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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 21 is cancelled
Claims 1-8 and 12-19 are rejected
Claims 9-11 and 20 are objected to
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schissler et al (US PAT 9940922, hereinafter Schissler) in view of Baker et al (US PUB 20180089179, hereinafter Baker).
Regarding Claim 1, Schissler discloses an apparatus for assisting spatial rendering for room acoustics (e.g. a sound rendering device 100), (see at least the abstract, and figures 1-2), the apparatus comprising: at least one processor (e.g. processor 102) and at least one memory (e.g. memory 104) storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: obtain at least one reverberation parameter (e.g. from a reverberation parameter estimator 108), (see column 3 lines 54 to column 4 line 19, and figure 1); determine at least one reverberation ratio parameter at least based on the obtained at least one reverberation parameter (e.g. a direct-to-reverberant (D/R) sound ratio), (see column 4 line 45 to column 5 line 4, also figures 1-2), obtain at least one audio signal (e.g. audio input is received from an audio source by delay interpolation engine 110), (see column 5 lines 5-21, also figures 1 and 2).
Schissler does not explicitly disclose: adjust the at least one reverberation ratio parameter.
However, Baker in the same field of endeavors teaches that it is well known in the art to adjust reverberation ratio parameter in an audio processing apparatus as set forth in [0042] and figures 1-2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate means of adjusting the reverberation parameter as taught by Baker in the teachings of Schissler in order to achieve an audio output with a desirable spatialized effect, and thereby further enhancing the listening experience of the user.
More so, the combination of Schissler and Baker further teaches: and control late reverberation ratio of the obtained at least one audio signal based on the adjusted at least one reverberation ratio parameter (e.g. late reverberation ratio is used in processing the audio output), (see Schissler, column 8 line 61 to column 9 line 30, and figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the apparatus as claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: provide a filter (e.g. comb filters) configured based on the at least one adjusted reverberation ratio parameter; and apply the filter to the at least one audio signal to generate a late-rendered part of a rendered audio signal (e.g. the comb filters having a gain factor is applied to the reverberation output), (see Schissler, column 9 lines 39-55; column 13 lines 13-20, also figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, but fails to explicitly disclose cause the apparatus to obtain information which indicates whether to use an input reverberation ratio or a ratio calculated based on at least one reverberation parameter. However, it would have been an obvious to select any one of the input reverberation ratio or a different ratio calculated based on the at least the one reverberation parameter that would yield an optimum outcome (e.g. the D/R ratio is computed two ways, based on intensity and also based on RT60, and selecting either one as an input ratio would be a matter of choice), (see Schissler, column 13 lines 27-45)
Regarding Claim 4, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to obtain at least one of: at least one RT60 time; at least one room or enclosure volume dimension; at least one pre-delay value; or at least one diffuse-to-direct ratio value (see column 12, line 40-65; column 13, line 6-40; and column 14 lines 5-20).
Regarding Claim 5, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: obtain at least one pre-delay value (see Schissler, column 14 lines 5-20). The combination of Schissler and Baker does not explicitly disclose: and determine a further pre-delay value from the first pre-delay value. However, determining a pre-decay value from the first pre-delay value would have been obvious if such would produce an optimum outcome, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding Claim 6, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to set the determined at least one reverberation ratio parameter as the at least one reverberation parameter (e.g. the RT60 and D/R could be interpreted as representing either a reverberation ratio parameter or the at least one reverberation value), (see Schissler, column 12, lines 40-65; column 13 lines 6-40, 50-65).
Regarding Claim 7, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: obtain at least one value; and apply the at least one value to the at least one reverberation ratio parameter to obtain the at least one adjusted reverberation ratio parameter. However, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to apply ‘a value’ that is suitable for obtaining an optimum adjusted reverberation ratio parameter, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding Claim 8, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 7, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one value comprises a decibel offset for the at least one reverberation ratio parameter. However, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to apply ‘a value comprising a decibel offset’ that is suitable for obtaining an optimum adjusted reverberation ratio parameter, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding Claim 12, Schissler discloses a method for an apparatus for assisting spatial rendering for room acoustics (e.g. using a sound rendering device 100), (see at least the abstract, and figures 1-2), the method comprising: obtaining at least one reverberation parameter (e.g. reverberation parameter from a reverberator 212); (see figure 2); determining at least one reverberation ratio parameter at least based on the obtained at least one reverberation parameter (e.g. a reverberation estimator 206 determines the reverberation parameter ratio), (see figure 2); obtaining at least one audio signal (e.g. audio input is received from an audio source by delay interpolation engine 110), (see column 5 lines 5-21, also figures 1 and 2).
Schissler does not explicitly disclose: adjusting the at least one reverberation ratio parameter.
However, Baker in the same field of endeavors teaches that it is well known in the art to adjust reverberation ratio parameter in an audio processing apparatus as set forth in [0042] and figures 1-2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate means of adjusting the reverberation parameter as taught by Baker in the teachings of Schissler in order to achieve an audio output with a desirable spatialized effect, and thereby further enhancing the listening experience of the user.
In addition, the combination of Schissler and Baker further teaches: and controlling late reverberation ratio of the obtained at least one audio signal based on the adjusted at least one reverberation ratio parameter (e.g. late reverberation ratio is used in processing the audio output), (see Schissler, column 8 line 61 to column 9 line 30, and figure 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein controlling the late reverberation ratio of the obtained at least one audio signal based on the adjusted at least one reverberation ratio parameter comprises: providing a filter (e.g. a comb filter) configured based on the at least one adjusted reverberation ratio parameter; and applying the filter to the at least one audio signal to generate a late-rendered part of a rendered audio signal (e.g. the comb filters having a gain factor is applied to the reverberation output), (see Schissler, column 9 lines 39-55; column 13 lines 13-20, also figure 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, but fails to explicitly disclose cause the apparatus to obtain information which indicates whether to use an input reverberation ratio or a ratio calculated based on at least one reverberation parameter. However, it would have been an obvious to select any one of the input reverberation ratio or a different ratio calculated based on the at least the one reverberation parameter that would yield an optimum outcome (e.g. the D/R ratio is computed two ways, based on intensity and also based on RT60, and selecting either one as an input ratio would be a matter of choice), (see Schissler, column 13 lines 27-45)
Regarding Claim 15, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein obtaining the at least one reverberation parameter comprises obtaining at least one of: at least one RT60 time; at least one room or enclosure volume dimension; at least one pre-delay value; or at least one diffuse-to-direct ratio value (see column 12, line 40-65; column 13, line 6-40; and column 14 lines 5-20).
Regarding Claim 16, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the obtaining at least one pre-delay value comprises: obtaining at least one pre-delay value and determine a further pre-delay value from the first pre-delay value (see Schissler, column 14 lines 5-20). The combination of Schissler and Baker does not explicitly disclose: and determine a further pre-delay value from the first pre-delay value. However, determining a pre-decay value from the first pre-delay value would have been obvious if such would produce an optimum outcome, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 17, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein determining the at least one reverberation ratio parameter comprises: setting the determined at least one reverberation ratio parameter as the at least one reverberation parameter (e.g. the RT60 and D/R could be interpreted as representing either a reverberation ratio parameter or the at least one reverberation value), (see Schissler, column 12, lines 40-65; column 13 lines 6-40, 50-65).
Regarding Claim 18, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the at least one reverberation ratio parameter comprises: obtaining at least one value; and applying the at least one value to the at least one reverberation ratio parameter to obtain the at least one adjusted reverberation ratio parameter. However, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to apply ‘a value’ that is suitable for obtaining an optimum adjusted reverberation ratio parameter, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding Claim 19, Schissler as modified by Baker discloses the method as claimed in claim 18, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one value comprises a decibel offset for the at least one reverberation ratio parameter. However, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to apply ‘a value comprising a decibel offset’ that is suitable for obtaining an optimum adjusted reverberation ratio parameter, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYESOLA C OJO whose telephone number is (571)272-0848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm Central Time.
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 571-272-7840. 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.
/OYESOLA C OJO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695.