DETAILED ACTION
This examination is in response to the communication filed on 09/07/2023. Claims 1-27 are currently pending, where claims 1, 22, 26 and 27 are independent.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024, 12/06/2023, 11/27/2023 and 09/07/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7 include insufficient shading to clearly distinguish between the data points representing M=1.00 and M=0.50 in the graph. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, line 2, the phrase “…is significantly depending on the…” should read “…is significantly dependent on the…”;
Page 2, line 4, the phrase “In order to result pleasant…” should read “In order to achieve a pleasant result…”;
Page 16, line 2, the phrase “It is possible use…” should read “It is possible to use…”;
Page 23, lines 3-4, the phrase “The four possible main states…are illustrated in the state diagram of Fig. 4 with the reference signs…” should read “The four possible main states…are illustrated in the state diagram of Fig. 6 with the reference signs…”;
Page 23, lines 12-13, the phrase “These are exemplified in Fig. 6 by the multiple states of the same color” should read “These are exemplified in Fig. 6 by the multiple states of the same outline” It appears Applicant has replaced the coloring with different outlining.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, lines 1-2 recites “Apparatus according to claim 17, to determine the plurality of succeeding gains…by iteratively applying…” should read “Apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine…by iteratively applying…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a signal characteristics provider” and “a gain sequence generator” in claims 1, 26, and 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, in view of page 39, lines 14-15 of the Specification, they are interpreted as being a hardware apparatus, computer, or a combination thereof configured to perform the claimed functionality/algorithm.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-27 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a further one of the one or more signal characteristics" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "when the second input gain" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "a further one of the one or more signal characteristics" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "a further one of the one or more signal characteristics" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-25 variously depend from or incorporate the limitations of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and/or mathematical algorithm without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 26, and 27 recite “receiving or determining signal characteristics information on one or more characteristics of the audio signal…” and “determining the sequence of output gains depending on the sequence of input gains…”.
The limitations of “receiving…” and “determining…” as drafted, are a process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea of “mental processes” because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). That is, other than reciting “a signal characteristics provider” (claim 1), “a gain sequence generator” (claim 1), and a “computer” (claim 27), nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person
receiving or determining signal characteristics information on one or more characteristics of the audio signal, wherein the signal characteristics information depends on the background signal, wherein the signal characteristics information comprises a sequence of input gains which depends on the background signal and on a foreground signal of the audio signal (e.g., by the person listening to the audio signal and determining whether the background signal, e.g., music, is overpowering/interfering, i.e., louder, than a speaker/speech in the foreground signal),
determining the sequence of output gains depending on the sequence of input gains (e.g., by the person, e.g., an audio engineer, manually controlling/adjusting a mixing panel or writing down when, i.e., at what time, the background signal should be ducked and a level of ducking. It is also noted, that the Specification notes that ducking background signals were a manual process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “a signal characteristics provider” (claim 1), “a gain sequence generator” (claim 1), and a “computer” (claim 27), are all recited at a high-level of generality, and page 39, lines 14-15 of the Specification describes the use of a general-purpose computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. At best, the abstract idea, i.e., algorithm for generating/determining output gains suitable for attenuating a background signal, is merely implement using a general purpose computer. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two).
Claims 1, 26, and 27 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “general purpose computer” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3 and 13-20, these claims are directed to the length of the transition period for gradually changing the input gain to reach the target gain being based on the amount of the input gain. These limitations also relate to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person using different transition period durations based on the background signal. No additional elements are present.
With respect to dependent claims 4-6, these claims relate to the selection of a modification rule based on the desired duration of the transition period. These limitations also relate to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by the person selecting a modification rule based on a desired transition duration. No additional elements are present.
With respect to dependent claims 7-8, these claims relate to utilizing the determination of speech in the background signal to alter the gain values. These limitations also relate to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by the person altering the gain/attenuation amount based on whether speech is present in the background signal.
With respect to dependent claims 9-11, these claims relate to the utilization of a threshold test/level in generating the input gains. These limitations also relate to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by the person determining or receiving input gains based on a ratio between the background and foreground signal. No additional elements are present.
With respect to dependent claim 21, this claim relate to the scale, i.e., logarithmic or linear, of the output gains. These limitations also relate to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by the person utilizing either a logarithmic or linear scale. No additional elements are present.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 12-14, 16 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 10,600,432 B1; herein “Chu”).
Regarding claims 1, 26 and 27, Chu teaches an apparatus, method and non-transitory digital storage medium (Fig. 19 and col. 14, lines 42-47 teaches “…the system 100 may include computer-readable and computer-executable instructions that reside on the server(s) 120…”) for providing a sequence of output gains (Fig. 9, gain chart 910), wherein the sequence of output gains is suitable for attenuating a background signal of an audio signal (col. 6, lines 13-18 teaches “…to perform power normalization, the server(s) 120 may determine (138) a gain for each interval…”), wherein the apparatus/method comprises:
a signal characteristics provider configured to receive or to determine signal characteristics information on one or more characteristics of the audio signal wherein the signal characteristics information depends on the background signal (Col. 4, lines 3-5 teaches “The signal processor 210 may modify the audio data 111 and estimate a background noise power associated with the audio data 111”), wherein the signal characteristics information comprises a sequence of input gains which depends on the background signal and on a foreground signal of the audio signal (Col. 6, lines 35-51 teaches “…each of the intervals may be modified using an individual gain determined based on a peak power value associated with the interval…Fig. 7B illustrates an interval gain chart 730 that represents uniform power gains 732 that vary based on the interval” because the peak power depends on both the foreground, e.g., speech, and background signal, the gain for each interval depends on the background and foreground signal); and
a gain sequence generator configured to determine the sequence of output gains depending on the sequence of input gains (Col. 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 5 teaches “…the server(s) 120 may determine a gain for each interval based on a flatness value between zero and one…the gain for each interval based on the following equation:
g
'
=
g
-
min
g
*
f
l
a
t
n
e
s
s
+
m
i
n
(
g
)
, where g’ is he output gain, g is the individual gain for the interval (e.g., uniform power gains 732 illustrated in Fig. 7B, min(g) is the minimum gain 722, and flatness is the flatness value…” thus the sequence of output gains is a modification of the sequence of individual interval gains);
wherein, to determine the sequence of outputs gains, to modify a current gain value of a current gain of the sequence of output gains to a target gain value, the gain sequence generator is configured to determine a plurality of succeeding gains, which succeed the current gain in the sequence of output gains, by gradually changing the current gain value according to a modification rule during a transition period to the target gain value, wherein the modification rule depends on the signal characteristics information (col. 8, lines 2-15 teaches “the server(s) 120 may determines a new gain based on the desired output loudness and the peak power…In addition to determining the new gain, the server(s) 120 may determine a gain drop from the previous gain to the new gain. To avoid an abrupt drop in gain, the server(s) 120 may use the gain drop to lower the grain in neighboring audio frames surrounding the peak…determine an incremental gain by dividing the gain drop by a number of audio frames and may the user the incremental gain to transition from the overall gain to the gain drop over the course of the number of audio frames…” also, col. 9, lines 3-10 teaches “To avoid these issues, the server(s) 120 may extend the gain in either direction based on a gain drop rate, as illustrated in Fig. 13. By extending the gain at the border of the interval, the server(s) 120 may transition between different gain values without abrupt changes the may cause distortions or other degradations of the audio data”); and/or
wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the target gain value depending on a further one of the one or more signal characteristics in addition to the sequence of input gains (the “or” makes this limitation option. Nevertheless Col. 8, lines 50-60 teaches “…the server(s) 120 may calculate the gain for the active interval based on an average power, a second or third peak power, or the like…” ).
Regarding claim 2, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Chu further teaches wherein, to attenuate the background signal or to increase an attenuation of the background signal, the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the plurality of succeeding gains, which succeed the current gain, by gradually changing the current gain value according to the modification rule during the transition period to the target gain value, such that a duration of the transition period depends on the signal characteristics information (col. 8, lines 2-15 teaches “the server(s) 120 may determines a new gain based on the desired output loudness and the peak power…In addition to determining the new gain, the server(s) 120 may determine a gain drop from the previous gain to the new gain. To avoid an abrupt drop in gain, the server(s) 120 may use the gain drop to lower the grain in neighboring audio frames surrounding the peak…determine an incremental gain by dividing the gain drop by a number of audio frames and may the user the incremental gain to transition from the overall gain to the gain drop over the course of the number of audio frames…” also, col. 9, lines 3-10 teaches “To avoid these issues, the server(s) 120 may extend the gain in either direction based on a gain drop rate, as illustrated in Fig. 13. By extending the gain at the border of the interval, the server(s) 120 may transition between different gain values without abrupt changes the may cause distortions or other degradations of the audio data” because since the transition period, i.e., number of frames, is based on the amount of the change/drop in the gain, the duration of the transition period depends on the signal characteristics information).
Regarding claim 9, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Chu further teaches wherein the signal characteristics provider is configured to determine depending on the signal characteristics information, whether or not the current gain value of the current gain of the sequence of output gains shall be modified (Col. 8, lines 1-8 teaches “…the server(s) 120 may determine a new gain based on the desired output loudness and the peak power”).
Regarding claim 12, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Chu further teaches wherein the foreground signal and background signal are encoded within a sequence of audio frames, and/or wherein the audio signal is encoded within the sequence of audio frames (Col. 4, lines 62-67 teaches “As used herein, an audio sample may refer to a single data point while an audio frame may refer to a series of consecutive audio samples…” ), wherein the sequence of output gains to be determined by the gain sequence generator is a current sequence of output gains being associated with a current frame of the sequence of audio frames, and wherein, for determining the current sequence of output gains, the gain sequence generator is configured to use information being encoded within a current frame of the sequence of audio frames, without using information encoded in a succeeding frame of the sequence of audio frames, which succeeds the current audio frame in time (Col. 4, lines 62-67 teaches “As used herein, an audio sample may refer to a single data point while an audio frame may refer to a series of consecutive audio samples…”).
Regarding claim 13, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Chu further teaches wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine an adaptive attack time, such that a duration of the transition period during which the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the plurality of succeeding gains, which succeed the current gain, by gradually changing the current gain value, depends on the adaptive attack time, wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the plurality of succeeding gains, which succeed the current gain, depending on the adaptive attack time (col. 8, lines 2-15 teaches “the server(s) 120 may determines a new gain based on the desired output loudness and the peak power…In addition to determining the new gain, the server(s) 120 may determine a gain drop from the previous gain to the new gain. To avoid an abrupt drop in gain, the server(s) 120 may use the gain drop to lower the grain in neighboring audio frames surrounding the peak…determine an incremental gain by dividing the gain drop by a number of audio frames and may the user the incremental gain to transition from the overall gain to the gain drop over the course of the number of audio frames…” the number of audio frames is interpreted as the attack time).
Regarding claim 14, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 13 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Chu further teaches wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the adaptive attack time depending on an input gain value of one of the input gains of the sequence of input gains (col. 8, lines 2-15 teaches “the server(s) 120 may determines a new gain based on the desired output loudness and the peak power…In addition to determining the new gain, the server(s) 120 may determine a gain drop from the previous gain to the new gain. To avoid an abrupt drop in gain, the server(s) 120 may use the gain drop to lower the grain in neighboring audio frames surrounding the peak…determine an incremental gain by dividing the gain drop by a number of audio frames and may the user the incremental gain to transition from the overall gain to the gain drop over the course of the number of audio frames…” the drop is based on the difference between the input gain and the new gain), or indicates an average of a plurality of input gain values of a plurality of input gains of the sequence of input gains, being stored within a current input gain buffer of the apparatus (the “or” make this limitation optional ).
Regarding claim 16, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 13 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Chu further teaches wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to use the adaptive attack time to determine a smoothing coefficient, which defines for the transition period a degree of adaptation towards the target gain value from one of the plurality of succeeding gains to its immediate successor, wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the plurality of succeeding gains, which succeed the current gain, depending on the smoothing coefficient (col. 8, lines 2-15 teaches “the server(s) 120 may determines a new gain based on the desired output loudness and the peak power…In addition to determining the new gain, the server(s) 120 may determine a gain drop from the previous gain to the new gain. To avoid an abrupt drop in gain, the server(s) 120 may use the gain drop to lower the grain in neighboring audio frames surrounding the peak…determine an incremental gain by dividing the gain drop by a number of audio frames and may the user the incremental gain to transition from the overall gain to the gain drop over the course of the number of audio frames…” the attack time, e.g., the number of frames, determines the amount of decrease between each successive gain needs to smooth the drop, therefore, the amount is interpreted as the smoothing coefficient).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7, 21, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barkale (US 2017/0092290 A1; herein “Barkale”).
Regarding claim 7, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). However, Chu fails to disclose wherein, to attenuate the background signal or to increase an attenuation of the background signal, the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the target gain value depending on an input gain of the sequence of input gains and depending on a presence of speech in the background signal.
Barkale teaches a method and system for automatic calculation of gains for mixing narration (foreground signal) into first audio content, wherein the system automatically reduces the volume of the first audio content according to a threshold value and a knee value such that the first audio content does not overwhelm the narration (i.e., foreground signal). More specifically, Barkale teaches wherein, to attenuate the background signal or to increase an attenuation of the background signal, the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the target gain value depending on an input gain of the sequence of input gains and depending on a presence of speech in the background signal (Fig. 3, Voice Level 324 and Non-Voice Level 326 and ¶[0060] teaches “The content analyzer 302 receives the content audio data 322, analyzes the content data 322, and generates a voice level 324 and a non-voice level 326” and ¶[0062] teaches “the ducking amount calculator 400 receive the voice level 324, the non-voice level 326 and the narration level 328, calculates a ducking amount 306…” the content audio data 322 is interpreted as the background signal).
Chu differs from the claimed invention, as defined by claim 7, in that Chu fails to explicitly disclose calculating the target gain depending on a presence of speech in the background signal. Gain control which alters/determines the ducking gain depending on the presence of speech in the background signal is known in the art as evidenced by Barkale. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the voice enhancement system of Chu to include determining the ducking gain depending on the presence of speech in the background signal as taught by Barkale as it merely constitutes the combination of known element to achieve the predictable result of preventing background content from overwhelming the foreground audio by detecting/distinguish nuisance speech in the background signal.
Regarding claim 22, Chu teaches a system for generating an audio output signal, wherein the system comprises: an apparatus according to claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). However, Chu fails to disclose an audio mixer as recited in claim 22.
Barkale teaches a method and system for automatic calculation of gains for mixing narration (foreground signal) into first audio content, wherein the system automatically reduces the volume of the first audio content according to a threshold value and a knee value such that the first audio content does not overwhelm the narration (i.e., foreground signal). More specifically, the system comprises:
an audio mixer (Fig.3, Audio Mixer 306) for generating the audio output signal, wherein the audio mixer is configured to receive the sequence of output gains ( Fig. 3, Ducking amount 330) from the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the audio mixer is configured to amplify or attenuate a background signal by applying the sequence of output gains on the background signal to acquire a processed background signal (Fig. 5, step 510 and ¶[0080] teaches “At 510, the first audio data is attenuated according to the loudness measure to form attenuated first audio data…may use the ducking amount calculator 400 (see Fig. 3) and the audio mixer to attenuate the first audio data and to form the attenuated first audio data” ), and wherein the audio mixer is configured to mix a foreground signal and the processed background signal to acquire the audio output signal ( Fig. 5, step 512 ¶[0081] teaches “At 512, the attenuated first audio data and the second audio data are mixed to form a second content item”).
Chu differs from the claimed invention, as defined by claim 22, in that Chu fails to explicitly disclose using a mixer to attenuate the background signal and mix the attenuated background signal with the foreground signal. Using a mixer to attenuate a background signal prior to mixing it with a foreground signal is known in the art as evidenced by Barkale. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the voice enhancement system of Chu to include the mixer of Barkale as it merely constitutes the combination of known element to achieve the predictable result of preventing background content from overwhelming the foreground audio.
Regarding claim 21, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). However, Chu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the sequence of output gains in a logarithmic domain, such that the sequence of output gains is suitable for being subtracted from or added to a level of the background signal, or wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the sequence of output gains in a linear domain, such that the sequence of output gains is suitable for dividing the plurality of samples of the background signal by the sequence of output gains, or such that the sequence of output gains is suitable for being multiplied with the plurality of samples of the background signal.
Barkale teaches a method and system for automatic calculation of gains for mixing narration (foreground signal) into first audio content, wherein the system automatically reduces the volume of the first audio content according to a threshold value and a knee value such that the first audio content does not overwhelm the narration (i.e., foreground signal). More specifically, Barkale teaches wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the sequence of output gains in a logarithmic domain, such that the sequence of output gains is suitable for being subtracted from or added to a level of the background signal (¶[0074] teaches “Within the ducking amount calculator 400, parameters may be adjust as follows. The threshold value (see 406) may generally range between 1 dB and 40 dB…The low ratio compressor (see 412 and 414) may generally compress at a ratio between 2:1 and 10:1…”), or wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine the sequence of output gains in a linear domain, such that the sequence of output gains is suitable for dividing the plurality of samples of the background signal by the sequence of output gains, or such that the sequence of output gains is suitable for being multiplied with the plurality of samples of the background signal (the “or” make this limitation optional)
Chu differs from the claimed invention, as defined by claim 21, in that Chu fails to explicitly disclose using a logarithmic domain/scale for the ducking gains. Using a logarithmic domain for gain ducking is known in the art as evidenced by Barkale. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the voice enhancement system of Chu to include the mixer and logarithmic gain ducking of Barkale as it merely constitutes the combination of known element to achieve the predictable result of preventing background content from overwhelming the foreground audio.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Chu and Barkale teaches all of the elements of claim 22 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Barkale further teaches wherein the plurality of output gains is represented in a logarithmic domain, and the audio mixer is configured to subtract the plurality of output gains or a plurality of derived samples, being derived from the plurality of output gains, from a level of the background signal to acquire the processed background signal (¶[0074] teaches “Within the ducking amount calculator 400, parameters may be adjust as follows. The threshold value (see 406) may generally range between 1 dB and 40 dB…The low ratio compressor (see 412 and 414) may generally compress at a ratio between 2:1 and 10:1…”), or wherein the plurality of output gains is represented in the logarithmic domain, and the audio mixer is configured to add the plurality of output gains or the plurality of derived samples to the level of the background signal to acquire the processed background signal (the “or” makes this limitation optional), or wherein the plurality of output gains is represented in a linear domain, and the audio mixer is configured to divide the plurality of samples of the background signal by the plurality of output gains or by the plurality of derived samples to acquire the processed background signal, or wherein the plurality of output gains is represented in the linear domain, and the audio mixer is configured to multiply the plurality of output gains or the plurality of derived samples with the plurality of samples of the background signal to acquire the processed background signal (the “or” makes this limitation optional).
Chu differs from the claimed invention, as defined by claim 23, in that Chu fails to explicitly disclose using a logarithmic domain/scale for the ducking gains. Using a logarithmic domain for gain ducking is known in the art as evidenced by Barkale. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the voice enhancement system of Chu to include the mixer and logarithmic gain ducking of Barkale as it merely constitutes the combination of known element to achieve the predictable result of preventing background content from overwhelming the foreground audio.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17-20, 24 and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 and §112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Dickens et al. (US 20150032446) teaches using different transition periods for the gain control based on the duration of the onset detection (see Fig. 4 and ¶¶[0081]-[0082]). However, neither Chu nor Dickens teaches for suggest wherein a smaller first input gain value of a sequence of input gains results in a shorter first duration of the transition period compared to a second duration of the transition period when the second input gain value of a sequence of input gains is greater, if the smaller first input gain value indicates a greater disturbance of the foreground signal by the background signal than the second input gain value, or wherein a smaller first input gain value of a sequence of input gains results in a longer first duration of the transition period compared to a second duration of the transition period when the second input gain value of a sequence of input gains is greater, if the smaller first input gain value indicates a smaller disturbance of the foreground signal by the background signal than the second input gain value as recited in claim 3. At best the prior art suggests altering the transition period based on the length of the speech portion, not the level of the input gain value.
Regarding claim 4, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Barkale teaches to reduce an attenuation of the background signal, the gain sequence generator is configured to select, depending on the signal characteristics information, a modification rule candidate out of two or more modification rule candidates as the modification rule (see the low ration compressor 412, high ration compressor 416, and no ducking 408 in Fig. 4). However, neither Chu, nor the other art of record, teaches or suggest wherein selecting a first one of the two or more modification rule candidates by the gain sequence generator results in a shorter first duration of the transition period, during which the current gain value is gradually changed by the gain sequence generator to the target gain value, compared to a second duration of the transition period, when a second one of the two or more modification rules is selected by the gain sequence generator.
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 4 and therefore are allowable for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, although the combination of Chu and Barkale teaches all of the elements of claim 7 (see detailed element mapping above). The combination fails to disclose or suggest wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine that the target gain value is a first value, which depends on said input gain, if the signal characteristics information indicates that the background signal comprises speech or that a confidence value indicating a probability that the background signal comprises speech is greater than a threshold value, wherein the gain sequence generator is configured to determine that the target gain value is a second value, which depends on said input gain, the second value being different from the first value, if the signal characteristics information indicates that the background signal does not comprise speech or that a confidence value indicating the probability that the background signal comprises speech is smaller than or equal to a threshold value, wherein applying the target gain value with the first value on the background signal attenuates the background signal more compared to applying the target gain value with the second value on the background signal. In other words, the prior art of records fails to disclose or suggest attenuating the background signal more if the background signal contains speech then if it is does not contain speech.
Regarding claim 10, although the combination of Chu and Barkale teaches all of the elements of claim 9 (see detailed element mapping above). The combination fails to disclose or suggest wherein the signal characteristics provider is configured to conduct a threshold test using a current input gain value of a current input gain of the sequence of input gains for the threshold test, wherein the threshold test comprises determining whether or not the current input gain value is smaller than a threshold, or the threshold test comprises determining whether or not the current input gain value is smaller than or equal to the threshold.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and therefore is allowable for the same reasons as claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, Chu teaches all of the elements of claim 14 (see detailed element mapping above). However, neither Chu nor the other prior art of record teaches or suggest the signal characteristics provider is configured to determine the adaptive attack time depending on:
A
A
T
t
=
min
(
A
A
T
t
-
1
,
m
a
x
(
m
i
n
A
T
,
(
M
a
x
A
T
-
M
∙
m
a
x
A
T
∙
g