DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/31/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5/15/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
A copy of the cited Dolby NPL has not been provided nor any portion that would have caused it to be listed. There is only a single page showing links to the documentation.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 and 15-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 15 and 27 introduce the term “HOA” without first defining it (e.g. Higher Order Ambisonics (HOA)).
Claim 1 reads “group multiple” in line 8, which appears to be a typo. Claims 15 and 22 have the same issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 7, 17, 21 and 24 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.
As to claims 3, 21 and 24, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the IR as modified by the reverberation parameters.”
As to claims 7 and 21, they use the phrase “such as,” which is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 15, 18, 21, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2023/0179941 A1), hereinafter “Wang.”
As to claim 1, Wang discloses a decoding side method for spatial audio rendering using metadata (Fig. 6A.), the method comprising:
decoding a plurality of audio objects, a plurality of channels, or an HOA representation of a sound program from a bitstream (¶0137-0138, Fig. 6A. “Obtain a to-be-rendered audio signal and first reverberation information by decoding a received bitstream.” “The to-be-rendered audio signal includes at least one of a sound-channel-based audio signal, an object-based audio signal, or a scene-based audio signal.”); and
receiving metadata of the sound program (¶0139, Fig. 6A. “Obtain control information, where the control information indicates at least one of content description metadata, rendering format flag information, loudspeaker configuration information, application scene information, tracking information, posture information, or location information.”), wherein the metadata comprises
a first message that instructs a decoding side process on whether to apply scene reverberation during playback of the sound program i) on a per audio object basis or on a group multiple objects from the plurality of audio objects, ii) on a per channel basis or on a group of multiple channels from the plurality of channels, or iii) on the HOA representation (¶0141-0142, Fig. 6A. “Perform control processing on the to-be-rendered audio signal based on the control information to obtain an audio signal obtained after the control processing, and perform reverberation processing on the audio signal obtained after the control processing based on the first reverberation information.” “The foregoing control processing includes at least one of performing initial 3DoF processing on the sound-channel-based audio signal in the to-be-rendered audio signal, performing conversion processing on the object-based audio signal in the to-be-rendered audio signal, or performing initial 3DoF processing on the scene-based audio signal in the to-be-rendered audio signal.”).
As to claim 4, Wang discloses wherein the metadata comprises a full room geometry or an index to a selected set of room-geometry-based reverberation parameters (¶0037, ¶0138 and ¶0146. “The first reverberation information includes at least one of… first room shape and size information.), the method further comprising:
applying no scene reverberation during the playback in accordance with the first message; applying the scene reverberation during the playback in accordance with the full room geometry as instructed by the first message; or applying the scene reverberation during the playback in accordance with the selected set of room-geometry-based reverberation parameters as instructed by the first message (¶0037, ¶0138 and ¶0146. “The obtaining module is further configured to obtain first reverberation information by decoding the bitstream, where the first reverberation information includes at least one of… first room shape and size information.” “perform, based on the first reverberation information, reverberation processing on the audio signal obtained through the control processing, to obtain a first audio signal.”).
As to claim 7, Wang discloses wherein the metadata comprises a reverberation parameter such as a room geometry-based reverberation parameter (¶0138 and ¶0146. “The first reverberation information includes at least one of …first room shape and size information.),
the method further comprises: applying no scene reverberation in accordance with the first message; or applying the scene reverberation in accordance with the reverberation parameter (¶0037, ¶0138 and ¶0146. “The obtaining module is further configured to obtain first reverberation information by decoding the bitstream, where the first reverberation information includes at least one of… first room shape and size information.” “perform, based on the first reverberation information, reverberation processing on the audio signal obtained through the control processing, to obtain a first audio signal.”).
Claims 15 and 22 are directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 18 and 25 are rejected under claims 15 and 22 using the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim 21 is rejected under claim 15 using the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 15 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0264927 A1), hereinafter “Kim.”
As to claim 3, Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the metadata further comprises an index to a set of reverberation parameters, the method further comprising: applying no scene reverberation during the playback in response to the first message; applying the scene reverberation during the playback in accordance with the index to the set of reverberation parameters as specified in the first message; or applying the scene reverberation during the playback in accordance with the IR as modified by the reverberation parameters, as specified in the first message.
Kim discloses wherein the metadata further comprises an index to a set of reverberation parameters (Kim, ¶0068. “The decoder system 500 may obtain syntax elements representing a plurality of room reverb coefficient sets, each of the room reverb coefficient sets corresponding to a different candidate position (e.g., multiple room reverb coefficients (RIRs) at variable candidate positions). The audio renderer 510 may then select one of the room reverb coefficient sets based on obtained metadata (e.g., user position/orientation).”), the method further comprising: applying no scene reverberation during the playback in response to the first message; applying the scene reverberation during the playback in accordance with the index to the set of reverberation parameters as specified in the first message; or applying the scene reverberation during the playback in accordance with the IR as modified by the reverberation parameters, as specified in the first message (Kim, ¶0068. “The decoder system 500 may obtain syntax elements representing a plurality of room reverb coefficient sets, each of the room reverb coefficient sets corresponding to a different candidate position (e.g., multiple room reverb coefficients (RIRs) at variable candidate positions). The audio renderer 510 may then select one of the room reverb coefficient sets based on obtained metadata (e.g., user position/orientation).”).
Wang and Kim are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to audio rendering.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply reverb based on metadata, as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to improve the listener experience by better preserving the artistic intent (Kim, ¶0004).
Claims 17 and 24 are rejected under claims 15 and 22 using the same motivation as claim 3 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26 and 27 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:
Honma et al. (US 2021/0195363 A1) – see Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs.
Sheaffer et al. (US 2022/0059123 A1) - ¶0038-0039 discloses selecting an impulse response from a database based on metadata, but isn’t directed to applying reverberation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights