DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 6/25/2024:
Claims 1-15 and 26-30 are pending
Claims 16-25 are cancelled
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 and 26-30 is/are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12058511. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. For example, claim 1 of the patent and application recites:
Pat. 12058511
App 18/753,182
An apparatus comprising:
An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one processor; and
at least one non-transitory memory including a computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
obtain at least two audio signals;
obtain at least two audio signals;
obtain at least one parameter associated with the at least two audio signals;
determine a type of the at least two audio signals based, at least partially, on the at least one parameter; and
determine a type of the at least two audio signals; and
process the at least two audio signals for rendering based, at least partially, on the determined type of the at least two audio signals.
process the at least two audio signals based, at least partially, on the determined type of the at least two audio signals.
Based on the observed differences listed above, claim 1 of the pending application is broader than claim 1 of the patent.
The remaining independent and/or dependent claims are considered to be rejected similarly as above.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 should recite “…cause the apparatus to perform one of:…”
Claim 7 appears to have some grammatical error in reciting “determine at least one type parameter associated with the type of the at least one two audio signals.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, 26, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herre et al (US20200228913, hereinafter “Herre”).
Regarding claim 1, Herre teaches an apparatus (abstract, apparatus) comprising:
at least one processor (¶224, processor); and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, (¶215, memory and storage to cause the processor to perform various methods), cause the apparatus at least to:
obtain at least two audio signals (Fig. 12b, at least two input signals captured by at least one microphone);
determine a type of the at least two audio signals (¶138-139, Fig. 12b, given the capture microphone parameter and various metadata descriptors, one of ordinary skill in the art would determine that the captured signals were done using DirAC with a B-format microphone set up); and
process the at least two audio signals based, at least partially, on the determined type of the at least two audio signals (Fig. 4a, audio signals are processed using the improved soundfield according to the user’s position).
Regarding claim 2, Herre teaches wherein the at least two audio signals are one of:
transport audio signals (¶6, Fig. 6c, audio signals are meant for transmission to be rendered); or
previously processed audio signals (Fig. 6c, the soundfield can be reprocessed according to the user’s tracked positioning).
Regarding claim 3, Herre teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
obtain at least one parameter associated with the at least two audio signals (Fig. 12b, at least one metadata descriptor
ψ
and directional parameters).
Regarding claim 4, Herre teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
determine the type of the at least two audio signals based, at least partially, on the at least one parameter associated with the at least two audio signals (¶138-139, Fig. 12b, given the capture microphone parameter and various metadata descriptors, one of ordinary skill in the art would determine that the captured signals were done using DirAC with a B-format microphone set up).
Regarding claim 5, Herre teaches wherein determining the type of the at least two audio signals comprises the means configured at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to one of:
extract and decode at least one type signal from the at least one parameter (Fig. 12a, received microphone data is decoded to extract at least one metadata component such as diffuseness and direction); or
in response to the at least one parameter representing a spatial audio aspect associated with the at least two audio signals, analyse the at least one parameter to determine the type of the at least two audio signals.
Regarding claim 7, Herre teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
determine at least one type parameter associated with the type of at least one two audio signals (Fig. 12a, metadata descriptors such as diffuseness and direction are associated with the captured microphone signals).
Regarding claim 8, Herre teaches wherein processing the at least two audio signals comprises the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
convert the at least two audio signals based on the at least one type parameter associated with the type of the at least two audio signals (¶29, DirAC processing allows for downmix signals to be combined with various metadata to reproduce (and improve) a soundfield (in future upmixing wherein the downmix signal is combined with said metadata); Fig. 6c, the rendered soundfield is improved by taking into account user tracking data).
Regarding claim 9, Herre teaches wherein the type of the at least two audio signals comprises at least one of:
a capture microphone arrangement (Fig. 12b, B-format capture microphone);
a capture microphone separation distance;
a capture microphone parameter;
a transport channel identifier;
a spaced audio signal type (Fig. 12b, B-format capture microphones have a distance between each microphone);
a downmix audio signal type;
a coincident audio signal type; or
a transport channel arrangement.
Regarding claim 10, Herre teaches wherein processing the at least two audio signals comprises the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to one of:
convert the at least two audio signals into an ambisonic audio signal representation (¶98, generating multi-point Ambisonics signals);
convert the at least two audio signals into a multichannel audio signal representation (¶30, Ambisonics format can be converted for multi-channel reproduction); or
downmix the at least two audio signals into fewer audio signals (¶29, DirAC encoding allows for downmix signals to be combined with metadata).
Regarding claim 11, Herre teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
generate at least one prototype signal based on the at least two audio signals and the type of the at least two audio signals (¶29, original soundfield can be converted to a downmixed (middle/prototype) signal for transmission along with their associated spatial cues/metadata).
Regarding claims 12-15, they are rejected similarly as claims 1-4, respectively. The method can be found in Herre (¶217, method).
Regarding claim 26, it is rejected similarly as claim 5. The method can be found in Herre (¶217, method).
Regarding claim 28, it is rejected similarly as a combination of claims 7-8. The method can be found in Herre (¶217, method).
Regarding claims 29-30, they are rejected similarly as claims 10-11, respectively. The method can be found in Herre (¶217, method).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 27 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691