DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on March 28, 2025. As set forth therein, claims 1-10 are canceled and claims 11-17 are 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. 9,214,160 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.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 11-16, drawn to de-multiplexing an audio signal and using predictive techniques to obtain a reconstructed signal, classified in G10L 19/04.
II. Claim 17, drawn to coding identification information for applying coding schemes to an audio signal, classified in G10L 19/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as using prediction for the reconstruction of an audio signal and subcomination II has a separate utility such as using coding identification information in order to apply coding schemes to an audio signal. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The Examiner finds that the invention encompasses different classification as well as a different field of search. The search for Group I pertains to de-multiplexing audio, receiving compensation signals, obtaining a prediction of an aliasing part and obtaining a reconstructed signal which does not require receiving coding information for applying different coding schemes, receiving and applying a window to a frame. Group II pertains to receiving coding information for applying different coding schemes, receiving and applying a window to a frame and does not require or pertain to de-multiplexing audio, receiving compensation signals, obtaining a prediction of an aliasing part and obtaining a reconstructed signal. The Examiner thus finds that each of the two groups require two completely different search strategies that would be an search and examination burden.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
As per MPEP 1450, claims 11-16 are constructively elected (claims 11-16 are based on subject matter of the original patent claims) and claim 17 is constructively non-elected and withdrawn from consideration. Applicant is advised to file a divisional application for the newly added claim 17. See MPEP 1450 and 1451.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
Claims 11-16 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.
Consent
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as lacking the written consent of all assignees owning an undivided interest in the patent. The consent of the assignee must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP § 1410.01.
A proper assent of the assignee in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73 is required in reply to this Office action.
The Examiner finds that the person signing the consent has not been shown to be authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP 325(V).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. RE50372 in view of Fuchs et al. US Patent Pub. 2011/0173009.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown below, the claims of the instant application are broader than those of RE50372 since it does not recite “wherein the window of the second block has an ascending line with a first slope”.
19094574
RE50372
11. A method for processing an audio signal, the method comprising:
de-multiplexing from the audio signal
a first data of a first block encoded with a first coding scheme using a rectangular window and a second data of a second block encoded with a second coding scheme using a non-rectangular window
11. A method for processing an audio signal including
a first data of a first block encoded with a first coding scheme using a rectangular window and a second data of a second block encoded with a second coding scheme using a non-rectangular window,
the method comprising:
generating, by an audio processing apparatus, an output signal for the first block using the first data of the first block based on the first coding scheme
generating, by an audio processing apparatus, an output signal for the first block using the first data of the first block based on the first coding scheme;
receiving a compensation signal corresponding to the second block
receiving a compensation signal corresponding to the second block;
obtaining a prediction of an aliasing part by applying a window of the second block to the output signal for the first block and
obtaining a prediction of an aliasing part by applying a window of the second block to the output signal for the first block; and
obtaining a reconstructed signal for the second block based on the second data, the compensation signal and the prediction of the aliasing part, wherein the window of the second block belongs to a transition window class.
obtaining a reconstructed signal for the second block based on the second data, the compensation signal and the prediction of the aliasing part, wherein the window of the second block belongs to a transition window class, and
wherein the window of the second block has an ascending line with a first slope.
The Examiner however finds that the instant claim is narrower since it recites “de-multiplexing from the audio signal a first data….”. The Examiner notes however that de-multiplexing the audio signal is not a patentable distinction.
For example, Fuchs is directed to a method of encoding an audio signal using an aliasing switch scheme. With reference to paragraph [0082] and Figure 11B, it was known to both multiplex a signal as well as receive a multiplexed signal and demultiplexing the signal. As explained by Fuchs, this is used to derive the information that is received.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to demultiplex an audio signal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that multiplexing provides a method to use a single communication line which can provide a benefit in improving transmissions. De-multiplexing signals is a well-known method used to separate the received information (i.e.de-multiplex the received signal).
Claims 11-14 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. RE47536 alone or in combination with Fuchs et al. US Patent Pub. 2011/01730009.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown below, the claims of the instant application are broader than those of RE47536. The invention described in the instant application is similar to the invention described in RE47356 and thus is not patentably distinct.
19094574
RE47536
11. A method for processing an audio signal, the method comprising:
de-multiplexing from the audio signal
a first data of a first block encoded with a first coding scheme using a rectangular window and a second data of a second block encoded with a second coding scheme using a non-rectangular window
1. A method for processing an audio signal, comprising: receiving, by an audio processing apparatus, an audio signal including
a first data of a first block encoded with a first [rectangular] coding scheme using a rectangular window and a second data of a second block encoded with a [non-rectangular] second coding scheme using a non-rectangular window;
generating, by an audio processing apparatus, an output signal for the first block using the first data of the first block based on the first coding scheme
generating an output signal for the first block using the first data of the first block based on the [rectangular] first coding scheme;
receiving a compensation signal corresponding to the second block
receiving a compensation signal corresponding to the second block;
obtaining a prediction of an aliasing part by applying a window of the second block to the output signal for the first block and
obtaining a prediction of an aliasing part by applying a window of the second block to the output signal for the first block; and
obtaining a reconstructed signal for the second block based on the second data, the compensation signal and the prediction of the aliasing part, wherein the window of the second block belongs to a transition window class.
obtaining a reconstructed signal for the second block based on the second data, the compensation signal and the prediction of the aliasing part, wherein, when the first data is encoded with a LPD (Linear Prediction Domain) coding scheme and
the window of the second block belongs to a transition window class,
the window of the second block has an ascending line with a first slope, wherein the first slope is different [gentler] than a second slope.
With respect to claim 11, as shown above, the instant claim is broader than claim 1 of RE47536 since it does not recite that the first data is encoded with a Linear Prediction Domain coding scheme or wherein the first slope is different than a second slope. Therefore, reissue claim 11 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of RE47536.
The Examiner finds that the instant claim is narrower since it recites “de-multiplexing from the audio signal a first data….”. The Examiner notes however that de-multiplexing the audio signal is not a patentable distinction. Indeed, apparatus claim 6 of RE47536 recites a ‘de-multiplexer receiving an audio signal including a first data of a first block encoded”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply a de-multiplexer to the method claims since RE47536 discloses that the processing of an audio signal includes a de-multiplexing for demultiplexing encoded data.
In the alternative, the Examiner finds that Fuchs is directed to a method of encoding an audio signal using an aliasing switch scheme. With reference to paragraph [0082] and Figure 11B, it was known to both multiplex a signal as well as receive a multiplexed signal and demultiplexing the signal. As explained by Fuchs, this is used to derive the information that is received.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to demultiplex an audio signal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that multiplexing provides a method to use a single communication line which can provide a benefit in improving transmissions. De-multiplexing signals is a well-known method used o separate the received information (i.e.de-multiplex the received signal).
With respect to claim 14, the examiner finds that the claim corresponds to claim 6 of RE47536. Claim 14 is broader than claim 6 of RE47536. In addition, 11-14 and 16 correspond to claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 10 of RE47536.
Claims 11-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. RE48916 alone or in combination with Fuchs et al. US Patent Pub. 2011/01730009.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown below, the claims of the instant application are broader than those of RE48916. Thus, the invention described in the instant application is similar to the invention described in RE48916.
19094574
RE48916
11. A method for processing an audio signal, the method comprising:
de-multiplexing from the audio signal
a first data of a first block encoded with a first coding scheme using a rectangular window and a second data of a second block encoded with a second coding scheme using a non-rectangular window
11. A method for processing an audio signal including a first data of a first block encoded with a first coding scheme using a rectangular window and a second data of a second block encoded with a second coding scheme using a non-rectangular window, the method comprising:
generating, by an audio processing apparatus, an output signal for the first block using the first data of the first block based on the first coding scheme
generating, by an audio processing apparatus, an output signal for the first block using the first data of the first block based on the first coding scheme;
receiving a compensation signal corresponding to the second block
receiving a compensation signal corresponding to the second block;
obtaining a prediction of an aliasing part by applying a window of the second block to the output signal for the first block and
obtaining a prediction of an aliasing part by applying a window of the second block to the output signal for the first block; and
obtaining a reconstructed signal for the second block based on the second data, the compensation signal and the prediction of the aliasing part, wherein the window of the second block belongs to a transition window class.
obtaining a reconstructed signal for the second block based on the second data, the compensation signal and the prediction of the aliasing part, wherein, the first data is encoded with a LPD (Linear Prediction Domain) coding scheme and
the window of the second block belongs to a transition window class.
The Examiner determines that claim 11 of the instant application is substantially the same as claim 11 of RE48916 except that claim 11 of the instant application does not recite “the first data is encoded with a LPD (Linear Prediction Domain) coding scheme”.
The Examiner finds that the instant claim is narrower since it recites “de-multiplexing from the audio signal a first data….”. The Examiner notes however that de-multiplexing the audio signal is not a patentable distinction. Indeed, apparatus claim 14 of RE48916 recites a ‘de-multiplexer configured to receive the audio signal”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply a de-multiplexer to the method claims since RE48916 discloses that the processing of an audio signal includes a de-multiplexing for demultiplexing encoded data.
In the alternative, the Examiner finds that Fuchs is directed to a method of encoding an audio signal using an aliasing switch scheme. With reference to paragraph [0082] and Figure 11B, it was known to both multiplex a signal as well as receive a multiplexed signal and demultiplexing the signal. As explained by Fuchs, this is used to derive the information that is received.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to demultiplex an audio signal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that multiplexing provides a method to use a single communication line which can provide a benefit in improving transmissions. De-multiplexing signals is a well-known method used To separate the received information (i.e.de-multiplex the received signal).
With respect to claim 14, the examiner finds that the claim corresponds to claim 14 of RE48916 Claim 14 is broader than claim 14 of RE48916. In addition, 11-16 correspond to claims 11-16 of RE48916.
Claims 11-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. RE49813 alone or in combination with Fuchs et al. US Patent Pub. 2011/01730009.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown below, the claims of the instant application are broader than those of RE49813. Thus, the invention described in the instant application is similar to the invention described in RE49813.
19094574
RE49813
11. A method for processing an audio signal, the method comprising:
de-multiplexing from the audio signal
a first data of a first block encoded with a first coding scheme using a rectangular window and a second data of a second block encoded with a second coding scheme using a non-rectangular window
11. A method for processing an audio signal including a first data of a first block encoded with a first coding scheme using a rectangular window and a second data of a second block encoded with a second coding scheme using a non-rectangular window, the method comprising
generating, by an audio processing apparatus, an output signal for the first block using the first data of the first block based on the first coding scheme
generating, by an audio processing apparatus, an output signal for the first block using the first data of the first block based on the first coding scheme;
receiving a compensation signal corresponding to the second block
receiving a compensation signal corresponding to the second block;
obtaining a prediction of an aliasing part by applying a window of the second block to the output signal for the first block and
obtaining a prediction of an aliasing part by applying a window of the second block to the output signal for the first block; and
obtaining a reconstructed signal for the second block based on the second data, the compensation signal and the prediction of the aliasing part, wherein the window of the second block belongs to a transition window class.
obtaining a reconstructed signal for the second block based on the second data, the compensation signal and the prediction of the aliasing part, wherein the window of the second block belongs to a transition window class.
The Examiner determines that claim 11 of the instant application is substantially the same as claim 11 of RE49813 except that claim 11 of the instant application does not recite “the first data is encoded with a LPD (Linear Prediction Domain) coding scheme”.
The Examiner finds that the instant claim is narrower since it recites “de-multiplexing from the audio signal a first data….”. The Examiner notes however that de-multiplexing the audio signal is not a patentable distinction. Indeed, apparatus claim 14 of RE49813 recites a ‘de-multiplexer configured to receive the audio signal”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply a de-multiplexer to the method claims since RE49813 discloses that the processing of an audio signal includes a de-multiplexing for demultiplexing encoded data.
In the alternative, the Examiner finds that Fuchs is directed to a method of encoding an audio signal using an aliasing switch scheme. With reference to paragraph [0082] and Figure 11B, it was known to both multiplex a signal as well as receive a multiplexed signal and demultiplexing the signal. As explained by Fuchs, this is used to derive the information that is received.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to demultiplex an audio signal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that multiplexing provides a method to use a single communication line which can provide a benefit in improving transmissions. De-multiplexing signals is a well-known method used to separate the received information (i.e.de-multiplex the received signal).
With respect to claim 14, the examiner finds that the claim corresponds to claim 14 of RE48916 Claim 14 is broader than claim 14 of RE48916. In addition, 11-16 correspond to claims 11-16 of RE48916.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ovidio Escalante whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday - 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992