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 .
This Office Action is in response to claim amendment filed on April 21, 2026 and wherein claims 1-15 remain cancelation status and claims 16-21, 27-31, 35 amended.
In virtue of this communication, claims 16-35 are currently pending in this Office Action.
With respect to the objection of claims 16-35 due to formality issue, as set forth in the previous Office Action, the argument, see paragraph 3 of page 5 in Remarks filed on April 21, 2026, has been fully considered and the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the objection of claims 16-35 due to the formality issues, as set forth in the previous Office Action, has been withdrawn.
With respect to the non-statutory obvious-type double patenting rejection of claims 16-35 over conflicting claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,014,743 B2 in view of in view of Kim (US 20090210238 A1) and Ishikawa (US 20110029113 A1), the terminal disclaimer filed on April 21, 2026 has been received and approved. Therefore, the non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 16-35 over conflicting claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,014,743 B2 in view of Kim (US 20090210238 A1) and Ishikawa (US 20110029113 A1) has been withdrawn.
The Office appreciates the explanation of the amendment and analyses of the prior arts, and however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145.
Specification
The application specification failed to disclose “in response to the first weight being at least larger than the second weight, merging the first and second metadata parameters by determining to output at least one of the multiple first metadata parameters” as recited in claims 18, 30 and “in response to the second weight being at least larger than the first weight, merging the first and second metadata parameters by determining to output at least one of the multiple second metadata parameters” as recited in claims 21, 31.
As indicated by Remarks filed on April 21, 2026, the application specification disclosed “merging”, as indicated in Remarks filed on April 21, 2026, e.g., merging or combining of spatial metadata parameters ([0065])”, “merge the streams by mixing or some other combining ([0067])”, “metadata is combined by adding … ([0117])”, “direct metadata mixing or merging …([0118])”, “direct mixing may be one in which metadata is mixed with … ([0126])”, etc., and none of them would be considered as a support of limitations recited in claims 18, 30, 21, 31 above, e.g., (1) the indicated paragraphs above have no support to a conditional merging by reciting “in response of …, merging …” and (2) it does not make any sense that “merging first and second metadata parameters” is performed by “determining to output at least one of the multiple first metadata parameters”, i.e., “merging” two types of “metadata parameters” can’t be performed by “determining” one type of “metadata parameters”. Therefore, the specification objection maintained.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings’ objection maintained for the at least similar reasons as described in specification objection above.
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.
Claims 18-23, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recited “merging the first and second metadata parameters by …” and wherein “the first and second metadata parameters” has an insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in claim 18 and causes confusing because it is unclear what they are referred back to and what they are and thus, renders claim indefinite. Claims 19-20 are rejected due to the dependencies to claim 18.
Claim 21 is rejected for the at least similar reasons described in claim 18 above since claim 21 recited the similar deficient feature as recited in claim 18 above. Claims 22-23 are rejected due to the dependencies to claim 21.
Claims 30-31 are rejected for the at least similar reasons described in claim 18, 21 above since claims 30-31 recited the similar deficient feature as recited in claim 18, 21 above, respectively.
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 of this title, 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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20090210238 A1, hereinafter Kim) and in view of reference Ishikawa et al. (US 20110029113 A1, hereinafter Ishikawa).
Claim 16: Kim teaches an apparatus (title and abstract, ln 1-8, multipoint control unit MCU, para 113, or a downmix apparatus in fig. 12 and details in figs. 19) comprising:
at least one processor (effect processor 208 in fig. 10, pre-processor 207 in fig. 10, and post processor 185 in fig. 8 and in a plurality of computer systems, para 216); and
at least one memory storing instructions (functional programs, code stored in computer-readable recording medium, para 216) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus (the computer systems executed the program and code in a decentralized manner, para 216) to perform at least the following:
determining, for at least a first audio stream (downmix representing audio objects 1, 2, …, n in fig. 12, detailed in fig. 19, downmix A representing audio objects 1, 2, …n in fig. 19), multiple first metadata parameters (side information A in fig. 19) comprising at least at least one first energy ratio parameter (a ratio of each of the energy levels to a total energy level of the object signals, para 113, or to the highest energy level of the object signal for object 1, 2., …, n, para 142) and at least one first audio signal energy parameter (each of the energy level of the audio objects, para 113, or a highest energy level in a predetermined parameter band for objects 1, 2, …, n in fig. 19, para 142);
determining, for at least a second audio stream (downmix representing audio objects A, B, …, C in fig. 12, detailed in fig. 19, downmix B representing audio objects 1’, 2’, …n’ in fig. 19), multiple second metadata parameters (side information B in fig. 19) comprising at least at least one second energy ratio parameter (a ratio of each of the energy levels to a total energy level of the object signals, para 113, or to the highest energy level of the object signal for object 1’, 2’., …, n’, para 142) and at least one second audio signal energy parameter (each of the energy level of the audio objects, para 113, or a highest energy level in a predetermined parameter band for objects 1’, 2’, …, n’ in fig. 19, para 142);
determining a first weight based at least on the determined multiple first metadata parameters (the total energy of the audio objects 1, 2, …, n for the ratio above, and thus, the weight is 1/total energy of the audio objects 1, 2, …, n inherently, i.e., averaged to the total energy, para 113, or averaged in different frames for bitstream BS1, para 214);
determining a second weight based at least on the determined multiple second metadata parameters (the total energy of the audio objects 1’, 2’, …, n’ for the ratio above, and thus, the weight is 1/total energy of the audio objects 1’, 2’, …, n’ inherently, i.e., averaged to the total energy, para 113, or averaged in different frames for bitstream BS2, para 213); and
determining spatial metadata to output (side info C is determined and outputted from BOX 3 in fig. 19) based on the first and second weights (based on side info A and side info B, calculated based at least on the total energies of the audio objects 1, 2, …, n and the audio objects 1’, 2’, …, n’ or at least highest energy levels of the audio objects 1, 2, …, n and audio objects 1’, 2’, …, n’ in fig. 19, para 140-142 or individual signal energy for calculating the ratio above).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein it is based on comparison of the first and the second weights for performing the determination of the spatial metadata to output.
Ishikawa teaches an analogous field of endeavor by disclosing an apparatus (title and abstract, ln 1-14 and a combination device MCU in fig. 5 and details in figs. 11, 17, 23, 27) and wherein the apparatus comprising
at least one processor (a CPU or FPGA, etc., para 326-327 or a computer, para 71); and
at least one memory storing instructions (memory including CD-ROM, storing program, para 71) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus (executed by the computer, para 71-72) to perform at least the following:
determining, for at least a first audio stream (DmxB 115 in fig. 4), multiple first metadata parameters (ParasB 113 in fig. 4) comprising at least one first energy ratio parameter and at least one first audio signal energy parameter (including a ratio of the powers of corresponding parameter tiles of the plurality of frequency signals 111, para 135, and absolute energy parameters NRG, para 136, IOC, para 137, and downmix gains DMG, para 138);
determining, for at least a second audio stream (DmxC 115 in fig. 4), multiple second metadata parameters (ParasC 113 in fig. 4) comprising at least one second energy ratio parameter and at least one second audio signal energy parameter (including a ratio of the powers of corresponding parameter tiles of the plurality of frequency signals 111, para 135, and absolute energy parameters NRG, para 136, IOC, para 137, and downmix gains DMG, para 138);
determining a first weight based at least on the determined multiple first metadata parameters (a highest energy level among the plurality of frequency signals 111, para 136, or an energy of a frequency signal among frequency signals, used for calculating the ratio discussed above, e.g., for ParasB in fig. 4, and used for calculating the energy ratio above or gain value NRG parameter, para 156, for ParasB in fig. 4);
determining a second weight based at least on the determined multiple second metadata parameters (a highest energy level among the plurality of frequency signals 111, para 136 or an energy of a frequency signal among frequency signals, used for calculating the ratio discussed above, e.g., for ParasC in fig. 4, and used for calculating the energy ratio above or gain value NRG parameter, para 156, for ParasC in fig. 4); and
determining spatial metadata to output (ParasBCD outputted from parametric encoder 405 in fig. 4) based on comparison of the first and second weights (via detection unit 501 in figs. 8, 17, 23, 27, and combining parameter sub-streams 113 that have signal energy, as weight for each of calculated ratio to the highest energy of the signal above, more than a thresholds, and generating the combined parameter sub-stream 122 in figs. 8, 17, 23, 27, para 162-164) for benefits of reducing computation complexity (by processing a single stream after combining the multiple audio signals, para 35-36) in acceptable high-quality processing (in a low bit rate, para 129, 184).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied wherein it is based on the comparison of the first and second weights for determining the spatial metadata to output, as taught by Ishikawa, to determining the spatial metadata to output based on the first and second weights in the apparatus, as taught by Kim, for the benefits discussed above.
Claim 28 recited a method and essentially same as the functions implemented by the apparatus as recited in claim 16 above and thus, rejected according to claim 16 above.
Claim 17: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 16 above, wherein:
determining the multiple first metadata parameters comprises analysing the first audio stream to determine at least one of the multiple first metadata parameters (Kim, through an analyzer 102 in the object encoder 100, para 122 and extracting parameters by a parameter extraction unit 102B of the analyzer 102, para 126 and the analyzer 102 analyzes the resulting frequency signal 111 using two different methods, and extracting object parameters from the frequency signals 111, para 128 and for objects 1, 2, …, n through BOX 1 in fig. 19, and Ishikawa, through parameter extraction unit 102B in fig. 1 and for ParasB in fig. 4); and
determining the multiple second metadata parameters comprises analysing the second audio stream to determine at least one of the multiple second metadata parameters (Kim, through an analyzer 102 in the object encoder 100, para 122 and extracting parameters by a parameter extraction unit 102B of the analyzer 102, para 126 and the analyzer 102 analyzes the resulting frequency signal 111 using two different methods, and extracting object parameters from the frequency signals 111, para 128 and for objects 1’, 2’, …, n’ through BOX 2 in fig. 19, and Ishikawa, through parameter extraction unit 102B in fig. 1 and for ParasC in fig. 4).
Claim 18: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 16 above, wherein the determining the spatial metadata to output further comprises:
in response to the first weight being at least larger than the second weight (Kim and Ishikawa, the signal energy, and NRG, as the weight, e.g., for ratio calculation, as discussed above, Ishikawa, the parameters having the NRG parameter or signal energy that is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, are combined through element 404 in fig. 4, para 155-156, and the parameters having the NRG parameter or signal energy that is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value can be mapped either first weight or second weight, vise verse), merging the first and second metadata parameters by determining to output at least one of the multiple first metadata parameters (Kim, by combining through the box 265 in fig. 19 and Ishikawa, through the adder 404 in fig. 4, para 23).
Claim 19: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 18 above, wherein the at least one of the multiple first metadata parameters that are determined to be output comprises directional metadata for the first audio stream (Kim, the side information including energy difference information, phase difference information, para 30, and representing direction of audio object source by distance, energy difference, and by angles, phase difference inherently and also including direction information of the object signal, para 81).
Claim 20: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 18 above, wherein the at least one of the multiple first metadata parameters that are determined to be output comprises spatial metadata for the first audio stream (Kim, including spatial parameter outputted from parameter converter 145, para 49 and Ishikawa, spatial relevant parameters are synthesized at acoustic scene reconstruction, para 16).
Claim 21: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 16 above, wherein the determining the spatial metadata to output further comprises:
in response to the second weight being at least larger than the first weight, merging the first and second metadata parameters by determining to output at least one of the multiple second metadata parameters (the discussion in claim 18 above, wherein by comparing the NRG or signal energy with the predetermined value through the detection unit 501 in fig. 8, parameters including NGR or signal energy being equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold are combined or merged, discussed in claim 18 above).
Claim 22: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 21 above, wherein the at least one of the multiple second metadata parameters determined to output comprises directional metadata for the second audio stream (Kim, the side information including energy difference information, phase difference information, para 30, and representing direction of audio object source by distance, energy difference, and by angles, phase difference inherently and also including direction information of the object signal, para 81 and discussion in claim 19 above).
Claim 23: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 21 above, wherein the at least one of the multiple second metadata parameters determined to output comprises spatial metadata for the second audio stream (Kim, including spatial parameter outputted from parameter converter 145, para 49 and Ishikawa, spatial relevant parameters are synthesized at acoustic scene reconstruction, para 16 and discussion in claim 20 above).
Claim 24: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 16 above, wherein the first audio stream has an audio signal format that is at least one of: an object based audio signal; or a spatial audio signal (Markush limitation, MPEP 2117, Kim, audio object in fig. 1 and Ishikawa, audio object parameters from the frequency signals 111, para 128, and including spatial sound images as the input, para 15-16).
Claim 25: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 16 above, wherein the second audio stream has a second audio signal format that is at least one of: an object based audio signal; or a spatial audio signal (Markush limitation, MPEP 2117, Kim, audio object in fig. 1 and Ishikawa, audio object parameters from the frequency signals 111, para 128, and including spatial sound images as the input, para 15-16 and the discussion in claim 24 above).
Claim 26: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 16 above, wherein: the determining the first weight comprises determining the first weight based at least on multiplication of the determined multiple first metadata parameters; and the determining the second weight comprises determining the second weight based at least on multiplication of the determined multiple second metadata parameters (Kim, the ratio determined upon either total energy or highest level of signal energy, and individual signal energy with multiplication relationship to the parameters related to the highest level of signal energy or total energy of the signals, para 113, and Ishikawa, downmix gain, NRG, or ratio of the powers of corresponding parameter tiles of the frequency signals 111, para 134-138).
Claim 27: the combination of Kim and Ishikawa further teaches, according to claim 16 above, wherein determining the spatial metadata to output comprises merging spatial metadata from the first audio stream and spatial metadata from the second audio stream based on the comparison of the first and second weights (Kim, combining the parameters through BOX 3, for performing a combining or merging operations of the side info A and the side info B, para 140 and Ishikawa, based comparison to the predetermined threshold value, combining of the parameters through parameter combining unit 755 in fig. 11 and 506 in fig. 8).
Claim 29 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 28, 17 above.
Claim 30 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 28, 18 above.
Claim 31 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 28, 21 above.
Claim 32 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 28, 24 above.
Claim 33 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 28, 25 above.
Claim 34 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 28, 26 above.
Claim 35 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 28, 27 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered and but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the applicant amendment. Although a new ground of rejection has been used to address additional limitations that have been added to claims 16-21, 27-31, 35, a response is considered necessary for several of applicant’s arguments since references Kim et al. (US 20090210238 A1) and Ishikawa et al. (US 20110029113 A1) will continue to be used to meet several claimed limitations.
With respect to the amendment claim 16, applicant argued: Ishikawa does not teach “determining spatial metadata to output based on comparison of the first and second weights” because “These claims (claims 16 and 28) recite comparing the first weight to the second weight to determine spatial metadata to output”, and “The application specification makes clear this distinction. … Fig. 6, w1>cw2 and w2>cw1 …”, as asserted in paragraphs under “Independent claims 16 and 28-First argument” on pages 6-7 in Remarks filed on April 21, 2026.
In response to the argument above, the Office respectfully disagrees because (1) Claims 16, similar to claim 28, broadly recites “comparison of the first and second weights”, other than argued “comparing the first weight to the second weight”, (2) in light of specification as indicated by applicant in the argument above, applicant has mapped “w1” and “w2” (specification and drawing fig. 6) to claimed “first weight” and “second weight”, respectively, and the specification disclosed two comparisons: w1 compared to cw2 (621), and w2 compared to cw1 (623 in fig. 6), and there is no disclosure in the argument that w1 compared to w2 or w2 compared to w1, i.e., there is disclosure about comparing the “first weight” to the “second weight” at all, but compared to cw2 and cw1, respectively, which is essentially anticipated by Ishikawa’s “comparing energy parameters” against “a predetermined threshold value”, (3) in the argument about the claimed objection, applicant also argued “However, there could potentially be two comparisons, as illustrated in this part of FIG. 6 (page 5 in Remarks filed on April 21, 2026)”, i.e., applicant has granted that claimed “comparison of the first and second weights” would be performed by two comparisons of “first weight” and “second weight”, other than argued one comparison: “comparison first weight” to “second weight”. Therefore, applicant argument above is not persuasive and prior art rejection of claims 16, 28 maintained.
With respect to claim 16, similar to claim 28, applicant further argued about claimed “determining a first weight/a second weight based at least on the determined multiple first/second metadata parameters”, respectively and “multiple first/second metadata parameters comprising at least at least one first/second energy ratio parameter and at least one first/second audio signal energy parameter”, etc., and Kim’s “total energy” “is not a distinct weight” that is computed based on both an energy ratio parameter and an audio signal energy parameter as the claims recite”, as asserted from title “Independent claims 16 and 28-Second argument” on pages 8-9 in Remarks filed on April 21, 2026.
In response to the argument above, the Office further disagrees because (1) claim broadly recites “(first/second) weights” are determined upon “at least … multiple first/second metadata”, other than argued “based on both an energy ratio parameter and an audio signal energy parameter”, although claim recites “multiple parameters” “comprising at least at least one first energy ratio parameter and at least one first audio signal energy parameter”, respectively. Therefore, further amending claims to positively and clearly recite the argued that both an energy ratio parameter and an audio signal energy parameter” is the base to perform “determining a first/second weights”, other than broadly “multiple first/second metadata parameters”, (2) claimed “(first/second) weights” are nothing, but merely applied to “comparison” as recited claims, and as discussed in the office action, this “comparison” is missing in Kim, but disclosed by Ishikawa, and applicant is in silence, and (3) although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145. Therefore, the argued “computing a weight value from the combination of an energy ratio parameter and an audio signal energy parameter”, etc., that maybe disclosed in the specification, shall not be read into the claim accordingly. Based on the analyses and evidence above, the prior art rejection to independent claims 16, 28 properly maintained. For the at least similar reasons above, the prior art rejection to dependent claims 17-27, 29-35 maintained.
In the response to this office action, the Office respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Office in prosecuting this application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESHUI ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30amp-4:00pm 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 571-272-7848. 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.
/LESHUI ZHANG/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights