized representation, using the third mathematical method to calculate the gains / energy envelope representation, and using mathematical analysis of conditions (4)(a), (4)(b), and (4)(c) to use the second mathematical method to calculate the third quantized representation.
Thus, claims 1, 7, and 14 described patent ineligible subject matter enumerated under category (a) Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and category (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong (2).
Under Prong (2) of Step 2A, the goal is to determine whether the claim is directed to the recited exception by evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04II(A).
In particular, evaluating integration into a practical application requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements, individually and in combination, to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The Supreme Court held that when a claim containing an abstract idea (e.g., mathematical formula) implements or applies that abstract idea (e.g., math formula) in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e. g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the requirements of §101. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981); MPEP 2106.04(d)I (“Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b)”). See also Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972) (“Transformation and reduction of an article "to a different state or thing" is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines”).
In particular, the Supreme Court looked to how the claims used that equation in a process designed to solve a technological problem in conventional industry practice. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In Diehr, the claims involved a method for curing rubber by using Arrhenius equation to constantly measure actual temperature inside a mold and feeding the temperature measurements into a computer to repeatedly recalculate the cure time to open the press. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178-79. Since the Supreme Court viewed the claims not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula, but to an industrial process for molding of rubber products, the claims were statutory. Id. at 192-93.
The key here, as noted by the CAFC, is that the Supreme Court in Diehr looked to how the claims "used that equation in a process designed to solve a technological problem in `conventional industry practice.'" McRO, 837 F.3d at 1312. When looked at as a whole, "the claims in Diehr were patent eligible because they improved an existing technological process, not because they were implemented on a computer." Id. at 1312-13.
In McRO, the CAFC noted that prior art method of generating (i.e., calculating) morph weight set with values between “0” and “1” for computer animation of facial expressions are manually determined. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1304-5. The claimed improvement in McRO allows computers to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators through the automated use of rules, rather than artists, to set the morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1313.
Specifically, the claims are directed to the incorporation of claimed rules, not the use of the computer that improved existing technological process by allowing automation of further tasks that goes beyond merely organizing existing information into a new form. Id. at 1314-15.
In other words, the claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters that prevent pre-emption of all processes for achieving automated lip-synchronization of 3-D characters. Id. at 1315. Therefore, the CAFC held that the ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules that relate sub-sequences of phonemes, timing, and morph weight sets is patent eligible. Id. at 1302-3.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court defined a procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem is known as an “algorithm”, or mathematical formula, and it is like a law of nature that cannot be the subject of a patent. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65 (1972); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589 (1978).
In Benson, the claim was directed to a method for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary numerals. Benson, 409 U.S. at 64. More specifically, it is a method of programming a general-purpose digital computer to convert signals from binary-coded decimal “BCD” form (“0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9”) into pure binary form (“0” and “1”) as a procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem or “algorithm”. Id. at 65-66.
The Supreme Court noted that the conversion of BCD numerals into pure binary numerals can be done mentally through use of a BCD to pure binary table and it is a mathematical formula that can be carried out in existing computers long in use or they can also be performed without a computer. Id. at 71.
The Supreme Court then concluded that the claim is so abstract and sweeping as to cover both known and unknown uses of the BCD to pure binary conversion where the end use may (1) vary from the operation of a train to verification of drivers’ licenses to researching the law books for precedents and (2) be performed through any existing machinery or future-devised machinery or without any apparatus. Id. at 68.
Although the Supreme Court noted the mathematical formula involved has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, a patent thereof would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself. Id. at 72.
In another example Flook, the claims involved a method for updating the value of at least one alarm limit on at least one process variable involved in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons using the mathematical formula ‘‘B1=B0 (1.0–F) + PVL(F)’’. Flook, 437 U.S. at 596. The Supreme Court noted that the application simply provided a new and presumably better method for calculating alarm limit values. Id. at 594-95. Citing the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the Supreme Court held that "if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.". Id. at 595 (citing In re Richman, 563 F.2d 1026, 1030 (CCPA 1977)).
Further, MPEP 2106.04(d)I states merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For example, in Alice, the Supreme Court held that data processing systems with communication controller, data storage unit, and transmission units were purely functional and generic because nearly every computer will include a "communications controller" and "data storage unit" capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions and such recitation of hardware failed to offer any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of a method to a particular technological environment. Id. at 2360. See MPEP 2106.04(d)I (“Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)”). Neither stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” nor limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment is enough for patent eligibility. Id. at 2350.
With regard to claims 1, 7, and 14 in the instant application, the claims recited steps (1)-(4) correspond to using the first mathematical method to calculate the first quantized representation, using the second mathematical method to calculate the second quantized representation, using the third mathematical method to calculate the gains / energy envelope representation, and using mathematical analysis of conditions (4)(a), (4)(b), and (4)(c) to use the second mathematical method to calculate the third quantized representation.
Unlike the claims in Diehr that described a procedure on how to use the Arrhenius equation to calculate cure time and how to apply the cure time to cure rubber, steps (1)-(4) in claims 1, 7, and 14 of the instant application using mathematical methods to calculate mathematical / quantized representations based on mathematical analysis according to conditions (4)(a), (4)(b), and (4)(c) is not a structure or process that the patent laws were designed to protect because steps (1)-(4) is essentially a mental process by mathematical algorithm that do not amount to a specifically asserted technological process.
Likewise, unlike the incorporation of particular rules to the generated (i.e., calculated) morph weights to automate the “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” in McRO that amounted to integration of morph weight computation into a technical application, steps (1)-(4) in claims 1, 7, and 14 of the instant application do not describe any particularly asserted decoder structure to reconstruct the audio signal (e.g., a specifically asserted decoder with a particular means or method of reconstructing audio signal in the first region and the second region), only a broad statement of “enabling a decoder to reconstruct the second region based on BWE or noise fill” that amounted to “apply it” or “enable it” with the decoder.
Put simply, claims 1, 7, and 14 lacked a specifically asserted means or method of how a decoder would reconstruct the first region and the second region of the audio signal that would integrate the mathematical analysis and the mathematical calculations into a technological application of reconstructing the audio signal.
Rather, claims 1, 7, and 14 are akin to the processes in Benson for converting signals from binary-coded decimal “BCD” form (“0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9”) into pure binary form because the mathematical calculations of quantized representation of audio signal correspond to a procedure of solving a given type of mathematical problem or algorithm.
Even if the mathematical calculations and mathematical analysis improved the manner in which the audio signal can be represented in the first region and the second region, like Flook (i.e., novel method of calculating alarm limit values), claims 1, 7, and 14 are essentially a novel method of calculating quantized representations of audio signal using mathematical formulas or mathematical methods. The claims are nonstatutory even if the calculations were for a specific purpose of “enable a decoder to reconstruct the second region based on BWE or noise fill” because the claims lacked a specifically asserted technological integration (i.e., means or method or rules) of how a decoder uses the quantized representations in the first region and the quantized representations in the second region.
The recited user equipment (dependent claim 13), non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processor, and program instructions of claims 7 and 14 generally link steps (1)-(4) to the computer environment, which failed to offer any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of a method to a particular technological environment because nearly every computer will include a controller" and "data storage unit" capable of performing the basic calculation and storage functions.
Therefore, as an ordered combination of computer components, claims 1, 7, and 13-14 do not integrate abstract mathematical calculations into a practical application and the claims are instead directed toward patent ineligible mathematical calculations and mathematical analysis.
Step 2B Inventive Concept.
The Guideline stated that if the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.04IIA and MPEP 2106.05.
Further, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, 827, F3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In BASCOM, the CAFC held that filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior similar to concepts previously found to be abstract. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348. However, the CAFC determined that the claims did not merely recite filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the internet or on a set of generic computer components, nor did the claims preempt all ways of filtering content on the internet. Id. at 1350.
Rather, the inventive concept described and claimed was the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user that gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on an internet service provider “ISP” server. Id. By taking a prior art filter solution (one size fits all filter at internet service provider “ISP” server) and making it more dynamic and efficient (providing individualized filtering at the ISP server), the claimed invention improves the performance of the computer system itself. Id. at 1351.
On the other hand, implementation via computers does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims”). Intellectual Ventures I L.L.C. v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Steps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent-eligibility).
Similarly, limiting an abstract idea to one field of use do not convert otherwise ineligible concept into an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I L.L.C. v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither does adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1367 (citing Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Insurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter”)).
In the instant application, steps (1)-(4) in claims 1, 7, and 14 correspond to using the first mathematical method to calculate the first quantized representation, using the second mathematical method to calculate the second quantized representation, using the third mathematical method to calculate the gains / energy envelope representation, and using mathematical analysis of conditions (4)(a), (4)(b), and (4)(c) to use the second mathematical method to calculate the third quantized representation..
The individual recitation of encoder (i.e., computer), processor, non-transitory computer readable medium of claims 1, 7, and 14 merely invoke generic machinery / computer where a computer (i.e., encoder) is used as a tool to perform mathematical quantization.
In other words, the encoder, processor, non-transitory computer readable medium of claims 1, 7, and 14 did not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the mathematical quantization and mathematical analysis of (4)(a), (4)(b), and (4)(c) to a conventional computer environment where the computer is used as a tool to make respective mathematical calculations and mathematical analysis.
As an ordered combination, unlike BASCOM that described an unconventional combination to provide both the benefits of a filter on a conventional local computer and the benefits of a filter on the conventional ISP server, there is no particular combination of any computer components with another device of any kind to yield a combination structure that the patent laws were designed to protect.
Specifically, if the specific asserted technology is an encoder-decoder combination to reconstruct an audio signal, claims 1, 7, and 14 focused on the encoder for calculating mathematical quantization of audio signal without a specifically asserted decoder structure with a particular means or method of how to reconstruct the audio signal.
Here, the statement “enable a decoder to reconstruct the second region based on BWE or noise fill” amounts to a broad statement of limiting the encoder calculated mathematical quantization / representations of the audio signal to a field of use without setting forth how the decoder uses the BWE or noise fill to reconstruct the second region, or specifically asserted means or method or incorporation of rules to reconstruct the audio signal.
Therefore, Claims 1, 7, and 14 do not supply an inventive concept.
Dependent claims failed to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
In particular, claims 2 and 8 further described using the second coding method (i.e., second method of mathematical calculations) to calculate quantized representation of the second region.
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 described calculating Modified Discrete Cosine Transform MDCT representation of spectral peak segment, which corresponds to mathematical calculations.
Claims 5 and 11 limit the second method of mathematical calculations to particular types of mathematical quantization; e.g., vector quantization or pyramid vector quantization.
Claims 6 and 12 further described the mathematical analysis of (4)(c) in claims 1 and 7.
For the above reasons, Claims 1-14 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 for being unpatentable over Grancharov et al. (US 2011/0153336 A1) in view of Qi et al. (US 2015/0162011 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Grancharov discloses an audio encoder for encoding an audio signal (Fig. 1 or 2, Encoder Device), wherein a frequency spectrum of the audio signal is divided into a first and a second region, wherein the first region is a lower part of the spectrum than the second region and at least the second region comprises a number of bands (Fig. 8 and see ¶78, audio signal with low frequency regions and high frequency regions), the audio encoder being configured to:
encode spectral peak segments in the first region using a first coding method (¶53, preprocessed input signal X (i.e., coefficients of the input signal X flattened by the spectrum envelope or residuals) is encoded or quantized according to a first mode; Fig. 11 shows the spectral envelope of the input signal X calculated from groups of MDCT coefficients representing the input signal X per ¶61 comprising spectral peaks and valleys and further shows compressed / encoded residuals (i.e., encoded preprocessed input signal X); ¶¶76-77, if enough bits are available, the low frequency regions are quantized with sufficient resolution, the preferred modes will be modes A and B; i.e., if enough bits are available, quantize low frequency regions including corresponding spectral peaks and non-spectral peaks with quantization mode A);
encode at least one non-peak segment in the first region using a second coding method different from the first coding method (Fig. 11 shows (1) spectral envelope calculated from frequency response of AR coefficients of input signal X per ¶61 and (2) compressed / encoded residual, where residual is preprocessed input signal X (i.e., coefficients of the input signal X flattened by the spectrum envelope or residuals per ¶53); one can observe encoded residuals in (2) corresponding to non-peaks in (1); ¶¶76-77, with decreasing bit-budget, if enough bits are available, quantize low frequency regions comprising peaks and non-peaks shown in Fig. 11(1) with sufficient resolution according to modes A and B; i.e., with decreasing bit-budget (e.g., not enough bits for mode A), quantize low frequency regions including corresponding spectral peaks and non-spectral peaks with quantization mode B; see ¶76 and Fig. 8, quantization mode B being different from quantization mode A);
encode gains or an energy envelope of the second region (¶61, spectral envelope are calculated by grouping MDCT coefficients and calculating the mean energy in each group) to enable a decoder to reconstruct the second region based on bandwidth extension, BWE, or noise fill (¶50, decoder arranged for processing outputs comprising a reconstructed / decoded signal that is reconstructed by bandwidth extension; see ¶87, noise fill algorithm; per ¶76, high frequency regions are encoded using quantization modes B, C, and D based on available bits); and
introduce an encoded band in the second region if there is sufficient number of bits for encoding the band (¶11, limited number of available bits introduces quantization errors due to quantization of only a selected part of the input signal and reconstructing the remaining part; ¶11, reconstruction of high frequency components introduces reconstruction artifacts in resulting output signal; ¶¶76-77, with decreasing bit budget, preference of modes goes from quantizing a larger portion of the spectrum to smaller portions of the spectrum (going from modes A->D in Fig. 8; ¶78, introducing artifacts in high frequency regions means applying modes B->D where portions of the spectrum are unquantized and to be reconstructed according to reconstruction codebook; see ¶88).
Grancharov does not disclose introduce an encoded band in the second region if energy in a band of the number of bands in the second region is high compared to an energy estimate of a peak coded part in the first region, the band has high energy compared to neighboring bands in the second region.
Qi discloses dividing a frequency band of an audio signal into a plurality of subbands or regions (¶20 and ¶26, extract frequency domain envelope and divide the whole frequency band into subbands (i.e., subbands from low frequency to high frequency) with different subband normalization factor) and introducing an encoded band in a second region if energy in a band of the number of bands in the second region is high compared to an energy estimate of a peak coded part in the first region (¶38 and ¶¶40-41, acquire energy attribute of each group including a peak to average ratio group_sharp of intra-group subband normalization factors based on a peak value of intra-group subband normalization factors to an average value of intra-group subband normalization factors; ¶47, compare a peak to average ratio group_sharp[i] of intra-group subband normalization factors of a first group with a peak-to-average ratio group_sharp[i-1] of intra-group subband normalization factors of a second group as being greater to determine a weighting factor where increase weighting factor allocates more signal bits per ¶49), the band has high energy compared to neighboring bands in the second region (¶84, bits are mainly allocated to a subband with a high energy), and there is sufficient number of bits for encoding the band (¶35, group subbands into four groups (i.e., two group would be low frequency groups and two groups would be high frequency groups) and in a case of a low bit rate, bit allocation is performed for the first two or three groups and not performed for the remaining group).
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to introduce an encoded band in the second region if energy in a band of the number of bands in the second region is high compared to an energy estimate of a peak coded part in the first region, the band has high energy compared to neighboring bands in the second region, and there is sufficient number of bits for encoding the band in order to ensure allocated bits are all used to quantize or encode important spectral information (Qi, ¶84).
Further regarding claim 14, Grancharov discloses an encoding apparatus comprising at least one processor for performing operations comprising the operations of claims 1 and 7 (¶50, controller comprising a processor for determining optimum mode (i.e., encoding) based on a selection criterion calculated from the input signal).
Grancharov does not disclose a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor of an apparatus, causes the processor to perform operations of claims 1 and 7.
Qi discloses an apparatus for allocating bits in audio signal to perform encoding / quantization (Abstract) comprising a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor of an apparatus, causes the processor to perform encoding / quantization operations (¶128, computer readable storage medium storing software functional units / program codes for instructing computing device).
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Grancharov to implementing the apparatus with the processor with a computer program product storing software instructions to perform the operations of encoding / quantization as taught by Qi in order to allocate available bits even in cases of low and medium bit rate (Qi, Abstract).
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, Grancharov discloses being configured to encode the band in the second region using said second coding method (¶¶76-77, with decreasing bit budget, preference of modes goes from quantizing a larger portion of the spectrum to smaller portions of the spectrum (going from modes A->D in Fig. 8; ¶78, introducing artifacts in high frequency regions means applying modes B->D where portions of the spectrum are unquantized and to be reconstructed according to reconstruction codebook; see ¶88; i.e., if there are sufficient bits, apply quantization mode B to high frequency region, which introduces artifacts due to portions of the spectrum being not quantized / encoded).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Grancharov discloses wherein each spectral peak segment comprises a peak and a determined number of neighboring Modified Discrete Cosine Transform (MDCT) bins (Fig. 11 shows the spectral envelope of the input signal X calculated from groups (i.e., bins) of MDCT coefficients representing the input signal X per ¶61 comprising spectral peaks and valleys and further shows compressed / encoded residuals (i.e., encoded preprocessed input signal X)).
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, Grancharov discloses wherein the first coding method is a peak-based coding method comprising encoding of a peak position, an amplitude and sign of the peak position (¶49 and ¶53, encoder unit comprises a preprocessor, which applies a spectral envelope to the input signal and feeding the resulting residual signal to the encoder; Fig. 11 shows spectrum envelope and compressed (i.e., encoded) residuals; i.e., encoded residuals with amplitude exceeding “1” and “2” shows encoded peaks at respective location, amplitude, and sign (“+”)), and a shape vector representing neighboring MDCT bins (¶61, dynamically calculate the spectral envelope based on frequency response of autoregressive coefficients of the input signal, grouping the MDCT coefficients, calculating the mean energy in each group; ¶53 and ¶76, flattening the coefficients of input signal X by the spectrum envelope (see spectrum envelope in upper portion of Fig. 11) to generate input vector for quantization according to modes A-D).
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, Grancharov discloses wherein the second coding method comprises vector quantization (¶25, VQ vector quantizer; ¶76, vector quantization according to modes A-D) or pyramid vector quantization.
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, Grancharov discloses the audio encoder further being configured to consider the minimum number of bits required to encode at least one coefficient of the band in the second region to determine if there is sufficient number of bits for encoding the band in the second region (¶45, the optimum number of modes will depend on the total bit budget and constraints on computational complexity; ¶77, with decreasing bit-budget, the preference of the modes goes from quantizing a larger portion of the spectrum to a smaller portion of the spectrum going from modes A-D in Fig. 8 as human perception is more sensitive to fine structure errors in low frequency regions; ¶78, by searching through all modes, encoder device balances between high resolution quantization of low frequency regions and introducing artifacts in high frequency regions when reconstructing unknown high frequency components from known quantized low frequency components per ¶11; i.e., given the constraint of the bit budget, perform quantization / encoding of the high frequency region / component).
Regarding Claim 13, Grancharov discloses a user equipment comprising the audio encoder according to claim 7 (Fig. 1 and see ¶51, encoder device 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Richard Z. Zhu whose telephone number is 571-270-1587 or examiner’s supervisor Hai Phan whose telephone number is 571-272-6338. Examiner Richard Zhu can normally be reached on M-Th, 0730:1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD Z ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654 08/28/2026
1 Specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶¶71-76.
2 Specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶29.
3 Specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶¶71-76.
4 Specification US 2025/0201254 A1 at ¶¶71-76.
5 3GPP TS 26.445, section 5.3.4.2.5, p. 380.
6 3GPP TS 26.445, section 5.3.4.2.5, p. 381.
7 3GPP TS 26.445, section 5.3.4.2.5, p. 391.
8 3GPP TS 26.445, section 5.3.4.2.5, p. 392.
Prosecution Insights