DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 1/16/2026:
Claims 1-24 are pending
Claims 21-24 are added
35 USC112b rejection is withdrawn
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it recites…S independent speakers, wherein S<M. There exists a scenario of M=2 and S=1. In such a scenario, the later recitation of “a first matrix application module … for playback on the multiple independent speakers,
a second matrix application module … for playback on the multiple independent speakers….”
Further, a more proper way to connect the independent speakers would be to recite “…on the S independent speakers”. Clarification from the Applicant is sought in the next response.
Claims 12 and 21 recite similar claim language and are thus rejected for the same rationale as above.
Claims 2-11, 13-20, and 22-24 are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 9, 12, 19-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chon et al (US20160269845, hereinafter “Chon”).
Regarding claim 1, Chon teaches an audio renderer for rendering a multi-channel input audio signal having M channels to a portable device having S independent speakers, wherein S<M (¶1, 37-39, audio rendering apparatus capable of outputting a multi-channel audio signal using a lesser amount of output channels versus the greater amount of input channels), comprising:
a first matrix application module for applying a primary rendering matrix to the input audio signal to provide a first pre-rendered signal suitable for playback on the multiple independent speakers (¶58-60, 71-72, a first rendering matrix may be defined as the applause signal which is sent to a 2D renderer),
a second matrix application module for applying a secondary rendering matrix to the input audio signal to provide a second pre-rendered signal suitable for playback on the multiple independent speakers, wherein the second rendering matrix is different than the first rendering matrix (¶58-60, 71-72, a second rendering matrix may be defined as the main signal and sent to a 3D renderer – wherein the rendering matrix for the applause signal and the main channel signal differ in that the applause signal requires only a 2D renderer and can be output to a horizontal channel);
a channel analysis module configured to calculate a mixing gain according to a time-varying channel distribution (¶22, 47, various gain values are applied accordingly; since no explicit recitation of a tone signal (e.g. non-varying in time) is taught it can be assumed that the multichannel audio signal is of the time-varying variety); and
a mixing module configured to produce a rendered output signal by mixing the first and second pre-rendered signals based on the mixing gain (Fig. 2, mixer and output unit configured to mix the 3D and 2D rendered signal as an output signal).
Regarding claim 9, Chon teaches wherein at least some entries of the primary rendering matrix are subdivided in specific frequency bands (¶71, downmix matrix can be defined by a function of an input channel, output channel, and a frequency).
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The method can be found in Chon (¶1, method).
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The computer program can be found in Chon (¶148, digital information recorded on a computer medium).
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The medium can be found in Chon (¶148, medium).
Regarding claim 21, Chon teaches an audio renderer for rendering a multi-channel input audio signal having M channels to a portable device having S independent speakers, wherein S < M (¶1, 37-39, audio rendering apparatus capable of outputting a multi-channel audio signal using a lesser amount of output channels versus the greater amount of input channels), comprising:
a first matrix application module for applying a primary rendering matrix to the input audio signal to provide a first pre-rendered signal suitable for playback on the multiple independent speakers (¶58-60, 71-72, a first rendering matrix may be defined as the applause signal which is sent to a 2D renderer);
a channel analysis module (Fig. 2, apparatus 200) configured to:
determine that one or more channels of the input audio signal are degraded (¶48, to avoid signal degradation, an “add-to-the-closest-channel” rendering technique can be applied);
select at least one second rendering matrix from a plurality of second rendering matrices based on determining that one or more channels of the input audio signal are degraded (¶48, upon determining that signal degradation may occur, an “add-to-the-closest-channel” rendering technique can be applied by the 3D renderer);
a second matrix application module for applying the at least one secondary rendering matrix to the input audio signal to provide a second pre-rendered signal suitable for playback on the multiple independent speakers (¶58-60, 71-72, a second rendering matrix may be defined as the main signal and sent to a 3D renderer); and
a mixing module configured to produce a rendered output signal by mixing the first and second pre-rendered signals based on a mixing gain (Fig. 2, mixer and output unit configured to mix the 3D and 2D rendered signal as an output signal).
Regarding claim 23, Chon teaches wherein the channel analysis module computes at least one gain based on a ratio of energy of the degraded channel and a total energy of the M channels (¶117-124, gain of the mixed signals may be based on the power value of the signals), a smoothing module smooths the at least one gain (¶117-124, smoothing equation can be applied), and the mixing module applies the at least one smoothed gain to the first pre-rendered signal and at least one second pre- rendered signal (Fig. 8, ¶134, a final signal is output after a smoothing process is applied).
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) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chon et al (US20160269845, hereinafter “Chon”) in view of Schreiner et al (US20120308049, hereinafter “Schreiner”).
Regarding claim 8, Chon fails to explicitly teach wherein the entries of the primary rendering matrix and the secondary rendering matrix are real constants or frequency dependent complex vectors.
Schreiner teaches wherein the entries of the primary rendering matrix and the secondary rendering matrix are real constants or frequency dependent complex vectors (Schreiner, Fig. 8, entries of the downmix matrix is real constant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of using a target rendering matrix (as taught by Schreiner) to the audio rendering apparatus (as taught by Chon). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of allowing the user the freedom to choose a specific rendering setup (Schreiner, ¶125).
Regarding claim 10, Chon in view of Schreiner teaches wherein at least some entries of the primary rendering matrix and the secondary rendering matrix are equal (Schreiner, Fig. 8, downmix matrix can contain any combination of values including 0, 1, and values between 0 and 1 such as 0.5).
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 13-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chon et al (US20160269845, hereinafter “Chon”) in view of Robinson et al (US20140133683, hereinafter “Robinson”).
Regarding claim 2, Chon fails to explicitly teach wherein the secondary rendering matrix is configured to ignore at least one of the channels in the input audio signal.
Robinson teaches wherein the secondary rendering matrix is configured to ignore at least one of the channels in the input audio signal (¶109, the adaptive audio authoring tool allows for mix values according to a playback configuration such that when there are no height speakers, the original height channel signal can be modified accordingly; Schreiner, ¶120, downmix matrix allows for a value of 0 to be input to represent that specific object to be removed from the output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the audio rendering system (as taught by Chon) with the adaptive output module (as taught by Robinson). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of optimizing playback according to any playback environment (Robinson, ¶53).
Regarding claim 3, Chon in view of Robinson teaches wherein the input audio signal includes two height channels, and the secondary rendering matrix is configured to ignore said height channels (Robinson, ¶109, output audio can be modified based on a playback environment (where there are no height speakers); Chon, ¶42, multichannel audio signal can include an overhead channel for outputting an elevation signal).
Regarding claim 7, Chon in view of Robinson teaches further comprising a smoothing module to smooth a mixing gain for a current frame based on mixing gains for a set of previous frames (Robinson, ¶124, 139, Table 12 provides a tool for providing object smoothing during playback such as creating a smoother pan across the screen).
Regarding claims 13-14, they are rejected similarly as claims 2-3, respectively. The method can be found in Chon (¶1, method).
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected similarly as claim 7. The method can be found in Chon (¶1, method).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11, 15-17, 22, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM EST.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691