Final Office Action
Introduction
1. 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.
2. This Office Action addresses U.S. Application No. 18/219,991 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘991 or the instant application) which is a reissue application of U.S. Application No. 13/464,102 filed May 4, 2012 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘102 or the parent application), entitled AUDIO GAIN CONTROL USING SPECIFIC-LOUDNESS-BASED AUDITORY EVENT DETECTION, issued April 23, 20131 as U.S. Patent No. 8,428,270 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘270 or the original patent), which is a continuation application of U.S. Application No. 13/406,929 filed February 28, 2012 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘929 or the parent application), and issued September 15, 2015 as U.S. Patent No. 9,136,810, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 12/226,698 filed on Jan. 19, 2009 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘698 or the great-grandparent application), and issued March 27, 2012 as U.S. Patent No. 8,144,881, which is a national application of PCT application PCT/US2007/0083 13, which claims the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/795,808 filed on Apr. 27, 2006.
3. Based upon Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application and after the
Examiner’s independent review of ‘270 itself and its prosecution history, the Examiner finds no current ongoing litigation involving ‘270. See Litigation Search Report of record. Also based upon the Examiner’s independent review of ‘270 itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner cannot locate any other previous reexaminations, supplemental examinations, or certificates of correction.
4. The ‘270 patent issued with claims 1-22 (hereinafter also referred to as the patent claims). Claims 1, 15, 16 and 22 are independent claims. A preliminary amendment filed concurrently with the application on July 10, 2023 was entered and considered. The preliminary amendment amended independent claims 1 and 16 and thereby, independent claims 15 and 22 and dependent claims 6 and 17-18. The preliminary amendment also amended the specification.
Most recently, a response was filed in which claims 1 and 6 were further amended, claims 7-8 and 17-18 were cancelled and claim 23 was added. Replacement drawings, an ADS and a declaration were also filed. Finally, a copy of the July 10, 2023 claims amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.173 was also filed.
5. As of the date of this Office Action, the status of the claims is:
Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-23 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-23 are examined.
Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-23 are objected to and/or rejected as set forth infra.
Priority
6. Based upon a review of the instant application, the Examiner still finds that Applicant is claiming benefit to US Provisional Application No. 60/795,808 filed on Apr. 27, 2006.2 Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of a prior-filed application, 13/406,929, now US Patent No. 9,136,810. The specification and claims as filed May 12, 2012 as the ‘102 original patent application were not the same as those of the ‘929 parent application. See the original patent application at, e.g., col. 3, line 61- col. 4, line 13 and claims. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the above identified matter not disclosed in the prior-filed ‘929 application or provide an explanation of the support of the above identified matter with regard to the disclosure of the prior filed ‘929 application. Note also paragraph 12 below and the Response to Arguments section below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
7. Because the effective filing date of claims of the instant application is before September 16, 2012, the pre-AIA (“pre-AIA ”) provisions apply thereto. See also paragraph 1, supra.
Reissue
ADS
8. The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed January 16, 2026 is accepted.
Amendment
9. The amendment filed January 16, 2026 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173 (b)(2), i.e. Claims, (d), i.e. Changes shown by markings, (b)(3), i.e. Drawings, and (c), i.e. Status of claims and support for claim changes. Appropriate correction is required. See also MPEP § 1453(II).
Specifically, the matter omitted in claim 6 is again not shown enclosed in brackets in the latest AMENDMENT TO THE CLAIMS entitled “Response to Office Action dated July 16, 2025”.
Furthermore, amended figures must be identified as "Amended" and any added figure must be identified as "New." In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be surrounded by brackets and identified as "Canceled." Also all changes to the drawing(s) shall be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet accompanying the papers including the amendment to the drawings.
Finally, whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of section 37 CFR 1.173, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status, as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added
claims and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the patent claims as well as the newly added claims. See page 7, I. of the 1/16/2026 Remarks. Specifically, while providing citations, e.g. column, line, alone or with a reiteration of such portion, an explanation of support for each such amendment/claim (e.g., explanation of how specifics of such cited portions support the combination(s) recited) has not been provided. See, e.g. the last two lines of claims 1 and 16.
Any further response failing to provide an explanation of support in the disclosure of the patent for the claims will be held non-compliant and a Notice of Non-Compliance requiring a supplemental paper correctly amending the reissue application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.1739 (c) will be issued.
Reissue Declaration
10. The reissue oath/declaration filed January 16, 2026 is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The assignee of 100% of the entire right, title and interest in the patent (who must be named as the reissue applicant) may sign the declaration if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims in the original patent, or the application for the original patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest. See MPEP § 605.01. If the reissue applicant is a juristic entity, then the reissue declaration must be signed by an official of the applicant who has a title that carries apparent authority, or someone who makes a statement of authorization to act (e.g., an employee of the assignee who by corporate resolution of a Board of Directors has been given authority to act on behalf of the juristic entity). See MPEP § 325. A patent practitioner may only sign the reissue declaration as an official of a juristic entity applicant if the practitioner has been given authority to act as explained above and may not sign the substitute statement merely on the basis of having power of attorney in the application.
The January 16, 2026 declaration reissue applicant/reissue assignee is the juristic entity DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION. The declaration is signed by “Elizabeth Purtill” who has a title “Senior Staff Patent Engineer”. Therefore, the reissue declaration has not been signed by 1) an official of the applicant who has a title that carries apparent authority, 2) someone who has made a statement of authorization to act (e.g., an employee of the assignee who by corporate resolution of a Board of Directors has been given authority to act on behalf of the juristic entity) or 3) a patent practitioner as an official of a juristic entity applicant if the practitioner has been given authority to act.
The oath or declaration must properly identify at least one error under 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as a basis for the reissue (37 CFR 1.175(a)). Specific changes or amendments to the claims must be identified. Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error. If new claims are presented, their difference from the original claims must be pointed out. See MPEP §1414. If the reissue is a broadening reissue, a claim that the application seeks to broaden must be identified. (Note: A statement that “the patent is wholly or partly inoperative by reason of claiming more or less than applicant had a right to claim” is NOT an unequivocal statement of an intent to broaden.) Furthermore the error that supports the reissue is not limited to an error in the claims but may exist elsewhere in the patent (e.g., in the specification, drawings, etc.) as long as the error is an error that causes the patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
The January 16, 2026 declaration states “the original patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid” “by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had the right to claim in the patent”. The declaration continues:
The original patent claims more than Applicant had a right to claim in view of page 9 of the International Standard ISO/IEC 14496-3, and in particular to the "MPEG-4 low delay coding functionality." Independent claims 1 and 16 are amended to recite, among other things, that the audio signal comprises two or more channels of audio content.
However, it is unclear how the omission of the language “the audio signal including two or more channels of audio content” by the patent claims 1 and 16 is “more than Applicant had a right to claim in view of page 9 of the International Standard ISO/IEC 14496-3, and in particular to the "MPEG-4 low delay coding functionality.", e.g. the original patent does not explicitly discuss “MPEG-4” nor “low delay coding” and page 9,
11. Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-23 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.
Specification
12. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In col. 3, line 61-col. 4, line 9, the specification describes an audio processing method in which a characteristic of an audio signal with respect to time is monitored, a change in the characteristic that exceeds a threshold is identified and auditory event boundaries are set at a location in the audio signal at or near the change in the characteristic to demarcate the change and then a dynamic gain modification is applied to the audio signal based at least in part on the occurrence of the auditory event. The specification also sets forth that in “some embodiments” the audio signal upon which the method operates includes two or more channels of audio content and in “these embodiments”, i.e. the embodiments including two or more channels, the auditory event boundary is identified by examining changes in the characteristic between the two or more channels of the audio signal. See also original patent claims 6-8 and 17-18.3 Yet while claims 1 and 16 as now amended set forth that the audio signal includes two or more channels of audio content, they do not set forth the auditory event boundary is identified by examining changes in the characteristic between the two or more channels of the audio signal as well. Therefore, at the very least, the description of how the auditory event boundary is identified where there are two or more channels is unclear.
Claim 1 now further recites “generating a dynamic gain modification including a parameter-modifying dynamically-varying control signal based on the auditory event boundary; and applying the dynamic gain modification to the audio signal based in part on an occurrence of the auditory event”. At the very least4, the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for this claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction is required. While col. 4, lines 9-135,6 are being relied on for support of such claim language, such portion of the specification does not disclose a “dynamically-varying control signal based on the auditory event boundary” which is “parameter-modifying” and such signal control signal is included in the generation of a dynamic gain modification and the gain modification then being applied to the signal is based in part on an occurrence of the auditory event.
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to “International Application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty S.N. PCT/US 05/24630 filed Jul. 13, 2005, entitled "Method for Combining Audio Signals Using Auditory Scene Analysis," of Michael John Smithers, published Mar. 9, 2006 as WO 2006/026161” is ineffective because no such document as so entitled and by such inventor was published. A copy of such document is not of record in the prosecution history of the parent, grandparent or great-grandparent applications/patents.
With respect to the Incorporation by Reference section of col. 18, line 45-col 19, line 45, it is noted that only four of the documents are US patents or patent applications as identified. Note also MPEP 608.01, I, A., with regard to "Essential material"
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
13. The drawings are still objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 4-1, 4-3, 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. See also the discussion in paragraph 9 above again.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.173 and 1.84 are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(11). Therefore, unless Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term, see MPEP §211l.0l(IV), or 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
A. Lexicographic Definitions
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01(IV). Following an independent review of the claims in view of the specification herein, it was found that Patent Owner did not provide definitions related to claim terms with reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision.
B. Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (6th ¶)
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function or a step-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation in a claim:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
14. Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 as issued set forth an audio processing method in which a characteristic of an audio signal with respect to time is monitored, a change in the characteristic that exceeds a threshold is identified, auditory event boundaries are set at a location in the audio signal at or near the change in the characteristic to demarcate the change and then a dynamic gain modification is applied to the audio signal based at least in part on the occurrence of the auditory event. The preliminary amendment of July 10, 2023 amended claim 1 such that the audio signal includes two or more channels of audio content. The amendment at page 7 set forth support for the amendments could be found “in at least Col. 4, lines 5-9 and “original claim [sic] 6, 17 and 18”. The January 16, 2026 response maintains this position, see page 7, section I, third paragraph and page 8, section IV of the remarks. However, as discussed above in paragraph 12, col. 4, lines 5-9 sets forth that in “some embodiments” not only does the audio signal upon which the method operates include two or more channels of audio content, but also in “these embodiments” the auditory event boundary is identified by examining changes in the characteristic between the two or more channels of the audio signal. The combination of an audio channel including two or more channels of audio content and the auditory event boundary being identified by identifying changes in the characteristic between such two or more channels is reiterated in original patent claims 6-8 and 17-18. However, claim 1 as now amended does not set forth such combination as so described and supported by col. 4, lines 5-9 and original patent claims 6 and 17-18. This also applies to the similar amendment to claim 16. Claims 2-5, 7-14 and 19-21 depend from claims 1 and 16. Claims 15 and 22 incorporate the methods of claims 1 and 16, respectively.
Additionally, as previously discussed in paragraph 12, claim 1 now further recites “generating a dynamic gain modification including a parameter-modifying dynamically-varying control signal based on the auditory event boundary; and applying the dynamic gain modification to the audio signal based in part on an occurrence of the auditory event”. While it is asserted at page 7, section I., second paragraph that col. 4, lines 9-137,8 provide support of such claim language, at most9 such portion of the specification does not disclose a “dynamically-varying control signal based on the auditory event boundary” which is “parameter-modifying” and such signal control signal is included in the generation of a dynamic gain modification and the gain modification then being applied to the signal is based in part on an occurrence of the auditory event nor such in combination with the other features of claim 1. Claims 2-5 and 7-14 depend from claim 1. Claim 15 incorporates the methods of claim 1.
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.
15. Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-23 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.
Lines 2-5 and 8-9 of claim 1 recite setting an auditory event boundary to demarcate the change in the characteristic identified as exceeding a threshold, i.e. one change/one boundary, and now further recites generating a dynamic gain modification including a parameter-modifying dynamically-varying control signal based on the auditory event boundary, i.e. one boundary/one modification. However, lines 6-7 and 10-11 define an auditory event as an audio segment between consecutive auditory event boundaries, i.e. consecutive boundaries/consecutive changes, and applying the dynamic gain modification based in part on an occurrence of an auditory event, i.e. one modification/one event. Therefore, it is unclear how many change identifications are being claimed, i.e. one or more than one change identifications, and whether the gain modification is based on one boundary or one event/two boundaries? The remarks with regard to lines 2-5 and lines 6-7 and 10-11 also apply to similar language of claim 16, e.g. lines 3-7 and lines 8-13 and claim 23, lines 2-5 and 11-12 and lines 6-10.
With regard to claim 15, is the computer of this claim and the “hardware” of claim 1” one and the same. With regard to claim 16, is the processor on line 1 and the “hardware” on the last line one and the same? Is the computer of claim 22 and the processor and or the hardware of claim 16 one and the same?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
16. Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 7,508,947 to Smithers (hereinafter also referred to as ‘947 or Smithers).10
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference, it constitutes prior art. This rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or if the same invention is not being claimed, by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
See the entirety of ‘947.
Claim 1
A method for processing an audio signal, the method comprising:
See col. 1, lines 3-9 (“The present invention is related to changing the number of channels in a multichannel audio signal in which some of the audio channels are combined. …The invention includes not only methods but also corresponding computer program implementations and apparatus implementation”) and abstract (“A process for combining audio channels combines the audio channels to produce a combined audio channel and dynamically applies one or more of time, phase, and amplitude or power adjustments to the channels, to the combined channel, or to both the channels and the combined channel.”)
monitoring a characteristic of the audio signal with respect to time, the audio signal including two or more channels of audio content;
identifying a change in the characteristic that exceeds a threshold;
setting an auditory event boundary to demarcate the change in the characteristic, wherein an audio segment between consecutive auditory event boundaries constitutes an auditory event; [and]
See ‘947 at, e.g., col. 3, lines 3-43 and col. 5, line 58-col. 7, line 20 (“Auditory scene analysis research has shown that the ear uses several different auditory cues to identify the beginning and end of a perceived auditory event. As taught in the above-identified applications, one of the most powerful cues is a change in the spectral content of the audio signal. For each input channel, Auditory Scene Analysis 103 performs spectral analysis on the audio of each channel 1 through P at defined time intervals to create a sequence of frequency representations of the signal. In the manner described in said above-identified applications, successive representations may be compared in order to find a change in spectral content greater than a threshold. Finding such a change indicates an auditory event boundary between that pair of successive frequency representations, denoting approximately the end of one auditory event and the start of another. The locations of the auditory event boundaries for each input channel are output as components of the Auditory Scene Analysis information 104. Although this may be accomplished in the manner described in said above-identified applications, auditory events and their boundaries may be detected by other suitable techniques…. Thus, in accordance with an example in the above-identified applications of Crockett, event boundaries may be determined to within half a block length, or about 5.8 milliseconds for the example of a 512 sample block length in a system employing a 44.1 kHz sampling rate. In a practical implementation of aspects of the present invention, each input channel is a discrete time-domain audio signal. This discrete signal may be partitioned into overlapping blocks of approximately 10.6 milliseconds, in which the overlap is approximately 5.3 milliseconds. For an audio sample rate of 48 kHz, this is equivalent to 512 sample blocks of which 256 samples overlaps with the previous block. Each block may be windowed using, for example, a Hanning window and transformed into the frequency domain using, for example, a Discrete Fourier Transform (implemented as a Fast Fourier Transform for speed). The power, in units of decibels (dB), is calculated for each spectral value and then the spectrum is normalized to the largest dB spectral value. Non-overlapping or partially overlapping blocks may be used to reduce the cost of computation. Also, other window functions may be used, however the Hanning window has been found to be well suited to this application. As described in the above-cited applications of Crockett, the normalized frequency spectrum for a current block may be compared to the normalized spectrum from the next previous block to obtain a measure of their difference. Specifically, a single difference measure may be calculated by summing the absolute value of the difference in the dB spectral values of the current and next previous spectrums. Such difference measure may then be compared to a threshold. If the difference measure is greater than the threshold, an event boundary is indicated between the current and previous block, otherwise no event boundary is indicated between the current and previous block. A suitable value for this threshold has been found to be 2500 (in units of dB). Thus, event boundaries may be determined within an accuracy of about half a block.”) and claims 1 and 3-7.
generating a dynamic gain modification including a parameter-modifying dynamically-varying control signal based on the auditory event boundary; and
applying [a] the dynamic gain modification to the audio signal based in part on an occurrence of [an] the auditory event,
See, e.g., ‘947 at e.g., abstract (“…dynamically applies one or more of time, phase, and amplitude or power adjustments to the channels, to the combined channel, or to both the channels and the combined channel. One or more of the adjustments are controlled at least in part by a measure of auditory events in one or more of the channels and/or the combined channel.”) and 10, line 43-col. 11, line 28 (“A limiter and smoother or limiting and smoothing function (Limit, Time & Frequency Smooth) 410 performs appropriate gain limiting and time/frequency smoothing. The spectral amplitude gains discussed just above may have a wide range. Best results may be obtained if the gains are kept within a limited range. …For example, the gains could be held relatively constant during an event and only changed at event boundaries. In this way, possibly audible and dramatic gain changes during an event may be prevented.”) and claim 1 (“dynamically applying one or more … power adjustments to the channels, to the combined channel, or to both the channels and the combined channel, wherein one or more of said adjustments are controlled at least in part by a measure of auditory events in one or more of the channels and/or the combined channel so that the adjustments remain substantially constant during auditory events and are allowed to change at or near auditory event boundaries…”).
wherein the method for processing the audio signal is implemented at least in part in hardware.
See, e.g., ‘947 at, e.g., col. 15, lines 56-58.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1 wherein the characteristic includes loudness.
See preceding discussion of claim 1 and ‘947 at, e.g., col. 6, lines 12-15 (Auditory events are perceived units of sound with characteristics that remain substantially constant throughout the event…time, phase and/or amplitude (or power)…” and claim 1.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1 wherein the characteristic includes perceived loudness.
See the preceding discussion of claim 2.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1 wherein the characteristic includes phase.
See the preceding discussion of claim 2.
Claim 5
The method of claim 1 wherein the characteristic includes a sudden change in signal power.
Absent recitation of the time specifics of the terminology “sudden”, the terminology “sudden” is considered relative. See proceeding discussion of claim 2.
Claim 6
The method of claim 1 wherein the auditory event boundary is identified by examining changes in the characteristic between the two or more channels.
See the prior discussion of claim 1 and ‘947 at, e.g., col. 8, line 50-col. 9, line 9 (“Hold 303 (FIG. 3) When an event boundary is indicated via ASA information 104 for a channel, Hold 303 copies the delay value for that channel from 302 to the corresponding output channel delay signal 304. When no event boundary is indicated, Hold 303 maintains the last delay value 304. In this way, time alignment changes occur at event boundaries and are therefore less likely to lead to audible artifacts. Delay 305-1 through 305-P (FIG. 3) Since the delay signal 304 can be either positive or negative, each of the Delays 305-1 through 305-P by default may be implemented to delay each channel by the absolute maximum delay that can be calculated by Calc Delays 301. Therefore, the total sample delay in each of the Delays 305-1 through 305-P is the sum of the respective input delay signal 304-1 through 304-P plus the default amount of delay. This allows for the signals 302 and 304 to be positive or negative, wherein negative indicates that a channel is advanced in time relative to the reference channel. When any of the input delay signals 304-1 through 304-P change value, it may be necessary either to remove or replicate samples. Preferably, this is performed in a manner that does not cause audible artifacts. Such methods may include overlapping and crossfading samples.”) and col. 7, line 24-col. 8, line 48 (“ Time & Phase Correction 202 (FIG. 2) Time and Phase Correction 202 looks for high correlation and time or phase differences between pairs of the input channels. FIG. 3 shows the Time and Phase Correction 202 in more detail. As explained below, one channel of each pair is a reference channel. One suitable correlation detection technique is described below. … The delay between each non-reference channel and the reference channel may be calculated using any suitable cross-correlation method. …”)
Claim 7
The method of claim 6 wherein the characteristic includes interchannel phase difference.
See the discussion of claims 1 and 6 above.
Claim 8
The method of claim 6 wherein the characteristic includes interchannel correlation.
See the discussion of claims 1 and 6 above.
Claim 9
The method of claim 1 wherein the applying a dynamic gain modification modifies a gain-smoothing time constant.
See discussion of claim 1, e.g. col. 10, line 43-col. 11, line 28 (“A limiter and smoother or limiting and smoothing function (Limit, Time & Frequency Smooth) 410 performs appropriate gain limiting and time/frequency smoothing. … the gains could be held relatively constant during an event and only changed at event boundaries. In this way, possibly audible and dramatic gain changes during an event may be prevented.”).
Claim 10
The method of claim 1 wherein the applying a dynamic gain modification further comprises modifying the gain gradually as the gain is applied to consecutive auditory events, so that the gain is not disjoint over time.
See the discussion of claim 9 above.
Claim 11
The method of claim 1 wherein the applying a dynamic gain modification further comprises generating a second audio signal based on the audio signal, wherein the second signal is an enhanced version of the audio signal.
See the discussion of claims 1 and 9, and ‘947 at, e.g., Figs., channels 1…P and combined channel 414, col. 2, lines 33 and39-40 and col. 3, lines 60-64 (“The main goal of the invention is to improve the sound quality of combined audio signals. This may be achieved, for example, by performing, variously, time, phase and/or amplitude (or power) correction to the audio signals, and by controlling such corrections at least in part with a measure of auditory scene analysis information.”).
Claim 12
The method of claim 1 wherein the auditory event boundary coincides with a beginning or end of a block of data in the audio signal.
See,’947 at ,e.g., col. 3, lines 11-43 and thereby, ‘123 at, e.g., col. 6, line48-col. 7, line 2 (“In principle, the processed audio may be digital or analog and need not be divided into blocks. However, in practical applications, the input signals likely are one or more channels of digital audio represented by samples in which consecutive samples in each channel are divided into blocks … Thus, in practice, auditory events are likely to be determined by examining blocks of; for example, 512 samples, which corresponds to about 11.6 ms of input audio at a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, within larger blocks of audio sample data. However, throughout this document reference is made to "blocks" rather than "subblocks" when referring to the examination of segments of audio data for the purpose of detecting auditory event boundaries. Because the audio sample data is examined in blocks, in practice, the auditory event temporal start and stop point boundaries necessarily will each coincide with block boundaries.…”) and col. 7, line 53-col. 8, line 12 (“The first step, illustrated conceptually in FIG. 6 calculates the spectral content of successive time segments of the audio signal. In a practical embodiment, the ASA block size is 512 samples of the input audio signal. In the second step 5-2, the differences in spectral content from block to block are determined (‘Perform spectral profile difference measurements’). Thus, the second step calculates the difference in spectral content between successive time segments of the audio signal. As discussed above, a powerful indicator of the beginning or end of a perceived auditory event is believed to be a change in spectral content. In the third step 5-3 (‘Identify location of auditory event boundaries’), when the spectral difference between one spectral-profile block and the next is greater than a threshold, the block boundary is taken to be an auditory event boundary. The audio segment between consecutive boundaries constitutes an auditory event. Thus, the third step sets an auditory event boundary between successive time segments when the difference in the spectral profile content between such successive time segments exceeds a threshold, thus defining auditory events. In this embodiment, auditory event boundaries define auditory events having a length that is an integral multiple of spectral profile blocks with a minimum length of one spectral profile block (512 samples in this example). In principle, event boundaries need not be so limited. As an alternative to the practical embodiments discussed herein, the input block size may vary, for example, so as to be essentially the size of an auditory event.”).
Claim 13
The method of claim 1 further comprising adjusting the auditory event boundary to coincide with a boundary of a block of data in the audio signal.
See the discussion of claim 12 above (“As an alternative to the practical embodiments discussed herein, the input block size may vary, for example, so as to be essentially the size of an auditory event.”).
Claim 14
The method of claim 1 wherein a size of the auditory event includes one or more whole blocks of data.
See the prior discussion of claim 12 above (“In this embodiment, auditory event boundaries define auditory events having a length that is an integral multiple of spectral profile blocks with a minimum length of one spectral profile block (512 samples in this example).”).
Claim 15
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with a computer program for causing a computer to perform the method of claim 1.
See ‘947 at, e.g., col. 15, line 56-col. 16, line 23 ( “The inventive system may also be considered to be implemented as a computer-readable storage medium, configured with a computer program, where the storage medium so configured causes a computer system to operate in a specific and predefined manner to perform the functions described herein.”) and claim 13.
Claim 16
A method in which a processor receives an input signal and generates an output signal, comprising:
detecting changes in a measurable characteristic of the input signal with respect to time, the input signal including two or more audio channels;
identifying a change in the measurable characteristic of the input signal that exceeds a threshold;
classifying a location11 in the input signal near the change as an auditory event boundary, wherein an audio segment between consecutive auditory event boundaries constitutes an auditory event;
Therefore, see the discussion of lines 1-7 of claim 1 above.
generating one or more dynamically-varying parameters in response to the auditory event; and
applying a gain modification to the input signal based on the one or more dynamically-varying parameters to generate the output signal,
wherein the method is implemented at least in part in hardware.
See the discussion of claim 1, lines 8-12, e.g., ‘947 at col. 10, line 43-col. 11, line 28 and col. 15, lines 56-58.
Claim 17
The method of claim 16 wherein the measurable characteristic is a phase difference between at least two or the two more audio channels.
See the discussion of similar language in claim 7 above.
Claim 18
The method of claim 16 wherein the measurable characteristic is a correlation between at least two of the two more audio channels.
See the discussion of similar language in claim 8 above.
Claim 19
The method of claim 16 wherein applying a gain modification further comprises smoothing a gain applied to the input signal.
See the discussion of similar language in claim 12 above.
Claim 20
The method of claim 16 wherein the classified location coincides with a boundary of a block of data in the input signal.
See the discussion of similar language in claim 13 above.
Claim 21
The method of claim 16 further comprising adjusting the classified location to coincide with a boundary of a block of data in the input signal.
See the discussion of similar language in claim 14 above.
Claim 22
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with a computer program for causing a computer to perform the method of claim 16.
See the discussion of similar language in claim 15 above.
Claim 23
A method for processing an audio signal, the method comprising:
monitoring a characteristic of the audio signal with respect to time, the audio signal including two or more channels of audio content;
identifying a change in the characteristic that exceeds a threshold;
setting an auditory event boundary to demarcate the change in the characteristic, wherein an audio segment between consecutive auditory event boundaries constitutes an auditory event; and applying a dynamic gain modification to the audio signal based in part on an occurrence of the auditory event,
See the discussion of claim 1, lines 1-7 and 10-11 above.
wherein the auditory event boundary is identified by examining changes in the characteristic between the two or more channels.
See the discussion of claim 6.
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.
17. Claims 1, 15, 16 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,881 in view of US Patent No. 7,508,947 to Smithers.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application are mainly differ from those in the ‘881 patent with regard to the recited limitation of two or more channels of audio content, instead of “an audio signal” as presented in the claims 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,881. However, US Patent No. 7,508,947 teaches/recites similar characteristic change detection, auditory event boundary identification and gain modification with respect to two or more channels of audio content and implemented at least in part in hardware. See paragraph 16 above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of US Patent No. 7,508,947 with the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,881 in order to implement processing an audio signal/material for dynamic gain modification by detecting, identifying and modifying multiple channeled audio signal/material as claimed in claims 1, 15-16 and 22 of the instant application.
18. Claims 1, 15, 16 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,508,947 to Smithers in view of US Patent No. 7,711,123 and 8,144,881.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application are broader than the ones in the patent Below is a chart showing the similarities and differences of instant application independent claims and U.S. Patent No. 7,508,947, independent claims 1 and 13.
Instant application
7,508,947
1. A method for processing an audio signal, the method comprising:
the audio signal including two or more channels of audio content;
monitoring a characteristic of the audio signal with respect to time,
identifying a change in the characteristic that exceeds a threshold; setting an auditory event boundary to demarcate the change in the characteristic, wherein an audio segment between consecutive auditory event boundaries constitutes an auditory
event; and
generating a dynamic gain modification including a parameter-modifying dynamically-varying control signal based on the auditory event boundary;
applying a dynamic gain modification to the audio signal based in part on an occurrence
of an auditory event
wherein the method for processing the audio signal is implemented at least in part in
hardware..
1. A process for combining audio channels, comprising
combining the audio channels to produce a combined audio channel,
…wherein each auditory event boundary is identified in response to a change in signal characteristics with respect to time in a channel exceeding a threshold such that a set of auditory event boundaries is obtained for the channel, wherein an audio segment in the channel between consecutive boundaries constitutes an auditory event.
…and dynamically applying one or more of time, phase, and amplitude or power adjustments to the channels, to the combined channel, or to both the channels and the combined channel, wherein one or more of said adjustments are controlled at least in part by a measure of auditory events in one or more of the channels and/or the combined channel so that the adjustments remain substantially constant during auditory events and are allowed to change at or near auditory event boundaries,
16. A method in which a processor receives an input signal and generates an output signal, comprising:
the input signal including two or more audio channels
detecting changes in a measurable characteristic of the input signal with respect to time,…;
identifying a change in the measurable characteristic of the input signal that exceeds a threshold; classifying a location in the input signal near the change as an auditory event boundary, wherein an audio segment between consecutive auditory event boundaries constitutes an auditory event;
generating one or more dynamically-varying parameters in response to the auditory event; and applying a gain modification to the input signal based on the one or more dynamically- varying parameters to generate the output signal
wherein the method is implemented at least in part in hardware.
1. A process for combining audio channels, comprising
combining the audio channels to produce a combined audio channel,
(See also claim 13 below)
…wherein each auditory event boundary is identified in response to a change in signal characteristics with respect to time in a channel exceeding a threshold such that a set of auditory event boundaries is obtained for the channel, wherein an audio segment in the channel between consecutive boundaries constitutes an auditory event.
…and dynamically applying one or more of time, phase, and amplitude or power adjustments to the channels, to the combined channel, or to both the channels and the combined channel, wherein one or more of said adjustments are controlled at least in part by a measure of auditory events in one or more of the channels and/or the combined channel so that the adjustments remain substantially constant during auditory events and are allowed to change at or near auditory event boundaries,
15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with a
computer program for causing a computer to perform the method of claim 1.
22. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with a computer program for causing a computer to perform the method of claim 16.
13. A computer program, stored on a computer-readable medium for causing a computer to perform the methods of any one of claims 1, 8 and 10.
With regard to the language shown in bold, the claims in the application are broader than the those in the patent. 214 U.S.P.Q. 761 In re Van Ornum and Stanz. With regard to the monitoring recitation of claim 1 and the detecting recitation of claim 16, while the claims of ‘947 recite identifying event boundaries in response to a signal characteristic change they do not explicitly state the changes are detected/monitored. See, however, ‘123 at, e.g., claim 1 in which similar signal characteristic changes are monitored/detected with regard to multiple channels.12 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine such teachings of US Patent No. 7,711,123 with the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 7,508,947 in order to determine the signal characteristic changes from which event boundaries are identified as claimed in the claims of ‘947. With regard to the hardware limitation, see, e.g., ‘123 at col. 12, lines 8-13 which teaches hardware used to implement the determination of the signal characteristic changes from which event boundaries are identified. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine such teachings of US Patent No. 7,711,123 with the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 7,508,947 in order to implement the determination of the signal characteristic changes from which event boundaries are identified as claimed in the claims of ‘947.
Response to Arguments
The remarks on page 7, part I, first paragraph, regarding status have been noted.
The remarks on pages 7-8, section II, have been considered but are deemed not persuasive. The remarks cite to col. 4, lines 24-29 and the abstract of ‘929 for support of the ‘102 original patent application at, e.g., col. 3, line 61-col. 4, line 13 and the claims, i.e. “merely a rewriting of the ‘DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION’ to reflect aspects of the claims. However, the ‘102 application at col 4, lines 21-27 and the abstract duplicate the portions of the ‘929 application cited by the remarks, i.e. not rewritten. Furthermore, even if “rewritten” to “reflect aspects of the claims”, where is the support for “the aspects of the claims”? Where is the support for, e.g., col. 3, lines 64-67, col. 4, lines 5-13 and the claims, e.g., 6-7, 16 (last four lines) and 17-18?
The remarks with regard to the ADS on page 8, section III, are moot in that the objection has not been maintained.
The remarks on page 8, section IV have been considered. While a supplemental paper showing changes was filed on January 16, 2026, see paragraph 9 above with regard to now pending issues. Note also paragraphs 12 and 14 above.
The remarks on pages 8-9, section V, first paragraph, dealing with the declaration have been noted. Attention is invited to paragraph 10 above again with regard to the pending issues.
The remarks on page 9, first-fourth full paragraphs, with regard to the specification have been noted. With regard to the argument that the disclosure of structure with regard to “these embodiments” is optional is not persuasive. The disclosure explicitly states otherwise, i.e. “is identified” not, e.g., “may” or “can be” identified. The objection to claims 7-8 and 17-18 with respect to antecedent basis was not maintained.
The remarks on page 9, section VI, with respect to the drawings are noted but are not persuasive. Note the discussion in paragraph 9 above again with regard to pending drawing issues.
The remarks on page 10, section VII, are moot in that the objections have not been maintained.
The remarks on page 10, section VII., first three paragraphs, repeats the position discussed with regard to the specification on page 9 of the remarks, i.e. identifying the auditory event boundary by examining changes in the characteristic between the two or more channels of the audio signal is optional, not required. The assertions continue to be not persuasive in light of the explicit disclosure as discussed above with regard to the specification.
The remarks on page 10, last two paragraphs with regard to the clarity of how many change identifications are being claimed at a minimum are noted. However, the remarks address changing “a auditory event” being changed to --the auditory event--. Also neither this amendment nor the additional amendments clarify how may changes and settings, see lines 4-7 of claim 1 are being claimed at a minimum. See also the now pending issues in paragraph 15 above.
The remarks on pages 11-12 with regard to the prior art have been noted but are narrower than the teachings of Smithers and the claim language as best understood, , see, e.g., paragraphs 12 and 14-16 above again. Claim 1 now sets forth, as best understood, generating a dynamic gain modification and applying the dynamic gain modification to the audio signal based in part on an occurrence of the auditory event, and the modification including a parameter-modifying dynamically-varying control signal based on the auditory event boundary. As defined earlier in the claim an auditory event is defined between consecutive event boundaries. Smithers, at, e.g. abstract, 10:43-11:18 and claim 1 teaches, e.g., dynamically varying of amplitude gains which varying depends on whether it is during an event or at event boundaries, i.e. a dynamic gain modification and applying the dynamic gain modification to the audio signal based in part on an occurrence of the auditory event, and the modification including a parameter-modifying dynamically-varying control signal based on the auditory event boundary.
The remarks on pages 12-13 with regard to claim 23 have been considered but are not persuasive. The remarks appear to be arguing that the identification of the auditory event boundary as claimed on the last two lines (i.e. the audio event boundary is identified by examining changes in the characteristic between two channels), is claimed as preceding the step of setting of a boundary to demarcate the change in the characteristic of the audio channel13, however; the claim language is not so limiting. See also paragraph 16 above again.
The remarks on page 11, section IX have been considered. The remarks assert the hardware implementation limitation and generation of a dynamic gain modification limitation distinguish over the ‘881 and ‘947 patents. See the discussion in paragraphs 17 and 18 with regard to the hardware limitation. With regard to the generation of a dynamic gain modification, see claims 3-5 of ‘881 and the portion of claim 1 of ‘947 cited in paragraph 18 (i.e. “dynamically applying one or more of time, phase, and amplitude or power adjustments to the channels, to the combined channel, or to both the channels and the combined channel, wherein one or more of said adjustments are controlled at least in part by a measure of auditory events in one or more of the channels and/or the combined channel so that the adjustments remain substantially constant during auditory events and are allowed to change at or near auditory event boundaries”).
Conclusion
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Amendments
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b). In addition, for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, when any substantive amendment is filed in the reissue application, which amendment otherwise places the reissue application in condition for allowance, a supplemental oath/declaration will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01.
Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 8,428,270 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely appraise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
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.
Inquiries:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karin M Reichle whose telephone number is (571)272-4936. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00-6:00 M-Th.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
All correspondence relating to this proceeding may be submitted via:
Electronically: Registered users may submit via Patent Center
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/.
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
Central Reexamination Unit
By hand: United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
For Patent Center transmissions, 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)(i)(C) and (ii) states that correspondence (except for a request for reexamination and a corrected or replacement request for reexamination) will be considered timely filed if (a) it is transmitted via the Office's electronic filing system in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4) , and (b) includes a certificate of transmission for each piece of correspondence stating the date of transmission, which is prior to the expiration of the set period of time in the Office action.
/Karin Reichle/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Cameron Saadat/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 The term of the patent is extended or unadjusted by 0 days.
2 It is noted that the entire invention must be supported (per 35 USC 112) in a single document relied upon for benefit of filing date.
3 As discussed above, col. 4, lines 5-9 and claims 6-8 and 17-18 first appeared in the ‘102 application of the original patent as filed May 4, 2012. These portions of the ‘102 application are the only portions of the ‘102 application which explicitly describe two or more channels of audio content.
4 See paragraph 14 below.
5 "In other embodiments, the audio processing method generates one or more dynamically-varying parameters in response to the auditory event. A gain modification is applied to the audio signal based on the one or more dynamically-varying parameters."
6 See also original patent claim 16.
7 "In other embodiments, the audio processing method generates one or more dynamically-varying parameters in response to the auditory event. A gain modification is applied to the audio signal based on the one or more dynamically-varying parameters."
8 See also original patent claim 16,
9 See paragraph 12 above, i.e. “at the very least…”
10 Amendments made January 16, 2026 shown by bracketing and underlining.
11 The terminology “classifying a location” only appears in the claims. In light of the Merriam Webster Thesaurus regarding the term “classify” and the disclosure, the terminology will be interpreted as “identifying” a location.
12 Note also ‘947 at col. 3, lines 11-20.
13 It is unclear whether it is being argued that the last two lines is further definition of the step of identifying a change in the characteristic of an audio signal with respect to time or just prior to the step of setting.