DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 3/2/2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending
Partial 35 USC 112b rejections are withdrawn
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Raghuvanshi and Chen, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the novelty of the claimed invention which relates to a response signal reduction and/or reduce a computation amount and improve computational efficiency (remarks, pg. 10).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument regarding the prior art. The claim clearly recites “…wherein the number of response signals suitable for audio rendering is smaller than or equal to the number of the response signals in the response signal set.” Applicant’s argument appears to assume that the claim only recites “…wherein the number of response signals suitable for audio rendering is smaller than the number of the response signals in the response signal set.” However, based on the claim, as originally filed, Raghuvanshi teaches …acquiring a response signal set, the response signal set comprising response signals derived from sound signals, wherein the sound signals are signals received at a listening position (¶47, obtaining one or more impulse responses at the listening location based on audio output); and processing the response signals in the response signal set on the basis of perceptual characteristics related to the response signals, to obtain response signals suitable for audio rendering, wherein the number of the response signals suitable for audio rendering is smaller than or equal to the number of the response signals in the response signal set (¶47, 60, impulse response functions contain parameters that can be used at the decoder side during audio playback to reconstruct the playback scene; no signals are added or subtracted so the decoder simply decodes the encoded signals). The Examiner further notes that “reducing computational complexity” or “improving computational efficiency” is an obvious target of many inventive concepts. Raghuvanshi (¶47) further teaches “In at least one example, to reduce computation and storage requirements, the encoding conducted by the encoding module 304 comprises parameterizing the seven-dimensional pressure field.” Raghuvanshi (¶60) also teaches “For example, in an implementation where the techniques described herein are applied to a video game, specialized computing device(s) 400 may represent a relatively low-resource device such as a video game console, a tablet computer, a smart phone, etc. In this example, device(s) 200 may pre-compute the parameterized impulse responses of a virtual three-dimensional video game environment and store the parameterized impulse responses…” Based on the above, it would appear that Raghuvanshi is keenly aware of the potential limitations that could arise on the client side and thus prepared some solutions beforehand.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, it recites “…performing mathematical statistics on attribute information….” However, the claim does not make clear what type of “mathematical statistic” is being performed. MPEP 2173.05(g) states “Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.” Applicant’s own specification (pg. 18) provides solutions to this problem: “As an example, mathematical statistics may be averaging, such as various suitable types of averaging calculations, such as spatial averaging, weighted averaging, and the like.”
Regarding claim 16, it contains similar deficiency as claim 8. See above as an example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raghuvanshi et al (US20150373475, hereinafter “Raghuvanshi”).
Regarding claim 1, Raghuvanshi teaches a signal processing method for audio rendering (abstract, technique of audio processing), comprises:
acquiring a response signal set, the response signal set comprising response signals derived from sound signals, wherein the sound signals are signals received at a listening position (¶47, obtaining one or more impulse responses at the listening location based on audio output); and
processing the response signals in the response signal set on the basis of perceptual characteristics related to the response signals, to obtain response signals suitable for audio rendering, wherein the number of the response signals suitable for audio rendering is smaller than or equal to the number of the response signals in the response signal set (¶47, 60, impulse response functions contain parameters that can be used at the decoder side during audio playback to reconstruct the playback scene; no signals are added or subtracted so the decoder simply decodes the encoded signals).
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The device can be found in Raghuvanshi (¶5, device).
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The medium can be found in Raghuvanshi (¶34, medium).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghuvanshi et al (US20150373475, hereinafter “Raghuvanshi”) in view of Chen et al (US20190182612, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 2, Raghuvanshi fails to explicitly teach wherein the perceptual characteristics include relative perceptual characteristics between response signals, and the processing the response signals in the response signal set on the basis of perceptual characteristics related to the response signals comprises:
judging whether the relative perceptual characteristics between the response signals in the response signal set or a neighboring response signal set in the response signal set meet perceptual requirements, and
when it is judged that the relative perceptual characteristics between the response signals do not meet the perceptual requirements, performing merging or removal for the response signals.
Chen teaches wherein the perceptual characteristics include relative perceptual characteristics between response signals, and the processing the response signals in the response signal set on the basis of perceptual characteristics related to the response signals comprises:
judging whether the relative perceptual characteristics between the response signals in the response signal set or a neighboring response signal set in the response signal set meet perceptual requirements (¶72, a masking requirement can be compared against to determine perceptual characteristics), and
when it is judged that the relative perceptual characteristics between the response signals do not meet the perceptual requirements, performing merging or removal for the response signals (¶71, a clustering technique (e.g. merging) may be performed if one object is determined to mask another).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of clustering (as taught by Chen) to the audio reproduction system (as taught by Raghuvanshi). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of combining/clustering one or more audio objects/signals to reduce computation complexity (Chen, ¶25).
Regarding claim 3, Raghuvanshi in view of Chen teaches wherein the relative perceptual characteristics and the perceptual requirements are related to mutual masking situations between response signals,
the judging whether the relative perceptual characteristics between the response signals in the response signal set or the neighboring response signal set in the response signal set meet perceptual requirements comprises:
acquiring relevant information about the mutual masking situations between every two response signals in the response signal set or the neighboring response signal set in the response signal set, and determining magnitudes of the mutual masking situations between every two response signals (Chen, ¶74-75, degree of masking can be determined as a function of (k,m) wherein k refers to one audio object and m refers to another audio object);
when it is judged that the relative perceptual characteristics between the response signals do not meet the perceptual requirements, performing merging or removal for the response signals comprises:
when the mutual masking situation between two response signals is large, merging the two response signals to obtain an updated response signal (Chen, ¶71, a clustering technique (e.g. merging) may be performed if one object is determined to mask another).
Regarding claim 5, Raghuvanshi in view of Chen teaches wherein the neighboring response signal sets in the response signal set include response signals in the response signal set with at least one of time interval, space interval or frequency domain interval between each other being smaller than a second proximity threshold (Raghuvanshi, ¶83, a time interval can be selected and an appropriate threshold (e.g. 5ms) can also be chosen).
Regarding claim 6, Raghuvanshi in view of Chen teaches wherein the relative perceptual characteristics between the response signals and the perceptual requirement are related to the proximity between the response signals, wherein the proximity between response signals includes at least one of temporal proximity, spatial proximity, and frequency domain proximity,
wherein the judging whether the relative perceptual characteristics between the response signals in the response signal set or the neighboring response signal set in the response signal set meet perceptual requirements comprises:
for each response signal in the response signal set or the neighboring response signal set in the response signal set, judging whether the proximity between the response signal and any other response signal in the response signal set or the neighboring response signal set in the response signal set is smaller than a first proximity threshold,
when it is judged that the relative perceptual characteristics between the response signals do not meet the perceptual requirements, performing merging or removal for the response signals comprises:
when the proximity between two response signals is smaller than the first proximity threshold, merging the two response signals (Chen, ¶24, 26, spatial proximity between audio objects can be determined and clustering can further be based on the spatial proximity of the audio objects).
Regarding claim 8, Raghuvanshi in view of Chen teaches wherein the merging includes performing mathematical statistics on attribute information about the response signals as the attribute information of the merged response signal,
wherein the attribute information about response signal comprises at least one of temporal information, spatial information and sound intensity information (Chen, ¶62, weighting algorithm can be applied to the audio objects to obtain their perceptual differences and provide the subsequent result to the clustering subsystem; ¶63, a spatial difference can also be obtained).
Regarding claim 9, Raghuvanshi in view of Chen teaches wherein the perceptual characteristics related to response signal comprises perceptual intensity characteristics of the response signal itself, wherein the perceptual intensity characteristics of the response signal itself comprises at least one of a sound pressure level of a sound signal corresponding to the response signal, and the ratio of the sound pressure level of the sound signal corresponding to the response signal based on a channel to a reference sound pressure level (Raghuvanshi, ¶45, a pressure field can be determined that shows the sound pressure level at the listening space from a sound source), and
wherein the processing the response signals in the response signal set on the basis of perceptual characteristics related to the response signals comprise:
in a case where the perceptual intensity characteristics of a response signal itself is below a certain absolute perceptual threshold, not using the response signal for audio rendering (Chen, ¶34, performing clustering to reduce the overall complexity of rendering by utilizing metadata such as spatial positioning, velocity, content type, object width, loudness, and the like).
Regarding claims 11-12, they are rejected similarly as claims 2-3, respectively. The device can be found in Raghuvanshi (¶5, device).
Regarding claims 14-15, they are rejected similarly as claims 5-6, respectively. The device can be found in Raghuvanshi (¶5, device).
Regarding claims 16-17, they are rejected similarly as claims 8-9, respectively. The device can be found in Raghuvanshi (¶5, device).
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected similarly as claim 2. The medium can be found in Raghuvanshi (¶34, medium).
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected similarly as claim 9. The medium can be found in Raghuvanshi (¶34, medium).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights