DETAILED ACTION
This examination is in response to the communication filed on 09/17/2024. Claims 1-30 are currently pending, where claims 1, 2, 10, 11 and 24-31 are independent.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2024, 4/26/2025, 12/09/2025, 1/07/2026 and 3/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 11/05/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because item 13 fails to be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication, as required by 37 CFR 1.98 (b)(5). Thus, item 13 has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
Figures 1a, 1b, 2, 3 and 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 2 recites “…beads on the formula…” and should read “…based on the formula…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“unit for deriving” in claims 1, 3-10, 12-24 and 26; and
“transformer for transforming” in claims 1-25 and 26, .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 7, 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “based on
Y
l
,
m
…
"
, and also recites “especially based on the formula…” which is a narrower limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Claim 3 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of Examination, the limitation following the term “especially” are interpreted as not be required.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “based on an information about diffuseness, spherical harmonics and a time-dependent scalar-valued signal
"
, and also recites “especially based on the formula…” which is a narrower limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Claim 7 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of Examination, the limitation following the term “especially” are interpreted as not be required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the model" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the model" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the model" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12-14, 22, 24-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert et al (WO 2021/252705 A1; herein “Eckert”) in view of Fuchs et al. (US 2020/0265851 A1; herein “Fuchs”).
Regarding claims 1, 24, 27 and 31, Eckert teaches an apparatus, encoder, method, and non-transitory digital storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, for transforming an audio stream with more than one channel (Fig. 1, multi-channel input signal 101 and page 6, lines 24-25) into another representation, apparatus being on an encoder side (Fig. 1, encoding unit 100) and comprising:
unit (Fig. 3, calculation module 313) for deriving one or more parameters describing an acoustic or psychoacoustic model of the audio stream on the encoder side (Fig. 1 SPAR metadata 105), wherein the unit for deriving is configured to calculate prediction coefficients as the one or more parameters, wherein the prediction coefficients are calculated based on a covariance matrix by the unit for deriving (Page 9, lines 18-26 teaches “…the parameters may include prediction parameters Pr…These parameters may be calculate for the covariance matrix of a windowed input signal 101”);
transformer for transforming the audio stream in a signal-adaptive way dependent on the one or more parameters (Fig. 3, remix 312 and Extraction/downmix selection 313 and page 9, line 28 to page 10, line 8 teaches “the prediction parameters may be determined within the prediction module 311…thereby providing the residual channels Y’, Z’ ad X’ 301”); and
wherein the transformer is configured to perform a downmixing (Page 7, lines 1-2 teaches “the encoding unit 100 comprises a spatial analysis and downmix module 120 configured to downmix the multi-channel input signal 101 to a downmix signal 103) or other transforming of the audio stream on the encoder side (the “or” makes this limitation optional).
Eckert fails to disclose that the prediction parameters include an information on at least one direction of arrival (DOA).
Fuchs teaches and DirAC encoder that includes, inter alia, spatial metadata extractor/estimator 100 and encoder 200 wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least an information on at least one direction of arrival (DOA) (Fig. 1a direction estimation 120 and ¶[00113]-[0120] teaches “In each frequency band, the direction of arrival of sound together with the diffuseness of the sound are estimated”).
Eckert differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claims 1, 24, 27 and 31, in that Eckert fails to specifically disclose that the SPAR metadata includes DoA information. Encoders/decoders which analyze direction of arrival information when processing spatial audio are known in the art as evidenced by Fuchs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by Ecker to include estimating direction of arrival as taught by Fuchs as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processing methods to achieve the predictable result of improving spatial fidelity.
Regarding claims 2, 25 and 28, Eckert teaches an apparatus, decoder, and method for transforming an audio stream with more than one channel into another representation apparatus being on a decoder side (Fig. 1 Decoding unit 150 and Fig. 2, reconstruction module 170) and comprising:
receiver for receiving one or more parameters describing an audio scene with an acoustic or psychoacoustic model on the decoder side (Page 6, lines 5-8 teaches “…the decoding unit 150 comprises a metadata decoding module 161 which is configured to derive the SPAR metadata 105 from the coded metadata 107” and Page 9, lines 18-26 teaches “…the parameters may include prediction parameters Pr…These parameters may be calculate for the covariance matrix of a windowed input signal 101”);
transformer for transforming the audio stream in a signal-adaptive way dependent on the one or more parameters (Fig. 2, mixer 211 and page 6, lines 10-22 teaches “In addition, the decoding unit 150 comprises a reconstruction module 170 which is configured to derive a reconstructed multi-channel signal 11 from the SPAR metadata 105 and from the reconstructed downmix signal 114…A first mixer 211 may be configured to upmix the one or more channels of the reconstructed downmix signal 114…The first mixer 211 depends on the SPAR metadata 105” ); and
wherein the transformer is configured to perform upmix (Page 5, lines 11-12 teaches “The SPAR metadata 105 is referred to herein also as upmixing metadata”; and Page 7, lines 1-2 teaches “the encoding unit 100 comprises a spatial analysis and downmix module 120 configured to downmix the multi-channel input signal 101 to a downmix signal 103) or other transform generation of the audio stream on the decoder side (the “or” makes this limitation optional).
Eckert fails to disclose that the prediction parameters include an information on at least one direction of arrival (DOA).
Fuchs teaches and DirAC encoder that includes, inter alia, spatial metadata extractor/estimator 100 and encoder 200 wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least an information on at least one direction of arrival (DOA) (Fig. 1a direction estimation 120 and ¶[00113]-[0120] teaches “In each frequency band, the direction of arrival of sound together with the diffuseness of the sound are estimated”).
Eckert differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claims 1, 24, 27 and 31, in that Eckert fails to specifically disclose that the SPAR metadata includes DoA information. Encoders/decoders which analyze direction of arrival information when processing spatial audio are known in the art as evidenced by Fuchs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill, before the effective date of the invention, in the art to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by Ecker to include estimating direction of arrival as taught by Fuchs as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processing methods to achieve the predictable result of improving spatial fidelity.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the elements of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Eckert further teaches the one or more parameters further comprise at least an information on a diffuseness factor (the “or” make this limitation optional; ) or on one or more DOAs (the “or” make this limitation optional; ) or on energy ratios (the “or” make this limitation optional; ), and/or wherein the one or more parameters are derived from the audio stream (page 7, lines 21-23 teaches “The parameters may include prediction parameters, cross-prediction parameters C and/or decorrelation parameters P. These parameters may be calculated from the covariance matrix of a windowed input signal 101” the cross-prediction parameters are interpreted as being derived from the audio stream ).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Eckert further teaches the unit for deriving is configured to calculate a covariance matrix (page 7, lines 22-23 teaches “These parameters may be calculated from the covariance matrix of a windowed input signal 101” and page 16, lines 13-14 teaches “The covariance of the different channel signals of the frame may be determined for a plurality of different frequency bands or subbands”) or a covariance matrix from the acoustic or psychoacoustic model (the “or” makes this limitation optional ).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Fuchs further teaches the unit for deriving is configured to calculate a covariance matrix based on the DoA and a diffuseness factor (Fig. 1a, diffuseness estimation 110 and direction estimation 120) or an energy ratio (the “or” makes this limitation optional).
Eckert differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claim 6, in that Eckert fails to specifically disclose that the SPAR metadata includes DoA information. Encoders/decoders which analyze direction of arrival information when processing spatial audio are known in the art as evidenced by Fuchs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by Ecker to include estimating direction of arrival as taught by Fuchs as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processing methods to achieve the predictable result of improving spatial fidelity.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 6 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Fuchs further teaches the unit for deriving is configured to calculate a covariance matrix based on an information about diffuseness, spherical harmonics and a time-dependent scalar-valued signal (¶[0015] teaches “The DirAC parameters, also called spatial metadata...consist of tuples of diffuseness and direction. Direction can be represented in spherical coordinates by two angles…while the diffuseness is a scalar factor between 0 and 1” )
C
x
/
y
/
z
,
w
=
∫
d
t
s
2
t
Y
0,0
θ
D
Y
1
,
-
1
/
0
/
1
θ
D
Y
l
,
m
(this limitation is interpreted as being optional, see rejection under 112 above); and/or
based on a signal energy, especially based on the following formula
C
x
/
y
/
z
,
w
=
1
-
Ψ
E
Y
0,0
θ
D
Y
1
,
-
1
/
0
/
1
θ
D
where Ψ describes the diffuseness and where E describes the signal energy for the audio stream (the “or” makes this limitation optional ); and/or
based on the formula
C
w
,
w
=
1
-
Ψ
E
Y
0,0
θ
D
Y
0,0
θ
D
+
Ψ
E
where E is the signal energy (the “or” makes this limitation optional ); and/or
based on the formula
C
x
,
x
=
1
-
Ψ
E
Y
1
,
-
1
θ
D
Y
1
,
-
1
θ
D
+
Ψ
3
E
and for the y and z channels analogously (the “or” makes this limitation optional).
Eckert differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claim 7, in that Eckert fails to specifically disclose that the SPAR metadata includes DoA information. Encoders/decoders which analyze direction of arrival information when processing spatial audio are known in the art as evidenced by Fuchs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by Ecker to include estimating direction of arrival as taught by Fuchs as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processing methods to achieve the predictable result of improving spatial fidelity.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Fuchs further teaches the audio stream is preprocessed by a parameter estimator (the “or” makes this limitation optional) or wherein the audio stream is preprocessed by a parameter estimator comprising a metadata encoder or metadata decoder (the “or” makes this limitation optional) and/or
wherein the audio stream is preprocessed by an analysis filterbank (As shown Fig. 1a, filter bank analysis 130 is performed prior to the metadata estimation, thus the filter bank analysis is interpreted as preprocessing).
Eckert differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claim 9, in that Eckert fails to specifically disclose preprocessing the input audio with filter bank analysis. Encoders/decoders which preprocess using filter bank analysis are known in the art as evidenced by Fuchs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by Ecker to include filter bank preprocessing analysis as taught by Fuchs as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processing methods to achieve the predictable result of improving spatial fidelity.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Eckert further teaches the one or more parameters are quantized prior to a transmission (Fig. 1 quantization and entropy coding 141; and page 5, lines 18-20 teaches “…Furthermore, the encoding unit 100 comprises a quantization module 141 which is configured to quantize the SPAR metadata 105…”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Eckert further teaches the one or more parameters are dequantized after a transmission (Fig. 1, quantization and entropy decoding 161; page 5, lines 18-20 teaches “…Furthermore, the encoding unit 100 comprises a quantization module 141 which is configured to quantize the SPAR metadata 105…” decoding of the quantized metadata inherently requires dequantization after transmission).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Eckert further teaches the parameters are smoothed over time (Page 16, lines 15-17 teaches “The smoothing of the covariance, i.e., the smoothing of the covariance matrix, may be performed across a plurality of subsequent frames.” ).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Fuchs further teaches the unit for deriving the one or more parameters is configured to process all or a subset of the channels of a first-order or higher-order Ambisonics input signal of the audio stream (¶[0089] teaches “The reproduced sound field can be reproduced on an arbitrary loudspeaker layout or can be generated in Ambisonics format (HOA/FOA) with an arbitrary order.”).
Eckert differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claim 22, in that Eckert fails to specifically disclose processing channels of a first-order or higher-order Ambisonics. Encoders/decoders which process channels of a first-order or higher-order Ambisonics are known in the art as evidenced by Fuchs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by Ecker to include first-order or higher-order Ambisonics processing as taught by Fuchs as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processing methods to achieve the predictable result of improving spatial fidelity.
Regarding claim 26, Eckert teaches a system comprising
an encoder comprising an apparatus for transforming an audio stream with more than one channel (Fig. 1, multi-channel input signal 101) into another representation, apparatus being on an encoder side (Fig. 1, encoding unit 100) and comprising:
unit (Fig. 3, calculation module 313) for deriving one or more parameters describing an acoustic or psychoacoustic model of the audio stream on the encoder side (Fig. 1 SPAR metadata 105), wherein the unit for deriving is configured to calculate prediction coefficients as the one or more parameters, wherein the prediction coefficients are calculated based on a covariance matrix by the unit for deriving (Page 9, lines 18-26 teaches “…the parameters may include prediction parameters Pr…These parameters may be calculate for the covariance matrix of a windowed input signal 101”);
transformer for transforming the audio stream in a signal-adaptive way dependent on the one or more parameters (Fig. 3, remix 312 and Extraction/downmix selection 313 and page 9, line 28 to page 10, line 8 teaches “the prediction parameters may be determined within the prediction module 311…thereby providing the residual channels Y’, Z’ ad X’ 301”); and
wherein the transformer is configured to perform a downmixing (Page 7, lines 1-2 teaches “the encoding unit 100 comprises a spatial analysis and downmix module 120 configured to downmix the multi-channel input signal 101 to a downmix signal 103) or other transforming of the audio stream on the encoder side (the “or” makes this limitation optional), and
a decoder according to claim 25 (Fig. 1 decoding 161; see the rejection about with respect to claim 25 ),
wherein the encoder is configured to calculate a prediction matrix (the “or” makes this limitation optional) and/or a downmix (Page 7, lines 1-2 teaches “the encoding unit 100 comprises a spatial analysis and downmix module 120 configured to downmix the multi-channel input signal 101 to a downmix signal 103) or other transform (the “or” makes this limitation optional) and
wherein the decoder is configured to calculate an upmix or other transform matrix from estimated parameters or the one or more parameters of the acoustic model independently of each other (Page 5, lines 11-12 teaches “The SPAR metadata 105 is referred to herein also as upmixing metadata”; and Page 7, lines 1-2 teaches “the encoding unit 100 comprises a spatial analysis and downmix module 120 configured to downmix the multi-channel input signal 101 to a downmix signal 103).
Eckert fails to disclose that the prediction parameters include an information on at least one direction of arrival (DOA).
Fuchs teaches and DirAC encoder that includes, inter alia, spatial metadata extractor/estimator 100 and encoder 200 wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least an information on at least one direction of arrival (DOA) (Fig. 1a direction estimation 120 and ¶[00113]-[0120] teaches “In each frequency band, the direction of arrival of sound together with the diffuseness of the sound are estimated”).
Eckert differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claims 1, 24, 27 and 31, in that Eckert fails to specifically disclose that the SPAR metadata includes DoA information. Encoders/decoders which analyze direction of arrival information when processing spatial audio are known in the art as evidenced by Fuchs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by Ecker to include estimating direction of arrival as taught by Fuchs as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processing methods to achieve the predictable result of improving spatial fidelity.
Claims 10, 11, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Eckert.
Regarding claims 10 and 29, Fuchs teaches an apparatus and method for transforming an audio stream in a directional audio coding system (Fig. 1a, DirAC analysis 110), being on an encoder side and comprising:
unit for deriving one or more acoustic model parameters of a model of the audio stream, wherein the one or more acoustic model parameters are transmitted to enable restoring all channels of the audio stream and comprise at least an information on direction of arrival (DoA) (Fig. 1a, diffuseness estimation 110 and direction estimation 120; ¶[0090] teaches “The DirAC analyzer 100 may include an analysis filter bank 130,a diffuseness estimator 110, and a direction estimator 120.”),
transformer for transforming the audio stream in a signal-adaptive way
where all or a subset of the channels of the audio stream are transformed (¶[0088] teaches “The down-mix signal consists of different channels, called transport channels: the signal can be, e.g., the four coefficient signals composing a B-format signal, a stereo pair or a monophonic down-mix depending of the targeted bit-rate.” );
wherein the transformer is configured to perform a downmixing or other transforming of the audio stream on the encoder side (¶[0088] teaches “The down-mix signal consists of different channels, called transport channels: the signal can be, e.g., the four coefficient signals composing a B-format signal, a stereo pair or a monophonic down-mix depending of the targeted bit-rate.” ).
Fuchs fails to disclose that the transformer transforms the audio stream in a signal-adaptive way dependent on the one or more acoustic model parameters.
Eckert teaches an spatial audio encoder that includes a transformer which transforms an audio stream dependent on the one or more acoustic model parameters (Fig. 3, remix 312 and Extraction/downmix selection 313 and page 9, line 28 to page 10, line 8 teaches “the prediction parameters may be determined within the prediction module 311…thereby providing the residual channels Y’, Z’ ad X’ 301”).
Fuchs differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claims 10 and 29, in that Fuchs fails to disclose that the downmixing is dependent on the predicted parameters. Transforming an audio stream in a signal-adaptive way dependent on one or more predicted parameters, e.g., spatial metadata, is known in the art as evidenced by Eckert. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by Fuchs to include downmixing in dependences of the spatial metadata as taught by Eckert as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processing methods to achieve the predictable result of providing perceptually pleasing transitions between active and inactive sections of a multi-channel audio signal (Eckert, page 1, lines 23-24).
Regarding claims 11 and 30, Fuchs teaches an apparatus and method for transforming an audio stream in a directional audio coding system, apparatus being on a decoder side (Fig. 1b ) and comprising:
receiver for receiving one or more acoustic model parameters of a model of the audio stream, wherein the one or more acoustic model parameters are received to restore all channels of the audio stream and comprise at least an information on direction of arrival (DoA) (Fig. 1b, spatial metadata decoder and Fig. 7a; ¶[00218] teaches “FIG. 7a illustrates a decoder in accordance with the first aspect for decoding an encoded audio signal comprising encoded directional audio coding parameters, the encoded directional audio coding parameters comprising encoded diffuseness parameters and encoded direction parameters”),
transformer for transforming the audio stream in a signal-adaptive way
where all or a subset of the channels of the audio stream are transformed (¶[0088] teaches “The down-mix signal consists of different channels, called transport channels: the signal can be, e.g., the four coefficient signals composing a B-format signal, a stereo pair or a monophonic down-mix depending of the targeted bit-rate.”);
wherein the transformer is configured to perform upmix (the “or” makes this limitation optional) or other transform generation of the audio stream on the decoder side (¶[0091] teaches “The decoded transport signal is input into a DirAC synthesizer 400 together with the decoded directional audio coding parameters. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1b, the DirAC synthesizer comprises an output synthesizer 420, an analysis filter bank 430 and a synthesis filter bank 440. At the output of the synthesis filter bank 400, the decoded multichannel signal 450 is obtained that can be forwarded to loudspeakers or that can, alternatively, be an audio signal in any other format such as a first order Ambisonics (FOA) or a high order Ambisonics (HOA) format.” ).
Fuchs fails to disclose that the transformer transforms the audio stream in a signal-adaptive way dependent on the one or more acoustic model parameters.
Eckert teaches an spatial audio encoder that includes a transformer which transforms an audio stream dependent on the one or more acoustic model parameters (Fig. 3, remix 312 and Extraction/downmix selection 313 and page 9, line 28 to page 10, line 8 teaches “the prediction parameters may be determined within the prediction module 311…thereby providing the residual channels Y’, Z’ ad X’ 301”).
Fuchs differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claims 10 and 29, in that Fuchs fails to disclose that the transforming is dependent on the predicted parameters. Transforming an audio stream in a signal-adaptive way dependent on one or more predicted parameters, e.g., spatial metadata, is known in the art as evidenced by Eckert. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by Fuchs to include downmixing in dependences of the spatial metadata as taught by Eckert as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processing methods to achieve the predictable result of providing perceptually pleasing transitions between active and inactive sections of a multi-channel audio signal (Eckert, page 1, lines 23-24).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eckert and Fuchs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (page 14, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). In addition, Fuchs teaches that the processing includes a decorrelation stage. However, the combination fails to disclose that correlations between transport channels are reduced by use of Karhunen-Loeve transform or prediction matrix
AAPA teaches it is known that correlations between transport channels are reduced by use of Karhunen-Loeve transform or prediction matrix (Page 14, lines 1-2 of the Specification states “For the compression of the transport channels it is known that the optimal decorrelation and therefore energy compaction would be obtained by the Karhunen-Loeve transform (KLT)”).
The combination of Eckert and Fuchs differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claim 15, in that combination fails to disclose that the reducing correlations between transport channels using Karhunen-Loeve transform. Decorrelating transport channels using a Karhunen-Loeve transform is known in the art as evidenced by AAPA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by the combination of Eckert and Fuchs to include decorrelating the transport channels using KLT as taught by AAPA as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processes to achieve the predictable result of providing optimal decorrelation and therefore energy compaction.
Claims 8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eckert and Fuchs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Binn et al. (US 2022/0014868 A1; herein “Binn”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 7 (see detailed element mapping above). However, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs fails to explicitly disclose that the signal energy E is directly calculated from the audio stream or the signal energy E is estimated from the model of the audio stream.
Binn teaches a system and method for providing a spatialized sound field. In addition, Binn establishes that spatial audio object coding (SAOC) performs transcoding of audio streams in two steps. In one step the object parameters from the SAOC bitstream are transcoded into spatial parameters for the MPEG Surround bitstream according to the information of the rendering matrix. In a second step, the object downmix is modified according to parameters that are derived from the object parameters and the rendering matrix to form a new downmix signal (Binn, ¶[0026]). In addition, Binn teaches that in ¶[0028] that the covariance matrix E is an approximation of the original signal matrix multiplied with its complex conjugate transpose. Therefore, SAOC estimates the object energy E from the model of the audio stream.
The combination of Eckert and Fuchs differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claim 8, in that combination fails to disclose that the signal energy E is estimated from the model of the audio stream. Spatial audio object coding which estimates signal energy E of objects from a model of the audio stream is known in the art as evidenced by Binn. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by the combination of Eckert and Fuchs to include estimating signal energy from a model of the audio stream as taught by Binn as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processes to achieve the predictable result of providing bitrate efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above).However, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs fails to explicitly disclose an inter-channel covariance matrix of the audio stream is estimated from the model or the acoustic or psychoacoustic model of the audio stream (the “or” makes only one of these limitations necessary).
Binn teaches a system and method for providing a spatialized sound field. In addition, Binn establishes that spatial audio object coding (SAOC) performs transcoding of audio streams in two steps. In one step the object parameters from the SAOC bitstream are transcoded into spatial parameters for the MPEG Surround bitstream according to the information of the rendering matrix. In a second step, the object downmix is modified according to parameters that are derived from the object parameters and the rendering matrix to form a new downmix signal (Binn, ¶[0026]). In addition, Binn teaches an inter-channel covariance matrix of the audio stream is estimated from the model (¶[0028] teaches “the elements of the matrix E are obtained from the object OLDs and IOCs” one skilled in the art would understand the IOC corresponds to the Inter-Object Cross-Correlation).
The combination of Eckert and Fuchs differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claim 16, in that combination fails to disclose that an inter-channel covariance matrix of the audio stream is estimated from the model. Estimating an inter-channel matrix from a model of the audio stream is known in the art as evidenced by Binn. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by the combination of Eckert and Fuchs to include estimating inter-channel covariance matrix from a model of the audio stream as taught by Binn as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processes to achieve the predictable result of providing bitrate efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above).However, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs fails to explicitly disclose a transform matrix is derived from a covariance matrix of the model or the acoustic or psychoacoustic model of the audio stream (the “or” makes only one of these limitations necessary).
Binn teaches a system and method for providing a spatialized sound field. In addition, Binn establishes that spatial audio object coding (SAOC) performs transcoding of audio streams in two steps. In one step the object parameters from the SAOC bitstream are transcoded into spatial parameters for the MPEG Surround bitstream according to the information of the rendering matrix. In a second step, the object downmix is modified according to parameters that are derived from the object parameters and the rendering matrix to form a new downmix signal (Binn, ¶[0026]). In addition, Binn teaches a transform matrix is derived from a covariance matrix of the model (¶[0028] teaches “The data that is available at the transcoder is the covariance matrix E…the elements of the matrix E are obtained from the object OLDs and IOCs”).
The combination of Eckert and Fuchs differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claim 17, in that combination fails to disclose that a transform matrix is derived from a covariance matrix of the model. Transcoding an audio stream based on a covariance matrix is known in the art as evidenced by Binn. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by the combination of Eckert and Fuchs to include deriving a transform matrix from a covariance matrix of the model as taught by Binn as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processes to achieve the predictable result of providing bitrate efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above).However, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs fails to explicitly disclose a transform matrix is calculated using the covariance matrix from the acoustic or psychoacoustic model for one or more frequency bands and a different method to calculate the covariance matrix for one or more other frequency bands (the “or” makes only one of these limitations necessary).
Binn teaches a system and method for providing a spatialized sound field. In addition, Binn establishes that spatial audio object coding (SAOC) performs transcoding of audio streams in two steps. In one step the object parameters from the SAOC bitstream are transcoded into spatial parameters for the MPEG Surround bitstream according to the information of the rendering matrix. In a second step, the object downmix is modified according to parameters that are derived from the object parameters and the rendering matrix to form a new downmix signal (Binn, ¶[0026]). In addition, Binn teaches a different method to calculate the covariance matrix for one or more other frequency bands (¶[0048] teaches “The SAOC transcoder can let the mix matrices P1, P2 and the prediction C3 be calculated according to an alternative scheme for the upper frequency range”).
The combination of Eckert and Fuchs differs from the claimed invention, as defined in claim 17, in that combination fails to disclose a different method to calculate the covariance matrix for one or more other frequency bands. Transcoding an audio stream based on different schemes based on the frequency band is known in the art as evidenced by Binn. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the encoder apparatus and method taught by the combination of Eckert and Fuchs to include deriving a transform matrix using an alternative scheme/method for the upper frequency range as taught by Binn as it merely constitutes combination of known encoding processes to achieve the predictable result of providing bitrate efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 19-21 and 23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest prediction coefficients are calculated based on
Y
l
,
m
, especially based on the formula
P
=
1
0
0
0
-
C
s
,
w
/
C
w
,
w
1
0
0
-
C
y
,
w
/
C
w
,
w
0
1
0
-
C
z
,
w
/
C
w
,
w
0
0
1
with the matrix elements
C
x
/
y
/
z
,
w
=
E
d
i
r
Y
0,0
θ
D
Y
1
,
-
1
/
0
/
1
θ
D
and
C
w
,
w
=
E
d
i
r
Y
0,0
θ
D
Y
0,0
θ
D
+
E
w
d
i
f
f
where
Y
l
,
m
are real spherical harmonics with degree and index l and m in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim from which is depends.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest at least one of transform methods used by the transformer is multiplication of a vector of audio channels by a constant matrix in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim from which is depends.
Regarding claim 20, t the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest at least one of transform methods used by the transformer uses prediction based on the inter-channel covariance matrix of a vector of audio channels in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim from which is depends.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest at least one of transform methods used by the transformer uses prediction based on inter-channel covariance matrix based on the DOA and an additional diffuseness factor or an energy ratio in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim from which is depends.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Eckert and Fuchs teaches all of the element of claim 1 (see detailed element mapping above). However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a sound scene of the audio stream is rotatable in such a way that: an audio signal in the spherical-harmonics domain resulting from a transform is pre-multiplied by a rotation matrix, model parameters and/or prediction coefficients are transformed in accordance with the transform of a transport channel signal, and non-transport channels of an output signal are reconstructed using the transformed model and/or prediction coefficients parameters in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim from which is depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENNY L CAUDLE whose telephone number is (703)756-1432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am to 5:00 pm eastern.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/PENNY L CAUDLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
/DANIEL C WASHBURN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights