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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
Since applicant cited over 400 U.S. patents, U.S. publications, foreign references, and NPL, and since cursory review revealed that some of these are irrelevant to the claimed invention, (for example, U.S Pub 20130195166 pertains to communication receivers and is not even related to sound or audio, US Pub 20140361977 pertains to image rendering and is unrelated to equalization or reducing spectral distortion, US Pub 20170048613 pertains to pairing of media devices and is unrelated to reproducing virtual acoustics or equalization, US Pub 20050249361 pertains to shaping of communication signals and is unrelated to reproducing virtual acoustic, equalization, or reducing spectral distortion, etc.), Applicant is hereby reminded of the responsibility to include a concise explanation of the relevance to the currently claimed invention, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent listed that is relevant to be incorporated by reference. Relevant references and relevant portions therein should be clearly pointed out to the examiner. Again, applicant is citing over 400 references, many of which appear to be irrelevant.
The information disclosure statement filed 11/15/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS #16-17 and 20 referred to therein have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 11/15/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS #9-10 referred to therein have not been considered.
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: “a cross-talk cancellation system for conducting cross-talk cancellation” in claim 3.
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. Page 7 states that the system may be executed by a” computer or signal processor”. Because the system is implemented by a generic computing component, the algorithm must also be found. The Specification states “the system 200 for reproducing virtual acoustics may, e.g., be configured to conduct cross-talk cancellation by employing a plurality of cross-talk cancellation coefficients” and “According to an embodiment, the apparatus 100 may, e.g., be configured to determine the plurality of equalizer components by determining one or more combinations of the plurality of cross-talk cancellation coefficients being a plurality of complex cross-talk cancellation coefficients in a frequency domain. In an embodiment, to determine the one or more combinations of the plurality of cross-talk cancellation coefficients for determining the plurality of equalizer components, the apparatus 100 may, e.g., be configured to determine one or more linear combinations of the complex cross-talk cancellation coefficients in the frequency domain." However, there are no steps to show how coefficients are determined or applied in order to achieve cross talk cancellation, therefore, no algorithm exists.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Specification fails to provide corresponding structural support for the cross-talk cancellation system, interpreted under 112(f) (see claim interpretation above and rejection under 112(b) below) and see MPEP 2181(II)(B), last paragraph.
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, 5-6, 8-10, and 15 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.
Referring to claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the adaptive equalization and/or by conducting the time-dynamic equalization by employing the equalization information”. It is unclear what is actually meant by “by conducting the time-dynamic equalization by employing the equalization information” because there are two “by” clauses. Examiner interprets as wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the adaptive equalization and/or the time-dynamic equalization by employing the equalization information.
Referring to claim 3, claim limitation “a cross-talk cancellation system for conducting cross-talk cancellation” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Page 7 states that the system may be executed by a” computer or signal processor”. Because the system is implemented by a generic computing component, the algorithm must also be found. The Specification states “the system 200 for reproducing virtual acoustics may, e.g., be configured to conduct cross-talk cancellation by employing a plurality of cross-talk cancellation coefficients” and “According to an embodiment, the apparatus 100 may, e.g., be configured to determine the plurality of equalizer components by determining one or more combinations of the plurality of cross-talk cancellation coefficients being a plurality of complex cross-talk cancellation coefficients in a frequency domain. In an embodiment, to determine the one or more combinations of the plurality of cross-talk cancellation coefficients for determining the plurality of equalizer components, the apparatus 100 may, e.g., be configured to determine one or more linear combinations of the complex cross-talk cancellation coefficients in the frequency domain." However, there are no steps to show how coefficients are determined or applied, therefore, no algorithm exists. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Referring to claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation "the signals" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets as the at least two audio signals.
Referring to claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitations "at least two audio signals " in line 3 and “the signals” in line 7. It is unclear if the at least two audio signals are the same as the ones introduced previously. There is also insufficient antecedent basis for the second limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets as the at least two audio signals in each instance.
Referring to claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation “employing magnitudes of the plurality of frequency bands to detect, which of the plurality of frequency bands are used to calculate similarity information; and/or wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the magnitude-based weighting by employing a specific number of frequency bands with a highest magnitude to calculate the similarity information”. It is unclear what a magnitude of frequency band is. The term “magnitude” should be used to describe a characteristic of a signal in a frequency band. The comma also makes the claim unclear because then the limitation introduces a question (“which of the plurality of frequency bands…”). Examiner interprets as employing magnitudes of the at least two audio signals in each of the plurality of frequency bands to detect which frequency bands of the plurality of frequency bands are used to calculate similarity information; and/or wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the magnitude-based weighting by employing a specific number of frequency bands comprising the at least two audio signals having a highest magnitude to calculate the similarity information.
Referring to claims 9-10, claim 9 recites the limitation " the one or more frequency bands of the plurality of frequency bands which are not comprised by the proper subset.” The “one or more frequency bands” are specifically defined as being within the proper subset earlier in the claim, therefore, it is unclear how these same frequency bands could be outside of the proper subset. Examiner interprets as determining a similarity information for each of one or more frequency bands of the proper subset without determining similarity information for frequency bands of the plurality of frequency bands which are not comprised by the proper subset. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Referring to claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation “said frequency band” and “the magnitude being associated with each frequency band of the one or more frequency bands of the proper subset.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. And then it is unclear what is meant by a magnitude associated with a frequency depends on a magnitude of a frequency band. It seems like the magnitude is dependent upon itself. Examiner interprets as:
wherein each frequency band of the plurality of frequency bands is associated a magnitude of one or more of the at least two audio signals,
wherein the apparatus is configured to determine the proper subset of one or more frequency bands such that a magnitude associated with one or more of the at least two audio signals in each frequency band of the one or more frequency bands of the proper subset is greater than or equal to a magnitude associated with one or more of the at least two audio signals in each frequency band of the plurality of frequency bands which are not comprised by the proper subset.
Referring to claim 15, claim 15 recites the limitation "the method” in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets as a method in the first instance.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breebaart et al. US Publication No. 20190373398 (from IDS).
Referring to claim 1, Breebaart et al. teaches an apparatus for reducing spectral distortion in a system for reproducing virtual acoustics via loudspeakers, wherein the apparatus is configured to reduce the spectral distortion by conducting adaptive equalization and/or by conducting time-dynamic equalization (para 0011: “Some methods may involve processing the cross-talk-cancelled signal by a dynamic equalization or gain stage in which an amount of equalization or gain is dependent on a level of the first playback stream presentation or the second playback stream presentation, to produce a modified version of the cross-talk-cancelled signal.”; para 0152: “To address this issue with timbre, various equalizations of the crosstalk canceller in Equation 15 have been proposed with the goal of making the perceived timbre of the binaural signal b more natural for all listeners, regardless of their position” – Examiner notes that by improving timbre perception, spectral distortion is reduced.).
Referring to claim 2, Breebaart et al. teaches the apparatus is configured to reduce the spectral distortion by conducting the adaptive equalization and/or by conducting the time-dynamic equalization on at least one of one or more audio input signals of the system for reproducing virtual acoustics, and/or on at least one of two or more audio output signals of the system and/or on filter information to be applied by the system on the one or more audio input signals or on one or more processed signals which depend on the one or more audio input signals (Fig. 10: equalization E applied on binaural filter pair B and crosstalk canceler C outputs which depend on input signal o).
Referring to claim 3, Breebaart et al. teaches the apparatus is configured to determine equalization information depending on at least two of the audio input signals and/or depending on at least two of the audio output signals and/or depending on at least two of the processed signals, and wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the adaptive equalization and/or by conducting the time-dynamic equalization by employing the equalization information; and/or wherein the system for reproducing virtual acoustics comprises a cross-talk cancellation system for conducting cross-talk cancellation to remove and/or to reduce and/or to avoid cross-talk created by the system when reproducing the virtual acoustics via the loudspeakers, wherein the apparatus is configured to reduce spectral distortion resulting from conducting the cross-talk cancellation; and/or wherein the apparatus comprises an equalizer, wherein the apparatus is configured to update the equalizer at specific times (paras 0152: “To address this issue with timbre, various equalizations of the crosstalk canceller in Equation 15 have been proposed with the goal of making the perceived timbre of the binaural signal b more natural for all listeners, regardless of their position”, 0173).
Referring to claim 4, Breebaart et al. teaches the apparatus is configured to determine similarity information by determining information on a similarity of at least two audio signals, and wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the adaptive equalization and/or the time-dynamic equalization using the similarity information, wherein the one or more audio input signals of the system comprise the at least two audio signals, or wherein the two or more audio output signals of the system comprise the at least two audio signals, or wherein the one or more processed signals comprise the at least two audio signals (para 0202: “According to this example, the stereo cross-talk cancelled signal V (v.sub.l, v.sub.r) and target signal X (x.sub.l, x.sub.r) are processed by level estimators 1405 and 1410, respectively, and subsequently a dynamic equalization gain G is calculated by the gain estimator 1415 and applied to signal V (v.sub.l, v.sub.r) to compute stereo output loudspeaker signal S (s.sub.l, s.sub.r)”; para 0203: “measure the covariance matrix of the signal pair y.sub.l, y.sub.r…We can then estimate the covariance matrix of the signal pair v.sub.l, v.sub.r”).
Referring to claim 11, Breebaart et al. teaches the system for reproducing virtual acoustics is configured to conduct cross-talk cancellation by employing a plurality of cross-talk cancellation coefficients, wherein the apparatus is configured to reduce the spectral distortion by conducting adaptive equalization and/or by conducting time-dynamic equalization using a plurality of equalizer components, wherein the apparatus is configured to determine the plurality of equalizer components depending on one or more of the plurality of cross-talk cancellation coefficients (para 0192: “In Equation 44, c.sub.11-c.sub.22 represent the coefficients of the cross-talk matrix. The matrices G and C represent the dynamic equalization (DEQ) and cross-talk cancellation (XTC) processes, respectively. In time-domain implementations, or in filter-bank implementations with a limited number of sub-bands, these matrices may be convolution matrices to realize frequency-dependent processing.”; para 0193: “Cross-talk cancelled signals at the output of the cross-talk canceller and input to the dynamic equalization algorithm are denoted by v.sub.l, v.sub.r”; Equation 45).
Referring to claim 12, Breebaart et al. teaches the apparatus is configured to determine the plurality of equalizer components by choosing, depending on the cross-talk cancellation coefficients, a pre-calculated set of equalizer components from two or more pre-calculated sets of equalizer components; and/or wherein the apparatus is configured to determine the plurality of equalizer components by determining one or more combinations of the plurality of cross-talk cancellation coefficients being a plurality of complex cross-talk cancellation coefficients in a frequency domain (paras 0199-0200, 0203).
Referring to claim 13, Breebaart et al. teaches a system for reproducing virtual acoustics via loudspeakers, wherein the system comprises: a loudspeaker signal generator for generating two or more audio output signals from one or more audio input signals (para 0189: “FIG. 13 illustrates a core decoder 1305 that decodes the input bitstream 1300 into a stereo loudspeaker presentation Z.”; para 0191: “stereo output loudspeaker signal pair s.sub.l, s.sub.r”), wherein the system comprises an apparatus according to claim 1 for reducing spectral distortion, wherein the apparatus is configured to reduce the spectral distortion by conducting adaptive equalization and/or by conducting time-dynamic equalization (para 0011: “Some methods may involve processing the cross-talk-cancelled signal by a dynamic equalization or gain stage in which an amount of equalization or gain is dependent on a level of the first playback stream presentation or the second playback stream presentation, to produce a modified version of the cross-talk-cancelled signal.”; para 0152: “To address this issue with timbre, various equalizations of the crosstalk canceller in Equation 15 have been proposed with the goal of making the perceived timbre of the binaural signal b more natural for all listeners, regardless of their position”) on at least one of the one or more audio input signals and/or on at least one of the two or more audio output signals and/or on filter information employed by the loudspeaker signal generator on the one or more audio input signals or on one or more processed signals which depend on the one or more audio input signals (Fig. 10: equalization E applied on binaural filter pair B and crosstalk canceler C outputs which depend on input signal o).
Referring to claim 14, Breebaart et al. teaches a method for reducing spectral distortion in a system for reproducing virtual acoustics via loudspeakers, wherein the method comprises reducing the spectral distortion by conducting adaptive equalization and/or by conducting time-dynamic equalization (para 0011: “Some methods may involve processing the cross-talk-cancelled signal by a dynamic equalization or gain stage in which an amount of equalization or gain is dependent on a level of the first playback stream presentation or the second playback stream presentation, to produce a modified version of the cross-talk-cancelled signal.”; para 0152: “To address this issue with timbre, various equalizations of the crosstalk canceller in Equation 15 have been proposed with the goal of making the perceived timbre of the binaural signal b more natural for all listeners, regardless of their position” – Examiner notes that by improving timbre perception, spectral distortion is reduced.).
Referring to claim 15, Breebaart et al. teaches a non-transitory digital storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform the method for reducing spectral distortion in a system for reproducing virtual acoustics via loudspeakers (para 0055: “may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more non-transitory media having computer readable program code”),
wherein the method comprises reducing the spectral distortion by conducting adaptive equalization and/or by conducting time-dynamic equalization, when said computer program is run by a computer (para 0011: “Some methods may involve processing the cross-talk-cancelled signal by a dynamic equalization or gain stage in which an amount of equalization or gain is dependent on a level of the first playback stream presentation or the second playback stream presentation, to produce a modified version of the cross-talk-cancelled signal.”; para 0152: “To address this issue with timbre, various equalizations of the crosstalk canceller in Equation 15 have been proposed with the goal of making the perceived timbre of the binaural signal b more natural for all listeners, regardless of their position” – Examiner notes that by improving timbre perception, spectral distortion is reduced.).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breebaart et al.
Referring to claim 5, Breebaart et al. teaches to determine the similarity information, the apparatus is configured to determine information on a similarity of at least two audio signals in each of one or more frequency bands, wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the adaptive equalization and/or the time-dynamic equalization by employing the information on the similarity of the signals in each of the one or more frequency bands (para 0237: “the dynamic equalization or gain may be frequency-dependent”; para 0203: “measure the covariance matrix of the signal pair y.sub.l, y.sub.r…We can then estimate the covariance matrix of the signal pair v.sub.l, v.sub.r”; para 0190: “In some embodiments, cross-talk cancellation method may involve processing signals in a transform or filter bank domain. The processes described may be applied to one or more sub bands of these signals. For simplicity of notation, and without loss of generality, sub-band indices will be omitted.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply frequency dependent equalization by applying frequency-dependent sub-steps such that the covariance matrix would be determined on a frequency dependent basis in Breebaart et al. because the most thorough and effective frequency dependent equalization would occur when every step of determining equalization involves frequency dependent processing.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breebaart et al. in view of Kuech et al. US Publication No. 20110019883
Referring to claim 6, Breebaart et al. teaches to determine the similarity information the apparatus is configured to determine a similarity of at least two audio signals in each of a plurality of frequency bands, wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the adaptive equalization and/or the time-dynamic equalization by employing the similarity of the signals in each of the plurality of frequency bands (paras 0203, 0237). However, Breebaart et al. does not teach determining an average of similarities over multiple frequency bands, but Kuech et al. teaches to determine the similarity information the apparatus is configured to determine an average of a similarity of at least two audio signals in each of a plurality of frequency bands, wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the processing by employing the average of the similarity of the signals in each of the plurality of frequency bands (para 0157: “The prediction gain .omega.[k] is then computed as the mean value of the coherence functions .GAMMA..sub.d[k, m] over the frequencies which are indicated by the indices”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the average of similarity values, as taught by Keuch et al., in the apparatus of Breebaart et al. because an average is a well-known and reliable approximation of combining multiple values of the same type in order to simplify processing.
Referring to claim 7, Breebaart et al. teaches to determine the similarity information the apparatus is configured to determine a similarity of at least two audio signals in each of a plurality of frequency bands, wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the adaptive equalization and/or the time-dynamic equalization by employing the similarity (paras 0203, 0237) and Kuech et al. teaches to determine the similarity information, the apparatus is configured to determine a magnitude-based weighted similarity by conducting a magnitude-based weighting of a similarity of at least two audio signals in each of a plurality of frequency bands, wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct processing by employing the magnitude-based weighted similarity (para 0157: “The prediction gain .omega.[k] is then computed as the mean value of the coherence functions .GAMMA..sub.d[k, m] over the frequencies which are indicated by the indices”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the average (equal magnitude weighting) of similarity values, as taught by Keuch et al., in the apparatus of Breebaart et al. because an average is a well-known and reliable approximation of combining multiple values of the same type in order to simplify processing.
Referring to claim 8, Kuech et al. teaches the apparatus is configured to conduct the magnitude-based weighting by employing a weighting function; and/or wherein the weighting function is a sigmoid function; and/or wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the magnitude-based weighting by employing magnitudes of the plurality of frequency bands to detect, which of the plurality of frequency bands are used to calculate similarity information; and/or wherein the apparatus is configured to conduct the magnitude-based weighting by employing a specific number of frequency bands with a highest magnitude to calculate the similarity information (para 0157 – Examiner notes that taking an average is an equal magnitude weighting function). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 7.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breebaart et al. in view of Lewis et al. US Publication No. 20210233208
Referring to claim 9, Breebaart et al. teaches determining a similarity information for each of one or more frequency bands (paras 0203, 0237). However, Breebaart et al. does not teach only processing a subset of frequency bands, but Lewis et al. teaches the apparatus is configured to determine a proper subset of one or more frequency bands from a plurality of frequency bands by employing a magnitude of each of the plurality of frequency bands for determining the proper subset, and wherein the apparatus is configured to process for each of one or more frequency bands of the proper subset without processing for each of the one or more frequency bands of the plurality of frequency bands which are not comprised by the proper subset (para 0053: “utilize only those frequencies for which the signal has a magnitude that satisfies a predefined threshold, such as by being above the predefined threshold, and to discard or otherwise forgo further consideration of those frequencies for which the signal has a magnitude that fails to satisfy the predefined threshold, such as by being below the predefined threshold”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to only process signals in frequencies that have a higher magnitude, as taught by Lewis et al., in the apparatus of Breebaart et al. because signals with a very low magnitude might not provide much useful information, and therefore, only processing certain signals prevents a waste of processing resources.
Referring to claim 10, Lewis et al. teaches each frequency of the plurality of frequency bands is associated with a magnitude that depends on a magnitude of said frequency band of one or more of the at least two signals, wherein the apparatus is configured to determine the proper subset of one or more frequency bands such that the magnitude being associated with each frequency band of the one or more frequency bands of the proper subset is greater than or equal to the magnitude being associated with each of the one or more frequency bands of the plurality of frequency bands which are not comprised by the proper subset (para 0053). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 9.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Wednesday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571)272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights