DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner Note on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101
Independent Claims 1, 25, 29, and 30 are directed towards technical operations for generating secondary channels in multi-channel audio signal processing. Multi-channel audio processing as recited is not a mental process and does not define any type of human behavior under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). While some of the underlying operations may involve mathematics, the claimed process is not strictly mathematical in nature under the BRI due to the processing of multichannel audio and metadata for secondary channels. Accordingly, invention set forth in the independent claims and their dependents by virtue of their dependency are found to be patent eligible under step 2A prong 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 16-18, 20-23, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 as drafted is inconsistent with the use of spacing for the term "second filterbank." For example, in line 6 "second filterbank" includes no spacing while the same term just two lines later in claim 8 is recited as "the second filter bank" with spacing. The claims are consistent with using spacing for the "first filter bank" so Applicant should consider the spacing version of this claim term in independent claim 1 and the other dependent claims where the non-spacing version is utilized (i.e., claims 9, 10, 12, and 17).
In Claims 4 and 6, the pertinent acronyms QMF, SPAR, FIR, and MDFT should include an expanded form (e.g., finite impulse response for FIR) in order to better establish the full form of each term.
In Claim 9, the term "k" should be explained in the claim in a manner similar to the other equation variables.
In Claim 17, the two Greek symbols included in the equations should be explained in the claim in a manner similar to the other equation variables.
The remaining dependent claims inherit and fail to resolve the minor informalities of their respective parent claims, and thus, are also objected to due to minor informalities by virtue of their dependency.
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 12-13, 16-18, 20-21, 23, and 29 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.
In Claim 12, Lines 3-4, "the prototype filter p of the second filterbank" lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what preceding limitation is being referenced by this term. The term is introduced in claim 10, however, claim 12 depends upon claim 9. Thus, the issue can be resolved by replacing "the" with --a-- or changing the dependency of the claim to depend upon claim 10. For claim interpretation "the prototype..." will be construed as --a prototype...--.
The preliminary amendment to Claim 13 caused an antecedent basis issue in "a prototype filter for filter conversion" in line 5. Parent claim 8 previously introduced this term so it is unclear whether the claim 13 instance of this term represents a separate instance of the prototype filter or should reference the term from parent claim 8. For claim term interpretation, "a prototype filter for filter conversion" will be construed as "the prototype filter for filter conversion." In Claim 13, the terms "the processing stride" and "the number of second bands" also lack antecedent basis and will each be construed as replacing "the" with --a--.
Claim 16, Line 11 references "the elementary signals" where the claim earlier introduces "elementary signals with single non-zero samples" and "first and second elementary signals" so it is unclear which of these terms if any are being referenced. For claim term interpretation, this term will be construed as the former of the two presented options.
Claim 17 contains a number of antecedent basis issues: real-valued single-tap filters" in line 4 (parent claim 16 features "elementary real-valued single-tap filters" so it is unclear whether the claim 17 instance references the same filters where for claim interpretation, these filters will be construed as referencing the term from claim 16), a synthesis filter bank of the second filter bank in line 4 (term was introduced in claim 16 so the limitation will be construed with the definite article "the" as opposed to "a"), and elementary signals in line 5 (parent claim 16 introduces separate instances of elementary signals- "elementary signals with single non-zero samples" and "first and second elementary signals" so it is unclear which of these terms if any are being referenced; for claim term interpretation, this term will be construed as the former of the two presented options; Lines 7-8 of claim 17 also features a similar issue with "the elementary signals" that also requires correction).
In Claim 20, Line 6, "a time-domain filter for the given second band" appears to reference the previously introduced term, but is not introduced with the definite article "the". For claim term interpretation, "a time-domain filter" will be construed as --the time-domain filter--. In line 7 "the filter coefficients of the adapted time-domain filters" lacks antecedent basis where "the" will be construed as being deleted.
In Claim 23, Line 9, "the determined set of first bands" lacks antecedent basis because only a single first band is determined in the "determining" step set forth in lines 3-4. For claim term interpretation, "the" will be construed as being replaced by --a--.
Claim 29 is an independent claim that attempts to incorporate claim 1 by reference. The incorporated claim 1, however, is referenced by "operations". Claim 1 does not set forth "operations". Instead, claim 1 defines a "method" so for claim term interpretation "operations" will be construed as being replaced by --the method--.
The remaining dependent claims inherit and fail to resolve the indefiniteness issues of their respective parent claims, and thus, are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency.
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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Disch, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2017/0365264 A1).
With respect to Claim 25, Disch discloses:
A method of generating a representation of a multichannel audio signal, wherein the representation comprises a first channel and metadata relating to a second channel (encoder for a "multichannel" audio signal that generates a representation including a core channel and metadata about a second channel in the form of "multichannel information," Paragraph 0052), and wherein the metadata comprises, for each of a plurality of first bands of a first filter bank, a respective prediction parameter for making a prediction for the second channel based on the first channel in that first band (stereo prediction coder, Paragraph 0055, that calculates parametric representations of "frequency bands" of the downmix signal that is used to predict a second channel, Paragraph 0056, 0089, and 0117; filterbank used in parametric coding, Paragraph 0026), the method comprising:
generating a prediction for the second channel based on first filters of the first filter bank and the prediction parameters, wherein the prediction for the second channel is represented by a time-domain signal (linear prediction domain processing (i.e., time domain-based processing) using "the first parametric representation of a first set of bands" used in generating a multichannel representation prediction, Paragraph 0058); and
generating a residual of the second channel by subtracting the prediction of the second channel from the second channel in the time-domain (multichannel residual determination using the linear prediction result and representing "a difference between the decoded multichannel signal 64 and the multichannel signal 4 before downmixing," Paragraph 0058); wherein the representation of the multichannel audio signal further comprises the residual of the second channel (the representation of the multichannel audio signal includes the downmix signal and the residual, Paragraphs 0055, 0058, and 0066(describing the multichannel signal representation including the "residual signal 58)).
Allowable/Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 22, and 30 are allowable over the prior art of record though require amendments where pertinent to overcome preceding objections for minor informalities with the exception of claim 30.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent Claim 1, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest either taken individually or in a combination, a method for rendering a representation of a multichannel audio signal where the representation comprises "a first channel and metadata relating to a second channel, and wherein the metadata comprises, for each of a plurality of first bands of a first filter bank, a respective prediction parameter for making a prediction for the second channel based on the first channel in that first band" and the method comprises applying a second filterbank with a plurality of second bands to the first channel to obtain, for each of the second bands, a banded version of the first channel in that second band, wherein the second filter bank is different from the first filter bank; for each of the second bands, generating a respective time-domain filter based on the prediction parameters and first filters of the first filter bank, the first filters corresponding to the first bands; and generating a prediction for the second channel based on the banded versions of the first channel and the time-domain filters in the second bands.
Most Pertinent Prior Art:
In the conducted prior art search spanning patent and non-patent literature databases, two referenced were identified that were particularly relevant to the invention set forth in claim 1. First, Oh, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2008/0275711 A1) discloses a multi-channel audio signal including a core channel downmix/mono audio signal and second channel metadata in the form of "spatial information estimating" information (Paragraphs 0026-0027). Next, Oh discloses a conversion of a downmix signal into a subband (QMF) domain to match that of spatial information in a subband domain (Paragraph 0044) and converts a proto-type filter into a parameter filter in each subband using domain conversion of the original filter information (Paragraph 0049). Lastly, Oh teaches predicting the multi-channel audio rendering using the downmix audio and filter coefficients (Paragraphs 0051-0054). Accordingly, with respect to Claim 1 Oh does teach a first channel core/downmix audio signal and metadata for a second channel (i.e., "spatial information"), converting the downmix audio into a second domain (i.e, QMF) for various subbands, generating a multi-channel filter by parameterizing a prototype filter, and predicting the multi-channel audio signal from the core audio channel using the metadata such as well-known channel prediction parameters such as inter-channel coherence (ICC). What Oh lacks is the particular combination of steps performed in the recited process. Specifically, the claimed invention recites an original filterbank bands for a first channel that are applied to a second filterbank to generate a banded version of the first channel in that second band where that first filterbanks is then used again in generating a time-domain filter for each of the second bands followed by prediction generation using those banded versions and the generated time-domain filters for all of the second bands. While Oh may teach QMF domain conversion and multi-channel audio prediction, the QMF domain subbands do not necessarily apply to a first filterbank bands and the filter generated does not rely upon the first filterbank bands to generate a time domain filter for each of the second bands. Thus, Oh fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest the invention set forth in independent Claim 1.
The second instance of particularly pertinent prior art is Lee et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2016/0323688 A1). Lee teaches multi-channel (i.e., binaural/stereo) rendering that takes finite impulse response filter information and converts those sub-bands into a "plurality of subband filters of the QMF domain" (Paragraphs 0084-0085; see also that subbands are classified into different zones in Paragraph 0088 and different bands in different filterbanks from an original BRIR filter to QMF filter in Paragraph 0090). Lee also details that the original filter bands as a prototype filter are used to form a "plurality of QMF subband filters" (Paragraph 0101). Lee also uses time-domain filtering to render multi-channel audio (see the tap delay-line filtering described in Paragraphs 0105-0107). What Lee individually lacks or even in combination with Oh fails to teach is using both the prediction parameters and the first filters of the first filterbank to generate the TDL/time domain filters and then using those time-domain filters to generate a prediction for the second channel. While Lee may use the QMF bands in the TDL filtering, the filters are note generated for each band and do not take into consideration the first filters of the first filterbank and the prediction parameters. Accordingly, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest the invention set forth in independent claim 1.
Remaining dependent further limit an independent claim containing allowable subject matter, and thus, are also allowable over the prior art of record by virtue of their dependency. Claim 30 represents a narrower version of the subject matter of claim 1, and thus, is allowable over the prior art of record under similar rationale.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 12-13, 16-18, 20-21, 23, and 29 would be allowable over the prior art of record if amended to overcome the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency upon/incorporation from a base claim containing allowable subject matter (i.e., these claims relate to potentially allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See the description of the most pertinent prior art in the allowable subject matter section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S WOZNIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-7632. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3, off alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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 S. WOZNIAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/JAMES S WOZNIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655