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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29,38 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. The prior art of record does not fairly suggest or teach the application of psychoacoustic parameters, operating on sibilant artifacts, on the level of, the control rate of attack and decay, on sharpness and roughness parameters.
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 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) 21-23, 26, 28, 30, 32-37, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickens (20150248889).
As per claim 21, Dickens (20150248889) teaches a method comprising:
in an in-car communication system, de-essing a speech signal, wherein de-essing said speech signal (as, operating on noise in the audio signal, such as sibilance – para 0025; examiner notes that de-essing is the removal of loudness in an audio signal based on sibilance features – sibilance features being the artificial audio artifacts based on “shhh” sounds or ‘essss’ sounds) comprises, for each time frame of a sequence of time frames: receiving, at a speech-processing system, a full spectral envelope that comprises a combination of said speech signal and background noise, said full spectral envelope consisting of a first part and a second part (as analyzing and generating spectral envelope – para 0198; examiner notes that in Dickens (20150248889) , para 0027, discussion pertains to multiple types of signals, such as noise, reverb, etc.; since de-essing is applied in Dickens (20150248889), this pertains to particular frequency sounds; hence, Dickens (20150248889) operates on separate sections of the envelope);
analyzing said full spectral envelope to identify frequency content for de-essing (as addressing the sections of the signal for sibilance – para 0027);
and spectrally weighting said speech signal to carry out said de-essing, wherein spectrally weighting said speech signal is based on both said first part and said second part, wherein said second part is devoid of sibilant sounds (as providing a sibilance gain to be applied to the frequency components that contain the amplified/loud feature – para 0027).
As per claim 22, Dickens (20150248889) teaches the method of claim 21, wherein spectrally weighting said speech signal to carry out said de-essing based on both said first part and said second part comprises determining weights based on a psychoacoustic measure that has been obtained from said full spectral envelope (– as applying spectral masking based on psychoacoustic curves – para 0094; when analyzing the full spectrum of frequencies – para 0027) .
As per claim 23, Dickens (20150248889) teaches the method of claim 21, wherein spectrally weighting said speech signal to carry out said de-essing based on both said first part and said second part comprises determining weights based on sibilant sounds that have been detected as a result of using a psychoacoustic measure that has been obtained from said first and second parts (as using the masking to determine gain levels – para 0094, and applying the psychoacoustic masking, to provide a cleaning gain – para 0094, and applying that to clean the signal of sibilant sounds – para 0072).
As per claim 26, Dickens (20150248889) teaches the method of claim 21, wherein said speech signal comprises sibilant sounds and wherein spectrally weighting said speech signal to carry out said de-essing based on both said first part and said second part comprises applying de-esser weights to said sibilant sounds of said speech signal (as providing a sibilance gain to be applied to the frequency components that contain the amplified/loud feature – para 0027; ).
As per claim 28, Dickens (20150248889) teaches the method of claim 21, spectrally weighting said speech signal to carry out said de-essing comprises spectrally weighting at a frequency resolution that matches that of said full spectral envelope (as, weighting in the frequency domain – para 0119, 0207, based on the envelope information – para 0202-0205).
Claims 30,32-37,39 are method claims, whose steps are either in-common, or broader, then the method steps found in claims 21-23,26,28 above and as such, these claim elements found in claims 30,32-37,39 are similar in scope and content to claims 21-23,26,28 above; therefore, these commonly found/broader claim elements, in claims 30,32-37,39, are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 21-23,26,28 above. As an example, in claim 30, the first and second signal map to claim 21 first part – second part; the psychoacoustic aspect in claim 30, amps to claim 22. As an example, in claim 32, updating weight for the psycho-acoustic aspect, are found in claim 23. As an example, in claims 33-34,36, claim 28 calls for weighting that equalizes the spectrum across all frequencies, based on a weighting on subfrequency levels. As per claims 35,37, Dickens (20150248889) teaches voice activity detection, and modification of gains based on the level of activity – para 0090, back on para 0089. As an example, in claim 39, setting weights as a function of de-essing – see claim 26.
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.
Claims 24, 25, 27, 31, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Dickens (20150248889) in view of Uhle (20140037111)
As per claim 24, 25, 27, Dickens (20150248889) teaches modifying gains to control audio artifacts such as noise, sibilance, reverb, loudness, and the like – para 0025, para 0085, using psychoacoustic analysis – para 0094 but does not explicitly teach calculating sharpness/roughness aspects of the audio signal; however, Uhle (20140037111) teaches using psychoacoustic properties (para 0038) to generate the proper affects for the user, including reverberation, frequency filtering and attenuation (last half of para 0038), and also calculating/manipulating roughness/sharpness of the signal (para 0121-0123). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of audio/speech perceptual processing to modify the teaching of Dickens (20150248889) to modify loudness/roughness parameters of the signal, as taught by Uhle (20140037111), because it would advantageously allow for further fine tuning of the audio signal so that the output signal result is more to the liking of the user ( Uhle (20140037111), para 0038 – ‘achieving a desired effect for the listener’).
Further to claim 25, the combination of Dickens (20150248889) in view of Uhle (20140037111) teaches the use of psychoacoustic information controlling de-esser information (see Dickens above) on a plurality of acoustic parameters (as shown above in claims 1,2,3,6), however, now on acoustic parameters such as sharpness and roughness (see Uhle, in the combination statement above).
As per claim 27, the combination of Dickens (20150248889) in view of Uhle (20140037111) teaches operating on the attack/release parameters of the sharpness/roughness parameters (see Uhle (20140037111), para 0030, and 0199, operating on the attack-delay measures of the audio signal).
Claims 31, 40 are method claims, whose steps are either in-common, or broader, then the method steps found in claims 24,25,27 above and as such, these claim elements found in claims 31, 40 are similar in scope and content to claims 24, 25, 27 above; therefore, these commonly found/broader claim elements, in claims 31, 40, are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 24, 25, 27 above. As an example, in claim 31, the claimed roughness is found in claim 25. As an example, in claim 40, the claimed sharpness aspect is in claim 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer, received on 11/24/2025, has been reviewed and approved; hence, the ObviousnessType Double Patenting rejection has been overcome, and removed. Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As per applicants arguments on page 3 of the response, toward the Dickens reference and non-voice components, examiner notes that Dickens removes sibilance content (and hence “ess” sounds) in speech signals. Para 0027 of Dickins discusses the attenuation of multiple types of signals, such as noise, reverb, and most relevant to the claim scope, 'sibilance content'. The definition of sibilance, is, the part of the speech frequency range that includes voice sounds such as 's' and 'sh'. The definition of de-essing, is the attenuation sounds in voice signals, that are in the frequency range that includes voice sounds such as 's' and 'sh'. Therefore, the Dickins reference meets the claim scope pertaining to de-essing. Paragraph 0027 of Dickens also explains, the differing types of filtering across the frequency range of the input signal. Returning to applicants own specification, to ascertain the claim scope of "the full spectrum envelope" (see para 0017, para 0051,0055, 0059, 0084, 0085, Fig 4a), under broadest reasonable interpretation, is, the full frequency profile of the signal (ie, amplitude vs frequency, from 0 hertz to some upper-bound Hz.). Clearly, this is met by Dickins application of multiple-type filters throughout the frequency range of the signal. In, Dickens, these models are developed from the 'analyzer' labeled as auditory scene analysis – see fig. 2, subblock 34; as well as the constrained KLT – although applicant is arguing the gain functions, which are found in subblock 61-64 in fig. 2, the gist of the calculations are found in the aforementioned analyzers – also see para 0041, 00178, and 0188, as well as the other citations explaining the auditory scene analysis. As to applicants arguments on the bottom of page 3, toward gain combining and gain mixing, applicants arguments imply that this is performed on a subband basis within a single timeframe; on the contrary, these citations of Dickens are toward multiple time frames of the signal, so that, an over/under emphasis, for one time frame, does not over/underwhelm, speech artifacts in another time frame. These techniques by Dickens also applies to applicants arguments on pp 4 of applicants response.
Examiner further notes, Sandgren (20120243702) performing spectrogram analysis across frequency ranges, along with weight filtering, to address the issue of excess “hissing” sounds associated with the s/z sounds.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sandgren (20120243702) performing spectrogram analysis across frequency ranges, along with weight filtering, to address the issue of excess “hissing” sounds associated with the s/z sounds. See paragraph 0027, 0040-0041, see Figures 1,2.
Uhle (20140037111) further teaches using psychoacoustic properties (para 0038) to generate the proper affects for the user, including reverberation, frequency filtering and attenuation(last half of para 038), and also calculating/manipulating roughness/sharpness of the signal (para 0121-0123).
Xiang (20130259254) teaches attack/delay masking according to speech/speech sparsity (ie, transitions) – para 0164.
Hosaka (20120219157) teaches frequency contour mapping based on audio source, and adjusting the filtering appropriately – Fig. 3, abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Opsasnick, telephone number (571)272-7623, who is available Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Richemond Dorvil, can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael N Opsasnick/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 03/02/2026