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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent.
Claims 2-9 depend from Claim 1.
Claims 11-18 depend from Claim 10.
Claim 20 depend from Claim 19.
This Application was published as U.S. 2025/0015911.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6 Apr 2024 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference number “707” is mentioned in Par [0070] which is not mentioned in any drawings. Fig 7 refers to reference number “706” which is not mentioned in the specification.
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. 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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/273763, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application. Claims 1, 10, and 19 refer to the following limitations not supported by the provisional:
one-sided filtering first audio segments of the first audio stream to pass only positive
frequencies of the first audio segments to first filtered audio segments;
one-sided filtering second audio segments of the second audio stream to pass only
positive frequencies of the second audio segments to second filtered audio segments; [Provisional application 63/273763 does not mention “one-side filtering” or passing “only positive frequencies.”]
With regards to dependent claims 5 and 14:
Provisional application does not mention “center frequency.”
With regards to dependent claims 6 and 15:
Provisional application does not mention “complex envelopes” or “quality factor.”
With regards to dependent claims 8 and 17:
Provisional application does not mention “cross power.”
With regards to dependent claim 9:
Provisional application does not mention “one-sided filtering.“
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 1-2, 4-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite various limitations that, but for generic computer components (i.e. one or more computer processors, memory, or computer readable medium) can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and are considered abstract ideas. The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover the concept of receiving a first and second audio signal, where the second audio signal has the same content as the first, but is delayed with respect to the first by some time delay. The first audio is then filtered to only allow positive frequencies, similarly for the second audio, then cross-correlated the first and second filtered audios, detecting a peak of the cross-correlated data, and then estimating the time delay based on the position of the peak. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite elements in the form of “memory,” “processor,” or “computer readable medium.” These elements are used to perform the claimed methods and steps, and are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component to estimate a time delay. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not include subject matter that could not be performed by a human, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of using the generic computing elements to perform the claimed elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or can be considered insignificant extra solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, and mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. For the all the reasons stated above, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 2, the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because time aligning the first and second audio steam can be done in one’s mind as an abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements because are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Furthermore, no improvement to a technology or technical field is provided in any limitation. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 4, the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because filtering data can be done in one’s mind as an abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Furthermore, no improvement to a technology or technical field is provided in any limitation. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 5, the claim further limits the elements of claim 4; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because bandpass filter response can be done in one’s mind as an abstract idea. Similar to claim 4, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Furthermore, no improvement to a technology or technical field is provided in any limitation. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 6, the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because cross correlating can be done in one’s mind as an abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements because are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Furthermore, no improvement to a technology or technical field is provided in any limitation. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 7, the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because averaging the cross-correlation results can be done in one’s mind as an abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements because are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Furthermore, no improvement to a technology or technical field is provided in any limitation. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 8, the claim further limits the elements of claim 7; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because computing, averaging, and determining can be done in one’s mind as an abstract idea. Similar to claim 7, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements because are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Furthermore, no improvement to a technology or technical field is provided in any limitation. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 9, the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because processing audio streams to introduce a phase distortion and filtering data can be done in one’s mind as an abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Furthermore, no improvement to a technology or technical field is provided in any limitation. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 is an apparatus claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10-11, 13, and 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch (US2013/0077805 hereinafter Kirsch) in view of Wala (US6836660 hereinafter Wala)
With regards to claim 1, Kirsch teaches:
A method comprising: receiving a first audio stream that conveys audio content and a second audio stream that conveys the audio content and is delayed relative to the first audio stream by a time delay; [Kirsch Fig 1B teaches first (150) and second (152) media signal where in a “example implementation, the first and second media signals 150, 152 may be any two media signals recorded from different sources that are to be combined, or merged for playback” (Par [0027]) where two sources of the same audio stream will be delayed relative to a time delay by the distance of the sources and receivers]
cross correlating the first filtered audio segments against corresponding ones of the
second filtered audio segments, to produce cross-correlation results; [Kirsch Fig 2A teaches “first and second sub-sampled first and second blocks 206a, 206b are provided as input signals to a coarse misalignment estimator 208” (Par [0044])]
detecting a peak indicated by the cross-correlation results; and [Kirsch teaches generating a histogram of the cross-correlation results and detecting a peak by the “time delay on the histogram having the highest correlation between the two signals has the highest level and appears as a peak in the histogram” (Par [0044])]
estimating the time delay based on a position of the peak, to produce an estimated
time delay. [Kirsch teaches estimating “the time delay corresponding to the peak is designated as the time by which one of the blocks 206a, 206b should be shifted relative to the other in order to bring the blocks 206a, 206b into alignment.” (Par [0044])]
With regards to claim 1, Kirsch fails to teach:
one-sided filtering first audio segments of the first audio stream to pass only positive
frequencies of the first audio segments to first filtered audio segments; one-sided filtering second audio segments of the second audio stream to pass only positive frequencies of the second audio segments to second filtered audio segments;
With regards to claim 1, Wala teaches:
one-sided filtering first audio segments of the first audio stream to pass only positive
frequencies of the first audio segments to first filtered audio segments; one-sided filtering second audio segments of the second audio stream to pass only positive frequencies of the second audio segments to second filtered audio segments; [Wala teaches “complex math allows the mixing with a baseband FM analytic carrier while maintaining the ability to separate positive and negative frequencies … [and] the Hilbert Transform Filter 1418 is used to isolate the positive frequencies ” (Col 12 lines 20-26) which is implemented in Fig 16 where the signal is represented by “one sided (positive frequency only) representation of the frequency domain spectrum of the carriers corresponding to that SAT frequency.” (Col 13 lines 48-50)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the system of time alignment of audio signals as taught by Kirsch with the system of separating frequencies as taught by Wala. The motivation to combine the teachings of Kirsch with Wala is because Wala teaches “The Hilbert Transform Filter was needed because of the presence of positive and negative frequencies at the output of the IFFT. The Hilbert Transform Filter becomes unnecessary if negative frequencies are eliminated at the IFFT” (Col 13 lines 6-10) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Kirsch to deal with positive and negative frequencies]
With regards to claim 2, Kirsch in view of Wala teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
further comprising: time aligning the first audio stream to the second audio stream based on the estimated time delay. [Kirsch Fig 1B teaches “coarse alignment function 160 determines a coarse time delay indicative of a coarse time shift that would bring one of the media signals in approximate time alignment with the other. The coarse alignment function 160 may also shift one of either the first or second media signal relative to the other” (Par [0030])]
With regards to claim 4, Kirsch in view of Wala teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein: one-sided filtering the first audio segments includes filtering the first audio segments with a narrowband bandpass filter response [Kirsch Fig 3B teaches using bandpass (356a and 358a) filters combined with low (354a) and high pass (360a) filters]
configured to pass the positive frequencies, and reject negative frequencies, of the first audio segments; and [Wala teaches Hilbert Transform Filter 1418 is used to isolate the positive frequencies ” (Col 12 lines 20-26) which is implemented in Fig 16 where the signal is represented by “one sided (positive frequency only) representation of the frequency domain spectrum of the carriers corresponding to that SAT frequency.” (Col 13 lines 48-50)]
one-sided filtering the second audio segments includes filtering the second audio
segments with the narrowband bandpass filter response [Kirsch Fig 3B teaches using bandpass (356b and 358b) filters combined with low (354b) and high pass (360b) filters]
configured to pass the positive frequencies, and reject the negative frequencies, of the second audio segments. [Wala teaches Hilbert Transform Filter 1418 is used to isolate the positive frequencies ” (Col 12 lines 20-26) which is implemented in Fig 16 where the signal is represented by “one sided (positive frequency only) representation of the frequency domain spectrum of the carriers corresponding to that SAT frequency.” (Col 13 lines 48-50)]
With regards to claim 7, Kirsch in view of Wala teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
further comprising: averaging the cross-correlation results to produce average cross-correlation results, wherein detecting includes detecting the peak in the average cross-correlation results. [Kirsch teaches another embodiment to determine a peak by “center of mass calculation, each position in the cross-correlation is averaged using a weighting equal to the absolute value of the correlation value” (Par [0035])]
With regards to claim 10, Kirsch teaches:
An apparatus comprising: a memory, and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform: [Kirsch teaches “processor-containing system, or other system that may selectively fetch the instructions from the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device and execute the instructions. In the context of this disclosure, a "computer-readable medium" is any means that may contain, store or communicate the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device” (Par [0068])]
receiving first audio segments that convey audio content and receiving second audio segments that convey the audio content and are delayed relative the first audio segments by a time delay; [Kirsch Fig 1B teaches first (150) and second (152) media signal where in a “example implementation, the first and second media signals 150, 152 may be any two media signals recorded from different sources that are to be combined, or merged for playback” (Par [0027]) where two sources of the same audio stream will be delayed relative to a time delay by the distance of the sources and receivers]
cross correlating the first filtered audio segments against corresponding ones
of the second filtered audio segments, to produce cross-correlation results; [Kirsch Fig 2A teaches “first and second sub-sampled first and second blocks 206a, 206b are provided as input signals to a coarse misalignment estimator 208” (Par [0044])]
detecting a peak indicated by the cross-correlation results; and [Kirsch teaches generating a histogram of the cross-correlation results and detecting a peak by the “time delay on the histogram having the highest correlation between the two signals has the highest level and appears as a peak in the histogram” (Par [0044])]
estimating the time delay based on a position of the peak, to produce an
estimated time delay. [Kirsch teaches estimating “the time delay corresponding to the peak is designated as the time by which one of the blocks 206a, 206b should be shifted relative to the other in order to bring the blocks 206a, 206b into alignment.” (Par [0044])]
With regards to claim 10, Kirsch fails to teach:
one-sided filtering the first audio segments to pass only positive frequency
frequencies of the first audio segments to first filtered audio segments; one-sided filtering the second audio segments to pass only positive frequencies of the second audio segments to second filtered audio segments;
With regards to claim 10, Wala teaches:
one-sided filtering the first audio segments to pass only positive frequency
frequencies of the first audio segments to first filtered audio segments; one-sided filtering the second audio segments to pass only positive frequencies of the second audio segments to second filtered audio segments; [Wala teaches “complex math allows the mixing with a baseband FM analytic carrier while maintaining the ability to separate positive and negative frequencies … [and] the Hilbert Transform Filter 1418 is used to isolate the positive frequencies ” (Col 12 lines 20-26) which is implemented in Fig 16 where the signal is represented by “one sided (positive frequency only) representation of the frequency domain spectrum of the carriers corresponding to that SAT frequency.” (Col 13 lines 48-50)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the system of time alignment of audio signals as taught by Kirsch with the system of separating frequencies as taught by Wala. The motivation to combine the teachings of Kirsch with Wala is because Wala teaches “The Hilbert Transform Filter was needed because of the presence of positive and negative frequencies at the output of the IFFT. The Hilbert Transform Filter becomes unnecessary if negative frequencies are eliminated at the IFFT” (Col 13 lines 6-10) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Kirsch to deal with positive and negative frequencies]
Claim 11 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19, Kirsch teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform: [Kirsch teaches “processor-containing system, or other system that may selectively fetch the instructions from the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device and execute the instructions. In the context of this disclosure, a "computer-readable medium" is any means that may contain, store or communicate the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device” (Par [0068])]
receiving first audio segments of FM audio that convey audio content and second
audio segments of digital audio that convey the audio content and are delayed relative to the first segments by a time delay; [Kirsch Fig 1B teaches first (150) and second (152) media signal where in a “example implementation, the first and second media signals 150, 152 may be any two media signals recorded from different sources that are to be combined, or merged for playback” (Par [0027]) where two sources of the same audio stream will be delayed relative to a time delay by the distance of the sources and receivers]
cross correlating the first filtered audio segments against corresponding ones of the second filtered audio segments, to produce cross-correlation results; [Kirsch Fig 2A teaches “first and second sub-sampled first and second blocks 206a, 206b are provided as input signals to a coarse misalignment estimator 208” (Par [0044])]
averaging the cross-correlation results to produce average cross correlation results; [Kirsch teaches another embodiment to determine a peak by “center of mass calculation, each position in the cross-correlation is averaged using a weighting equal to the absolute value of the correlation value” (Par [0035])]
detecting a peak of the average cross-correlation results; [Kirsch teaches generating a histogram of the cross-correlation results and detecting a peak by the “time delay on the histogram having the highest correlation between the two signals has the highest level and appears as a peak in the histogram” (Par [0044])]
estimating the time delay based on a position of the peak, to produce an estimated
time delay; and [Kirsch teaches estimating “the time delay corresponding to the peak is designated as the time by which one of the blocks 206a, 206b should be shifted relative to the other in order to bring the blocks 206a, 206b into alignment.” (Par [0044])]
time aligning the first audio segments to the second audio segments based on the
estimated time delay. [Kirsch Fig 1B teaches “coarse alignment function 160 determines a coarse time delay indicative of a coarse time shift that would bring one of the media signals in approximate time alignment with the other. The coarse alignment function 160 may also shift one of either the first or second media signal relative to the other” (Par [0030])]
With regards to claim 19, Kirsch fails to teach:
one-sided filtering the first audio segments and the second audio segments to pass
only positive frequencies of the first audio segments and the second audio segments to
produce first filtered audio segments and second filtered audio segments, respectively;
With regards to claim 19, Wala teaches:
one-sided filtering the first audio segments and the second audio segments to pass
only positive frequencies of the first audio segments and the second audio segments to
produce first filtered audio segments and second filtered audio segments, respectively; [Wala teaches “complex math allows the mixing with a baseband FM analytic carrier while maintaining the ability to separate positive and negative frequencies … [and] the Hilbert Transform Filter 1418 is used to isolate the positive frequencies ” (Col 12 lines 20-26) which is implemented in Fig 16 where the signal is represented by “one sided (positive frequency only) representation of the frequency domain spectrum of the carriers corresponding to that SAT frequency.” (Col 13 lines 48-50)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the system of time alignment of audio signals as taught by Kirsch with the system of separating frequencies as taught by Wala. The motivation to combine the teachings of Kirsch with Wala is because Wala teaches “The Hilbert Transform Filter was needed because of the presence of positive and negative frequencies at the output of the IFFT. The Hilbert Transform Filter becomes unnecessary if negative frequencies are eliminated at the IFFT” (Col 13 lines 6-10) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Kirsch to deal with positive and negative frequencies]
Claims 3, 5, 12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch (US2013/0077805) in view of Wala (US6836660) in further view of Pahuja (US10177729 hereinafter Pahuja)
With regards to claim 3, Kirsch in view of Wala teaches:
All the limitations of claim 2
With regards to claim 3, Kirsch in view of Wala fails to teach:
further comprising: after time aligning, generating an in-band on-channel (IBOC) digital radio hybrid waveform having an analog modulated signal that conveys the first audio stream and a digitally modulated signal that conveys the second audio stream; and
wirelessly broadcasting the IBOC hybrid digital radio hybrid waveform.
With regards to claim 3, Pahuja teaches:
further comprising: after time aligning, generating an in-band on-channel (IBOC) digital radio hybrid waveform having an analog modulated signal that conveys the first audio stream and a digitally modulated signal that conveys the second audio stream; and
wirelessly broadcasting the IBOC hybrid digital radio hybrid waveform. [Pahuja teaches “AM and FM IBOC hybrid broadcasting systems utilize a composite signal including an analog modulated carrier and a plurality of digitally modulated subcarriers. Program content (e.g., audio) can be redundantly transmitted on the analog modulated carrier and the digitally modulated subcarrier.” (Col 1 lines 51-56)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the system of time alignment of audio signals as taught by Kirsch and Wala, and combine it with the digital radio IBOC system as taught by Pahuja. The motivation to combine the teachings of Kirsch and Wala with Pahuja is because Pahuja teaches “Using the hybrid mode, broadcasters may continue to transmit analog AM and FM simultaneously with higher-quality and more robust digital signals, allowing themselves and their listeners to convert from analog-to-digital radio while maintaining their current frequency allocation” (Col 1 lines 46-50) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Kirsch and Wala to broadcast higher quality signals]
With regards to claim 5, Kirsch in view of Wala teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 5, Kirsch in view of Wala fails to teach:
wherein: the narrowband bandpass filter response has a bandpass bandwidth and center frequency configured to render the cross-correlation results invariant to a phase shift between the first audio segments and the second audio segments.
With regards to claim 5, Pahuja teaches:
wherein: the narrowband bandpass filter response has a bandpass bandwidth and center frequency configured to render the cross-correlation results invariant to a phase shift between the first audio segments and the second audio segments. [Pahuja teaches proper blending of signals where “With respect to phase alignment, phase of the analog and the digital signal should be the same” (Col 4 lines 20-23) where if the phase of each signals are the same, then they would be invariant to shift between first and second audio segments]
Claim 12 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch (US2013/0077805) in view of Wala (US6836660) in further view of Fejzo et al. (US2012/0288124 hereinafter Fejzo)
With regards to claim 6, Kirsch in view of Wala teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 6, Kirsch in view of Wala fails to teach:
wherein: cross correlating includes cross correlating first complex envelopes of the first filtered audio segments against second complex envelopes of the corresponding ones of the second filtered audio segments to produce the cross-correlation results.
With regards to claim 6, Fejzo teaches:
wherein: cross correlating includes cross correlating first complex envelopes of the first filtered audio segments against second complex envelopes of the corresponding ones of the second filtered audio segments to produce the cross-correlation results. [Fejzo teaches computing a delay between two signals by Hilbert envelope. (Par [0051])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the system of time alignment of audio signals as taught by Kirsch and Wala, and combine it with the Hilbert envelope as taught by Fejzo. The motivation to combine the teachings of Kirsch and Wala with Fejzo is because Fejzo teaches “The delay may be computed from the probe signal and microphone signal using many different techniques including cross-correlation of the signals, cross-spectral phase or an analytic envelope such as a Hilbert Envelope (HE)” (Par [0051]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Kirsch and Wala to compute time delays in the signals]
Claim 15 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 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 and overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph J Yamamoto whose telephone number is (571)272-4020. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
JOSEPH J. YAMAMOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656