The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vilkamo et al. (WO 2020/178475 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Vilkamo discloses a method and an apparatus (see figures 6-10, for example), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform the method (see page 43, lines 1-18), comprising: obtain two or more audio signals (see fig. 10, step 1101); determine a noise amount in the audio signals (e.g., determine “a value у between 0 and 1 indicating the amount or strength of the wind-noise processing. …For instance, in extremely windy conditions the WNR appliance may use a timer to maintain values close to one”, page 23, lines 4-13; note also, that a value у = 0 would indicate a wind noise amount of zero or no wind); select at least one process from two or more processes based on a value of the determined noise amount (see page 29, line 21, through col. 30, line 7, regarding “the spatial metadata modifier is configured to adjust the spatial metadata values based on y, and outputs modified spatial metadata 714” and “… the ambience should be reproduced coherently when y is high”, wherein the audio signals are processed using a first process (e.g., spatially incoherent processing) when y close to 0 (low wind/noise amount), and the audio signals are processed using a second different process (e.g., spatially coherent processing) when y close to 1 (high wind/noise amount)); determine one or more spatial audio parameters (e.g., spatial coherence parameter) with the at least one process; process the two or more audio signals with the determined one or more spatial audio parameters according to the determined noise amount (e.g., the audio signals are processed using a first process (e.g., spatially incoherent processing) when y close to 0 (low wind/noise amount), and the audio signals are processed using a second different process (e.g., spatially coherent processing) when y close to 1 (high wind/noise amount)); and generate spatial audio signals 908 based on the processed two or more audio signals (see fig. 8, “spatial audio output” 908).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, the at least one process selected to determine the one or more spatial audio parameters is dependent upon whether the value у of the determined noise amount is above or below a threshold. For example, when 0 ≤ у < 1/3, then the audio signals are processed using a first process (e.g., spatially incoherent processing), when y closer to 0 than 1 which indicates a low wind/noise amount (see col. 23, lines 4-21, and page 29, line 21, through col. 30, line 7).
Regarding claims 3, the one or more spatial audio parameters (e.g., spatial coherence parameter) are estimated when the value of the determined noise amount is below a threshold. For example, when 0 ≤ у < 1/3, then the audio signals are processed using a spatially coherence parameter (value 0, for example) for low wind/noise amount. See col. 23, lines 4-21, and page 29, line 21, through col. 30, line 7.
Regarding claim 4, a predetermined value (e.g., value 1, for example) is used for the one or more spatial audio parameters (e.g., spatial coherence parameter) if a value y of the determined noise amount is above a threshold. For example, when 2/3 ≤ у, then the audio signals are processed using a spatially coherence parameter (value 1, for example) for high wind/noise amount. See col. 23, lines 4-21, and page 29, line 21, through col. 30, line 7.
Regarding claim 5, the spatial audio parameters comprise at least a direction parameter and a diffuseness parameter. See page 29, line 21, through col. 30, line 7, regarding “spatial metadata, consisting of directions and direct-to-total energy ratios” and “surround coherence parameter”.
Regarding claim 6, the direction parameter and the diffuseness parameter are estimated if a value of the determined noise amount is below a lower threshold. See col. 23, lines 4-21, and page 29, line 21, through col. 30, line 7.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the spatial audio parameters comprise at least a first direction parameter and a second direction parameter. See page 24, lines 29-30, regarding “the spatial analyser 209 thus in some embodiments is configured to determine the spatial metadata, consisting of directions … in frequency bands”.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, the first direction parameter and the second direction parameter is estimated when the value of the determined noise amount is below a lower threshold. See page 26, line 25, through page 27, line 4, regarding the processing when 1/3 ≤ у < 2/3, for example.
Regarding claim 14, the apparatus comprises two or more microphones. See figure 6, regarding “microphone array”.
Claims 7, 8, 11-13, 22, and 23 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.
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “Vilkamo does not disclose an apparatus in the manner claimed in combination with instructions that cause the apparatus to ‘select at least one process from two or more processes based on a value of the determined noise amount’ and ‘determine one or more spatial audio parameters with the at least one process’ as recited by claim 1.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the rejection above, Vilkamo discloses selecting at least one process from two or more processes based on a value of the determined noise amount as claimed. See page 29, line 21, through col. 30, line 7, regarding “the spatial metadata modifier is configured to adjust the spatial metadata values based on y, and outputs modified spatial metadata 714” and “… the ambience should be reproduced coherently when y is high”, wherein the audio signals are processed using a first process (e.g., spatially incoherent processing) when y close to 0 (low wind/noise amount), and the audio signals are processed using a second different process (e.g., spatially coherent processing) when y close to 1 (high wind/noise amount). Vilkamo further determines one or more spatial audio parameters (e.g., spatial coherence parameter) with the at least one process as claimed. For example, when 0 ≤ у < 1/3, the audio signals are processed using a spatially coherence parameter (value 0, for example) for low wind/noise amount. See col. 23, lines 4-21, and page 29, line 21, through col. 30, line 7.
The applicant further argues that “the process selected by Vilkamo is not based upon an amount of the determined noise, or ‘based on a value of the determined noise amount’ in the manner claimed”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Vilkamo teaches that the audio signals are processed using a first process (e.g., spatially incoherent processing) when y close to 0 (low wind/noise amount), and the audio signals are processed using a second different process (e.g., spatially coherent processing) when y close to 1 (high wind/noise amount). See page 29, line 21, through col. 30, line 7, for example.
Accordingly, the claims are deemed correct and are maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 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 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
March 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights