DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/327568. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because The application claims a broader recitation of the same system claimed in the patent noting the following mapping:
Determining a spatial coherence (application claim 1) drawn to calculating a combined prediction (patent claim 1)
determining the weight factor (application claim 1), is drawn to selecting a weight factor (patent claim 1)
Signaling information to…(application claim 1) is drawn to signaling information about..(patent claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,16,20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Eriiksson (US 20170047072 A1).
As per claim 1, Eriksson discloses a method for supporting generation of comfort noise for at least two audio channels at a receiving node, the method being performed by a transmitting node (the nodes in fig. 7), the method comprises:
determining a spatial coherence between audio signals on the respective audio channels, wherein at least one spatial coherence value Cbm per frame m and frequency band b is determined to form a vector of spatial coherence values (para 70 the spectral and spatial characteristics, para 71: determine the spatial coherence between the audio signals on the respective input audio channels, para 29-33 discloses frequency domain processing where each parameters is defined by the bandwidth of the frequency representation, and additionally per para 35, where the system comprises digital processors which must process the incoming audio signal on a frame by frame basis as they are digital; noting it is a vector as there are at least two channels and hence two spatial coherence estimates)
wherein a vector of predicted spatial coherence values a,b,m is formed by a weighted combination of a first coherence prediction and a second coherence prediction C2,bm, (the coherence function per para 26).
wherein the first coherence prediction and the second coherence prediction C2,b,m are combined using a weight factor a (the spatial coherence and also the weight factors defining the spectral shaping filters, combined at device 710 and sent to device 720);
determining the weight factor a based on a bit-budget Bm available for encoding the vector of spatial coherence values in each frame m (para 28: where H_1(f) and H_2(f) are spectral weighting functions obtained as a function of the signal spectra S_x(f) and S_y(f), where the signal spectra define a bit budget/size which is used to obtain the spectral weighting); and
signaling information about the weight factor a to the receiving node, for enabling the generation of the comfort noise for the at least two audio channels at the receiving node (received by 720 in fig. 7 and used to generate comfort noise).
As per claim 16, a method for generation of comfort noise for at least two audio channels at a receiving node, the method being performed by the receiving node, the method comprising:
receiving information about a weight factor a from the transmitting node (device 720 in Fig. 7 of Eriksson receiving the signaling from 710, per the claim 1 rejection) ;
determining a spatial coherence between audio signals on the respective audio channels (the decoder either receiving the signaling performed at the encoder per the claim 1 rejection, or performing the process itself per para 70, via the received spectral and spatial characteristics),
wherein at least one predicted spatial coherence value b,m per frame m and frequency band b is determined to form a vector of predicted spatial coherence values,(per the claim 1 rejection as either received by or performed by decoder 720)
wherein the vector of predicted spatial coherence values is formed by a weighted combination of a first coherence prediction m and a second coherence prediction C2,b,m, (,(per the claim 1 rejection as either received by or performed by decoder 720)
wherein the first coherence prediction m and the second coherence prediction C2,b,m are combined using the weight factor a ,(per the claim 1 rejection as either received by or performed by decoder 720);
determining the weight factor a based on a bit-budget Bm available for encoding a vector of spatial coherence values in each frame and the received information ,(per the claim 1 rejection as either received by or performed by decoder 720); and
generating comfort noise for the at least two audio channels based on the weighted combination of the first coherence prediction and the second coherence prediction C2,b,m-
,(per the claim 1 rejection as either received by or performed by decoder 720).
As per claim 20, a transmitting node for supporting generation of comfort noise for at least two audio channels at a receiving node, the transmitting node comprising processing circuitry, the processing circuitry being configured to cause the transmitting node (per the claim 1 rejection) to:
determine a spatial coherence between audio signals on the respective audio channels,
wherein at least one spatial coherence value Cb,m per frame m and frequency band b is determined to form a vector of spatial coherence values, (per claim 1 rejection)
wherein a vector of predicted spatial coherence values is formed by a weighted combination of a first coherence prediction and a second coherence prediction m, (per claim 1 rejection)
wherein the first coherence prediction m and the second coherence prediction C2,b,m are combined using a weight factor a; (per claim 1 rejection)
determine the weight factor a based on a bit-budget Bm available for encoding the vector of spatial coherence values in each frame m; and signaling information about the weight factor a to the receiving node, for enabling the generation of the comfort noise for the at least two audio channels at the receiving node. (per claim 1 rejection).
As per claim 21, a receiving node for generation of comfort noise for at least two audio channels at the receiving node, the receiving node comprising processing circuitry, the processing circuitry being configured to cause the receiving node to: receive information about a weight factor a from the transmitting node; determine a spatial coherence between audio signals on the respective audio channels, wherein at least one predicted spatial coherence valueb,m per frame m and frequency band b is determined to form a vector of predicted spatial coherence values, wherein the vector of predicted spatial coherence values is formed by a weighted combination of a first coherence prediction m and a second coherence prediction C2,b,m, wherein the first coherence prediction m and the second coherence prediction C2,b,m are combined using the weight factor a; determine the weight factor a based on a bit-budget Bm available for encoding a vector of spatial coherence values in each frame and the received information; and generate comfort noise for the at least two audio channels based on the weighted combination of the first coherence prediction and the second coherence prediction C2,b,m- (per the claim 1 and 16 rejections).
As per claim 22, the system of the claim 1 and 16 rejections requires software, memory and processors to be implemented, including: a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for supporting generation of comfort noise for at least two audio channels at a receiving node, the computer program comprising computer code which, when run on processing circuitry of a transmitting node, causes the transmitting node to:determine a spatial coherence between audio signals on the respective audio channels, wherein at least one spatial coherence value Cbm per frame m and frequency band b is determined to form a vector of spatial coherence values, wherein a vector of predicted spatial coherence valuesis formed by a weighted combination of a first coherence predictionandasecondcoherencepredictionC2,b,m, wherein the first coherence predictionm and the second coherence prediction C2,b,m are combined using a weight factor a;determine the weight factor a based on a bit-budget Bm available for encoding the vector of spatial coherence values in each frame m; andsignaling information about the weight factor a to the receiving node, for enabling the generation of the comfort noise for the at least two audio channels at the receiving node. (per the claim 1 and 16 rejections).
As per claim 23, a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for generation of comfort noise for at least two audio channels at a receiving node, the computer program comprising computer code which, when run on processing circuitry of the receiving node, causes the receiving node to: receive information about a weight factor a from the transmitting node; determine a spatial coherence between audio signals on the respective audio channels, wherein at least one predicted spatial coherence value b,m per frame m and frequency band b is determined to form a vector of predicted spatial coherence values, wherein the vector of predicted spatial coherence values is formed by a weighted combination of a first coherence prediction and a second coherence prediction C2,b,m, wherein the first coherence prediction m and the second coherence prediction C2,b,m are combined using the weight factor a; determine the weight factor a based on a bit-budget Bm available for encoding a vector of spatial coherence values in each frame and the received information; and generate comfort noise for the at least two audio channels based on the weighted combination of the first coherence prediction and the second coherence prediction C2,b,m- (as per the claim 1,16 and 22 rejections).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-9,11-15,17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriiksson (US 20170047072 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Puri (US 20170155906 A1).
As per claim 2, Eriksson discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the first coherence prediction is defined by an intra-frame prediction b,m of the vector of spatial coherence values.
Puri teaches that encoders can use intraframe prediction processing per para 18 and Fig. 5a and teaches this allows encoding in the format of: AVC video High profile encoder. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to implement intraframe processing for the prediction/spatial coherence processing in the encoder of Eriksson for the purpose of compatibility with known standards and protocols.
As per claim 3, the method of claim 1, wherein the second prediction C2,b,m is defined by an inter-frame coherence prediction erb,m of the vector of spatial coherence values.(as taught by Puri as applied to the prediction of Eriksson analogous to the claim 2 rejection)
As per claim 4, the method of claim 1, wherein the predicted spatial coherence valued,b,m is determined according to <the claimed function>.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the coherence based functions of Eriksson para 30-34 could be represented in the form claimed in claim 4 for the purpose of deriving the cited functions (ie. ‘determined according to’).
As per claim 5, Puri teaches truncation (para 106, 115) which is a process of limiting based on a bit budget. As applied to the system of Erikkson, the weight factor a is selected as the largest candidate weight factor for which the total number of encoded bits fits within the bit-budget Bm. As all signal amplitudes and parameters indicating amplitudes are reduced/limited/largest candidate selected when the encoded signal is truncated.
As per claim 6, the method of claim 1, wherein the weight factor a is selected as the candidate weight factor yielding fewest total number of encoded bits when the total number of encoded bits does not fit within the bit-budget Bm for any of the candidate weight factors (as per the truncation of the claim 5 rejection as applied to the weights and amplitudes of the encoder of Eriksson).
As per claim 7, Eriksson discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specify:
wherein the weight factor a is determined by selecting a set of at least two candidate weight factors and performing trial encoding of the vector of spatial coherence values for each candidate weight factor.
The examiner takes official notice it is well known in the art at the time of filing to implement training/calibration of the disclosed processes, where the initial values are candidates, and the training cycles are the trial encoding, for the purpose of training the codec.
As per claim 8, the method of claim 7, wherein the trial encoding for each candidate weight factor yields a respective total number of encoded bits for the vector of spatial coherence values (per the training and truncation as cited in the above claim rejections, the encoder encodes the allowed number of bits), and
wherein the weight factor a is selected depending on whether the total number of encoded bits for the candidate weight factors fits within the bit-budget (per the truncation cited in the above claim rejections, as applied to the gains, weights and amplitudes of Eriksson).
As per claim 9, the method of claim 7, wherein the trial encoding is performed for two candidate weight factors and resulting in the number of bits respectively, needed for the encoding of the vector of spatial coherence values (per the truncation cited in the above claim rejections, as applied to the gains, weights and amplitudes of Eriksson).
As per claim 11, the method of claim 7, wherein which candidate weight factors to use during the trial encoding is based on the bit-budget (as per the training and truncation as cited in the above claim rejections).
As per claim 12, the method of claim 11, wherein the candidate weight factors are determined by means of performing a table lookup with the bit-budget Bm as input (not selected
Or
by inputting the bit- budget Bm to a function. (the truncation as cited in the above claim rejections comprises a function based upon a bit budget).
As per claim 13, the method of claim 12, wherein the table lookup is performed on table values obtained through training on a set of background noise.(not mapped as applied to not selected alternative in parent claim).
As per claim 14, the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining spectral characteristics of the audio signals on the input audio channels; and signaling information about the spectral characteristics to the receiving node (per the frequency based parameters in the claim 1 rejection as sent to the receiving device in Fig. 7 of Eriksson).
As per claim 15, Eriksson discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specify further comprising: determining a quantized prediction error per frame m and frequency band b by subtracting said at least one predicted spatial coherence value from the vector of spatial coherence values; and signaling information about the quantized prediction error to the receiving node.
The examiner takes official notice it is well known in the art at the time of filing to provide some sort of error checking mechanism sent by the encoder and received by the decoder, such as CRC, for the purpose of compensating for errors in the CODEC.
As per claim 17, the method of claim 16, wherein the weight factor a is determined by selecting a set of at least two candidate weight factors and using the received information about the weight factor a to select which candidate weight factors to use during trial encoding (per the claim 7 rejection)
As per claim 18, the method of claim 16, further comprising:
receiving information about spectral characteristics of the audio signals(the parameters per the claim 1 rejection applied in the frequency domain); and
generating the comfort noise also based on the information about the spectral characteristics (the comfort noise is based on the received parameters).
As per claim 19, the method of claim 16, further comprising:
receiving information about a quantized prediction error per frame m and frequency band b;
and adding the quantized prediction error to the vector of predicted spatial coherence values as part of generating the comfort noise (as per the claim 15 rejection as received and performed by the decoder of Eriksson fig. 7)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and assuming the double patenting rejection is overcome with a terminal disclaimer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN whose telephone number is 571-272-7498, and whose email address is alexander.krzystan@uspto.gov
The examiner can usually be reached on m-f 7:30-4:00 est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-7136.
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Examiner Alexander Krzystan
October 14, 2026
