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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Non-final Office Action from 3/3/2026, Applicant has filed an amendment on 6/1/2026. In this reply, Applicant has amended independent claim 25 to add a step for generating, for each of the plurality of first bands, a respective band-limited version of the first channel by filtering the first channel using corresponding first filters of the first filter bank and further specifying that generating a prediction for the second channel is performed by applying the corresponding first filters of the first filter bank to the respective band-limited version of the first channel in accordance with the respective prediction parameters to form a time-domain prediction signal. New claims 31-35 have also been added.
Applicant has further argued that the prior art of record fails to teach generating a prediction using the filters of a first filter bank applied to the band-limited signals as recited in the amended claims (Remarks, Pages 11-12). These arguments have been fully considered, however, are moot with respect to the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amended claims and further in view of Norvell, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2022/0059099 A1).
Applicant argues that the claim objections directed towards minor informalities should be withdrawn due to the consistent use of the term "filter bank" along with the expansion/explanation of acronyms and parameters (Remarks, Page 10).
In response, due to the correction of the noted minor informalities as well as the cancellation of claim 17, the claim objections are now moot and have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 12, 13, 16, 20, 23, and 29 along with the cancellation of claim 17 overcomes the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Remarks, Pages 10-11).
In response, due to the amendments correcting the noted antecedent basis issues and the cancellation of claim 17, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are now moot and have been withdrawn.
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 25, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Norvell, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2022/0059099 A1).
With respect to Claim 25, Norvell 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 "multi-channel" audio signal that generates a representation including a main channel downmix and metadata about a second channel in the form of complementary side signal information/multi-channel audio parameters, Paragraphs 0040-0041 and 0046), 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 (side channel prediction involving "a prediction parameter for each frequency band b," Paragraphs 0046 and 0049), the method comprising:
generating, for each of the plurality of first bands, a respective band-limited version of the first channel by filtering the first channel using corresponding first filters of the first filter bank (generating a frequency domain representation of a downmix first channel using a band-based frequency domain representation generated by applying a filter bank such as a QMF filter bank, Paragraphs 0040 and 0045);
generating a prediction for the second channel by applying the corresponding first filters of the first filter bank to the respective band-limited version of the first channel in accordance with the respective prediction parameters to form a time-domain prediction signal (side signal prediction time domain signal synthesis by applying the band-limited version of the first channel (see downward-facing arrow output from 410 into 440 in Fig. 4) and prediction parameters for each frequency band, Paragraph 0046); and
generating a residual of the second channel by subtracting the prediction of the second channel from the second channel in the time-domain (subtraction shown in the equation of Paragraph 0048 for estimating the "prediction residual;" see also subtraction block in Fig. 4 combining the side channel output of 410 with the output of the prediction at 440), wherein the representation of the multichannel audio signal further comprises the residual of the second channel (the generated representation of the multi-channel audio signals includes the prediction residual generated by the encoder, Paragraph 0049; Fig. 4, Elements 450 and 460).
With respect to Claim 31, Norvell further discloses:
The method of claim 25, wherein generating the prediction for the second channel comprises forming a weighted sum of filtered components of the first channel corresponding to the plurality of first bands, wherein the respective prediction parameters define weights applied to the filtered components (weighted sum operation in the form of the equation of Paragraph 0044 being multiplied to the prediction parameter as in Paragraph 0046 wherein the per band prediction parameters are described as a "scaling factor” ).
With respect to Claim 33, Norvell further discloses:
The method of claim 25, wherein the prediction parameters comprise gain parameters defined for the plurality of first bands (per band prediction parameter as a "scaling factor," Paragraph 0046); and
wherein applying the corresponding first filters comprises scaling outputs of the first filters according to the gain parameters prior to forming the time-domain prediction signal (see multiplication operation in paragraph 0046 of the downmix signal by the prediction parameter).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norvell, et al. in view of Seldess, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2017/0208411 A1).
With respect to Claim 32, Norvell teaches the method of generating a multi-channel audio signal representation relying on a first channel filter bank output and prediction parameters for a side channel as applied to Claim 25. While Norvell discloses that the downmix representation in frequency bands can be generated with different types of filters, Norvell does not specifically indicate finite impulse response (FIR) band-pass filters as set forth in claim 32. Seldess, however, discloses a stereo codec in which a signal is divided into frequency bands finite impulse response (FIR) bandpass filter (BPF) (Paragraph 0043).
Norvell and Seldess are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in multi-channel audio coding. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to utilize the FIR BPF taught by Seldess in the first channel frequency band division taught by Norvell to provide a simple substitution of filter types "known to those of ordinary skill in the audio signal processing art" (Seldess, Paragraph 0043) to predictably obtain the frequency band representations of Norvell.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norvell, et al. in view of Fueg, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2016/0255453 A1).
With respect to Claim 34, Norvell teaches the method of generating a multi-channel audio signal representation relying on a first channel QMF filter bank output and prediction parameters for a side channel as applied to Claim 25. Norvell does not teach convolving each band-limited version of the first channel with a respective filter response corresponding to the first filters of the first filter bank in the parameter generation process, however, Fueg discloses "bandwise fast convolution" processing between bands of a QMF domain audio signal and a type of filter impulse response (Paragraphs 0129 and 0145).
Norvell and Fueg are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in multi-channel audio coding. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to apply the fast convolution operation taught by Fueg to the QMF domain signal taught by Norvell to provide a predictable result of efficiently processing high-fidelity spatial audio.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norvell, et al. in view of Villemoes, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2009/0063140 A1).
With respect to Claim 35, Norvell teaches the method of generating a multi-channel audio signal representation relying on a first channel QMF filter bank output and prediction parameters for a side channel as applied to Claim 25. Though a typical property of QMF filters, Norvell does not specifically indicate that the bank of QMF filters collectively forms a near-perfect reconstruction filter bank. Villemoes, however, clarifies that QMF filters used in spatial audio coding have the “near-perfect audio reconstruction property” (Paragraph 0108).
Norvell and Villemoes are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in multi-channel audio coding. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to utilize the near-perfect property of QMF filters highlighted by Villemoes in the QMF first channel filter bank taught by Norvell to provide a predictable result in the form of better ensuring high quality audio reconstruction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 16, 18, 20-23, and 29-30 are allowable over the prior art of record.
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 claims 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.”
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Eichenseer, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2023/0298602 A1)- discloses a band filter for processing a first channel via a mixing matrix parameter to generate multi-channel audio via a synthesis filterbank (Paragraph 0142).
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
Prosecution Insights