DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 12/15/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US 5,136,651), hereinafter “Cooper,” in view of Fusakawa et al. (US 2007/0165890 A1), hereinafter “Fusakawa.”
As to claim 1, Cooper discloses a system for audio processing, comprising:
a left speaker and a right speaker addressing inward with respect to each other (Col. 6 lines 14-17, Fig. 1A. “The outputs of the network 54 are coupled to the loudspeakers 60 and 62, which are placed at a bearing angle .phi. (typically .+-.30.degree.)) for presentation to a listener 84.”);
a circuitry (Fig. 1A. Lattice network 54) configured to:
generate a cross-talk cancelled left output channel and a cross-talk cancelled right output channel based on a left channel and a right channel of an input audio signal (Col. 6 lines 11-14, Fig. 1A. “The signals from such a head, or alternate, are each coupled to the network 54 which comprises filter circuits (S'G) 72, 74, crosstalk filters (A'F) 76, 78, and summing circuits 80, 82, configured as shown.”); and
provide the cross-talk cancelled left output channel to the left speaker and the cross-talk cancelled right output channel to the right speaker to generate a sound providing a plurality of crosstalk cancelled listening regions that are spaced apart (Col. 6 lines 11-17, Fig. 1A. “filter circuits (S'G) 72, 74, crosstalk filters (A'F) 76, 78, and summing circuits 80, 82, configured as shown. The outputs of the network 54 are coupled to the loudspeakers 60 and 62.”).
Cooper does not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry comprises a crosstalk compensation processor configured to compensate for crosstalk processing artifacts, the crosstalk processing artifacts produced when generating the cross-talk cancelled left output channel and the cross-talk cancelled right output channel.
Fusakawa discloses wherein the circuitry comprises a crosstalk compensation processor configured to compensate for crosstalk processing artifacts, the crosstalk processing artifacts produced when generating the cross-talk cancelled left output channel and the cross-talk cancelled right output channel (Fusakawa, ¶0104, ¶0108-0109, Fig. 7. “The directivity control means 60 is constituted by, for example, a microcomputer, or a DSP (Digital Signal Processor).” “The first compensation filter 61 is adapted to compensate a target signal for distortion caused by the crosstalk cancel signal outputted from the left loudspeaker unit 51 and arrived at the right ear of the listener 20.” “The second compensation filter 62 is adapted to compensate a target signal for distortion caused by the crosstalk cancel signal outputted from the right loudspeaker unit 52 and arrived at the left ear of the listener 20.” Distortion is an artifact.).
Cooper and Fusakawa are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to crosstalk cancellation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to compensate for artifacts/distortion, as taught by Fusakawa. The motivation would have been to remove the artifact/distortion from the signal output to the listener.
As to claim 2, Cooper in view of Fusakawa discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to:
generate a left crosstalk cancellation component by filtering a portion of the left channel (Cooper, Col. 6 lines 11-14, Fig. 1A. “The signals from such a head, or alternate, are each coupled to the network 54 which comprises filter circuits (S'G) 72, 74, crosstalk filters (A'F) 76, 78, and summing circuits 80, 82, configured as shown.”);
generate a right crosstalk cancellation component by filtering a portion of the right channel (Cooper, Col. 6 lines 11-14, Fig. 1A. “The signals from such a head, or alternate, are each coupled to the network 54 which comprises filter circuits (S'G) 72, 74, crosstalk filters (A'F) 76, 78, and summing circuits 80, 82, configured as shown.”);
generate the cross-talk cancelled left output channel by combining the right crosstalk cancellation component with the left channel (Cooper, Col. 6 lines 11-14, Fig. 1A. “The signals from such a head, or alternate, are each coupled to the network 54 which comprises filter circuits (S'G) 72, 74, crosstalk filters (A'F) 76, 78, and summing circuits 80, 82, configured as shown.”);
generate the cross-talk cancelled right output channel by combining the left crosstalk cancellation component with the right channel (Cooper, Col. 6 lines 11-14, Fig. 1A. “The signals from such a head, or alternate, are each coupled to the network 54 which comprises filter circuits (S'G) 72, 74, crosstalk filters (A'F) 76, 78, and summing circuits 80, 82, configured as shown.”).
As to claim 8, Cooper in view of Fusakawa discloses the crosstalk compensation processor is configured to: compensate for the crosstalk processing artifacts by applying a plurality of filters to the left channel and the right channel (Fusakawa, ¶0108-0109, Fig. 7. “The directivity control means 60 is constituted by, for example, a microcomputer, or a DSP (Digital Signal Processor).” “The first compensation filter 61 is adapted to compensate a target signal for distortion caused by the crosstalk cancel signal outputted from the left loudspeaker unit 51 and arrived at the right ear of the listener 20.” “The second compensation filter 62 is adapted to compensate a target signal for distortion caused by the crosstalk cancel signal outputted from the right loudspeaker unit 52 and arrived at the left ear of the listener 20.”).
The motivation is the same as claim 1 above.
As to claim 10, Cooper in view of Fusakawa discloses wherein the left speaker and the right speaker addressing inward with respect to each other comprises the left speaker addressing at an angle between 30 degrees and 180 degrees with respect to the right speaker (Cooper, Col. 6 lines 14-17, Fig. 1A. “The outputs of the network 54 are coupled to the loudspeakers 60 and 62, which are placed at a bearing angle .phi. (typically .+-.30.degree.)).
Claims 11 and 19 are directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 12, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under claims 11 and 19 using the same rationale as claims 2, 8 and 10 above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Fusakawa, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Grosche et al. (US 2016/0286329 A1), hereinafter “Grosche.”
As to claim 3, Cooper in view of Fusakawa does not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
separate the left channel into a left inband signal and a left out-of-band signal, the portion of the left channel including the left inband signal;
separate the right channel into a right inband signal and a right out-of-band signal, the portion of the right channel including the right inband signal;
generate the left crosstalk cancellation component by filtering and time delaying the left inband signal; and
generate the right crosstalk cancellation component by filtering and time delaying the right inband signal.
Grosche discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
separate the left channel into a left inband signal and a left out-of-band signal, the portion of the left channel including the left inband signal (Grosche, ¶0134, Fig. 13B. SL(t) input to filter bank 1304 and split into mid (inband) as well as high and low (out-of-band) signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found using a bandpass filter for the mid instead of splitting into high, mid and low an obvious variation.);
separate the right channel into a right inband signal and a right out-of-band signal, the portion of the right channel including the right inband signal (Grosche, ¶0134, Fig. 13B. SR(t) input to filter bank 1304 and split into mid (inband) as well as high and low (out-of-band) signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found using a bandpass filter for the mid instead of splitting into high, mid and low an obvious variation.);
generate the left crosstalk cancellation component by filtering and time delaying the left inband signal (Grosche, ¶0135, Fig. 13b. XL2(t) is filtered and delayed at 110-L.); and
generate the right crosstalk cancellation component by filtering and time delaying the right inband signal (Grosche, ¶0135, Fig. 13b. XR2(t) is filtered and delayed at 110-R.).
Cooper, Fusakawa and Grosche are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to crosstalk cancellation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to generate the crosstalk cancellation components by filtering and delaying, as taught by Grosche. The motivation would have been for an improved spatial effect (Grosche, ¶0010).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Fusakawa, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hall (US 8,638,959 B1 – cited in IDS).
As to claim 4, Cooper in view of Fusakawa does not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to provide the cross-talk cancelled left output channel to another left speaker and the cross-talk cancelled right output channel to another right speaker, wherein:
the left speaker and the other left speaker address outward with respect to each other and form a left speaker pair;
the right speaker and the other right speaker address outward with respect to each other and form a right speaker pair; and
the left speaker pair and right speaker pair are spaced apart.
Hall discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to provide the cross-talk cancelled left output channel to another left speaker and the cross-talk cancelled right output channel to another right speaker (Hall, Col. 23 lines 14-16, Fig. 21a. “In this application both the inward 2112 and 2114 arrays and outward 2116 and 2118 arrays are fed corresponding left 2104 and right 2106 signals.”), wherein:
the left speaker and the other left speaker address outward with respect to each other and form a left speaker pair (Hall, Figs. 21a. 2114 and 2115 address outward with respect to each other.);
the right speaker and the other right speaker address outward with respect to each other and form a right speaker pair (Hall, Figs. 21a. 2112 and 2118 address outward with respect to each other); and
the left speaker pair and right speaker pair are spaced apart (Hall, Fig. 21a. Speaker pair 2114/2116 and speaker pair 2112/2118 are spaced apart.).
Cooper, Fusakawa and Hall are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to crosstalk cancellation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple left and right speakers, as taught by Hall. The motivation would have been to better address cues that lead to crosstalk (Hall, Col. 3 lines 36-43 and Col. 12 lines 1-11.).
Claim 13 is rejected under claim 11 using the same motivation as claim 4 above.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Fusakawa, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 8,238,560 B2), hereinafter “Oh.”
As to claim 5, Cooper in view of Fusakawa does not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry further comprises a subband spatial processor configured to gain adjust mid subband components and side subband components of the input audio signal.
Oh discloses wherein the circuitry further comprises a subband spatial processor configured to gain adjust mid subband components and side subband components of the input audio signal (Oh, Col. 5 lines 10-50, Figs. 2-3. Subband processing.).
Cooper, Fusakawa and Oh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to audio enhancement for a listener.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to process the audio in subbands, as taught by Oh. The motivation would have been for more efficient audio adjustments (Oh, Col. 5 lines 30-35).
As to claim 14, it is rejected under claim 11 using the same motivation as claim 5 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9 and 15-16 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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 K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695