Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/726,159

Conditional Disabling of a Reverberator

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 02, 2024
Examiner
BLAIR, KILE O
Art Unit
2691
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Nokia Technologies Oy
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
429 granted / 682 resolved
+0.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
702
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 682 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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(s) 1-3, 6, 8-14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jot (JOT JEAN-MARC ET AL: "Scene Description Model and Rendering Engine for Interactive Virtual Acoustics", AES CONVENTION 120; MAY 2006, AES, 60 EAST 42ND STREET, ROOM 2520 NEW YORK 10165-2520, USA, 1 May 2006 (2006-05-01), XP040507554, IDS 12/30/25). Regarding claim 1, Jot teaches an apparatus for assisting spatial rendering in at least two acoustic environments (multiple environments, sec 4.2, paragraph 1), the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: obtain information associated with at least a number of reverberators based on an acoustic environment of the at least two acoustic environments (number of Effect Slots that can be loaded with a Reverb algorithm defines the number of acoustical environments that can be simultaneously simulated, sec 4.2, paragraph 2); determine, based on the information, a set of reverberators from the number of reverberators, the set of reverberators configured to be initialized (Each send can be directed to a specific slot, or to the "Primary Slot". Thus when the listener changes environments, sources that need to feed the listener's environment do not need to update the target of their send: having the target of a send be "Primary Slot" (as opposed to slot 2 for instance) ensures that the source always feeds by a certain amount to the environment that contains the listener., sec 4.2, paragraph 4); generate at least one configuration parameter for at least one of the set of reverberators (parametric reverberation model, sec 3.4, paragraph 1); initialize the set of reverberators based on the at least one configuration parameter (parameters that describe per source effects, sec 3.4, paragraph 1); obtain at least one audio signal (sources, sec 4.2, paragraph 4); and process the at least one audio signal with the initialized set of reverberators to generate late reverberation during rendering of the processed at least one audio signal based on the acoustic environment (rendering the late reverberation tail, sec 3.2, paragraph 1). Regarding claim 2, Jot teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to determine information at least partly based on a determination of an enclosure for at least one acoustic environment, wherein the at least one acoustic environment comprises at least one enclosure with a higher priority than a further acoustic environment without an enclosure (assign higher priority to the modeling and rendering of the shared reverberation process, with particular attention to the control of per-source reverberator feeds, sec 1.3, paragraph 4). Regarding claim 3, Jot teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to determine, based on the information, a set of reverberators from the number of reverberators, the set of reverberators configured to be initialized is configured to compare the number of reverberators to a threshold number and select the set based on the threshold value, based on the set of reverberators with the highest priority (prioritize computational resources towards the most perceptually critical, sec 1.5, paragraph 2; there is inherently some threshold of which fall into being most critical and not most critical under any implementation). Regarding claim 6, Jot teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to associate a lower priority to a reverberator associated with an acoustic environment with a lower reverberation level than a reverberator associated with an acoustic environment with a higher reverberation level (prioritize computational resources towards the most perceptually critical, sec 1.5, paragraph 2; reverberation level is a broad concept and can be measured by perceptual criticality). Regarding claim 8, Jot teaches the apparatus as claimed claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to receive from at least one further apparatus a bitstream comprising the information, wherein the information comprises content creator preferences (prioritize real-time computational resources and content authoring effort towards the most perceptually critical audio effects, sec 1.5, paragraph 2). Regarding claim 9, Jot teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to obtain the information from a bitstream, wherein the information comprises an importance of at least one criteria when prioritizing the reverberators, wherein the at least one criteria comprises: an enclosure existence; a threshold number of reverberators; a position of a listener in an acoustic enclosure; a reverberation level (prioritize computational resources towards the most perceptually critical, sec 1.5, paragraph 2; reverberation level is a broad concept and can be measured by perceptual criticality); and a distance of the listener from an acoustic environment. Regarding claim 10, Jot teaches the apparatus the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one configuration parameter for instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to generate at least one of: configuration parameter values for configuration parameters common for the set of reverberators, wherein the configuration parameter values can be the same or different for the configuration parameter between reverberators of the set of reverberators (reverberation algorithms capable of simulating a wide range of room acoustical qualities, sec 4.1, paragraph 2); generate configuration parameter values for different configuration parameters for the set of reverberators (reverberation algorithms capable of simulating a wide range of room acoustical qualities, sec 4.1, paragraph 2); or generate configuration parameter values for indicating whether a member of the set of reverberators from the number of reverberators is to be initialized. Regarding claim 11, Jot teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1,wherein the set of reverberators is a sub-set of reverberators smaller than the number of reverberators (prioritize computational resources towards the most perceptually critical, sec 1.5, paragraph 2). Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons. 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 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jot. Regarding claim 4, Jot teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to obtain information at least partly based on the position of a user within the acoustic environment (position of listener relative to room walls, sec 1.4, paragraph 4). Although Jot does not explicitly teach the reverberator corresponding to the acoustic environment enclosing the user receiving the highest priority and further reverberators associated with acoustic environments immediately connected to the enclosing acoustic environment receiving second highest priority, Jot teaches prioritizing computational resources towards the most perceptually critical, (Jot, sec 1.5, paragraph 2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that rooms that the listener is in are the most perceptually critical and rooms next to that room are the second most perceptually critical since doing so involves routine skill in following the suggestions and teachings of Jot. Regarding claim 5, Jot teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to select in run-time, based on the position of the user, the set of reverberators from the number of reverberators (automatic adjustment of low-level rendering parameters according to source and listener relative positions, sec 1.5, paragraph 3). Regarding claim 7, Jot teaches the apparatus as claimed claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to assign information based on a distance of a listener to an acoustic environment (sources at different distance around the listener, sec 1.3 paragraph 1). Although Jot does not explicitly teach the reverberator associated with an acoustic environment having a larger distance to the listener having a smaller priority than a reverberator associated with an acoustic environment having a smaller distance to the listener, Jot teaches prioritizing computational resources towards the most perceptually critical, (Jot, sec 1.5, paragraph 2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that acoustic environments the shortest distance to the listener are the most perceptually critical since doing so involves routine skill in following the suggestions and teachings of Jot. Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kile Blair whose telephone number is (571)270-3544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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. /KILE O BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 02, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593181
HEARING DEVICE ARRANGEMENT AND METHOD FOR AUDIO SIGNAL PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593155
SPEAKER BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581229
ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING SPEAKER MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581260
SOUND PROCESSING APPARATUS AND SOUND PROCESSING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12563332
OPEN EARPHONES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 682 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month