DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 5/26/2026:
Claims 1-14 are pending
Claim 14 is added
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the newly amended limitation of “by calculating a difference between the first parameter and the first acoustic characteristic or by performing division of the first parameter using the first acoustic characteristic” is not taught by the prior art. Applicant further argue “In the present application, for example, the method can perform calculation such as subtraction or division on the envelopes of impulse responses of the first parameter and the first acoustic characteristic, by using the first parameter set by the distribution source and the first acoustic characteristic of the listener's reproduction environment, and then the second parameter can be adjusted such that the impulse response of the reverb process can approximate the envelope obtained by the calculation.” (remarks, pg. 7).
While the arguments are understood, they are not accurately reflected in the actual claim recitation. For example, the remarks recite ¶34 of the specification as providing support for the amendments. Indeed, ¶34 does provide good explanation and accompanying Figs. 5A-5C provide further evidence. However, the amended claims recitation differ greatly than the supporting arguments. The claims merely recite “by calculating a difference” which can be interpreted as “the state or condition of being dissimilar or unlike” (dictionary definition). ¶18 of Miura teaches an acoustic characteristic adjustment method/system that alters the audio output as a response to the reproduction environment. It’s well-known that audio recorded in a recording studio would sound different when reproduced at home and therefore it is beneficial for some form of optimization/calibration to be performed so that the reproduced audio can be output as close to the original in the recording studio. ¶59 and Fig. 3B of Miura demonstrates the system in which an adjustment is provided to the audio output as a response to the room characteristics. In other words, Miura discloses “adjusting a second parameter by calculating a difference between the first parameter and the first acoustic characteristic”.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirakihara et al (WO2022113289, hereinafter “Shirakihara”) in view of Miura et al (US20050195984, hereinafter “Miura”).
Regarding claim 1, Shirakihara teaches a sound signal processing method (pg. 1, audio distribution method) comprising:
receiving, from a distribution source, a sound signal, and a first parameter of a first signal processing to be applied to the sound signal (pgs. 1-5, the audio signals for distribution is captured at a first venue/location and processed with the first venue/location’s acoustics/parameter and encoded for distribution to another venue/location);
Shirakihara does not explicitly teach detecting a first acoustic characteristic of a listener's reproduction environment;
adjusting a second parameter by calculating a difference between the first parameter and the first acoustic characteristic or by performing division of the first parameter using the first acoustic characteristic; and
applying a second signal processing on the sound signal based on the second parameter, thereby obtaining a reproduction sound signal to be reproduced in the reproduction environment.
Miura teaches detecting a first acoustic characteristic of a listener's reproduction environment (Fig. 1, determining room acoustic characteristics of the reproduction environment);
adjusting a second parameter based on the first parameter and the first acoustic characteristic (¶75-77, adjusting the audio playback (which includes at least one parameter) to account for the determined room acoustics); and
adjusting a second parameter by calculating a difference between the first parameter and the first acoustic characteristic or by performing division of the first parameter using the first acoustic characteristic (¶75-77, adjusting audio playback based on room acoustic characteristics; ¶114, original audio content has original metadata (comprising of a first parameter) that must be altered (to produce a second parameter) in response to the playback environment (comprising of a first acoustic characteristic)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the audio reproduction system (as taught by Shirakihara) with the room acoustic characteristics method (as taught by Miura). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of improving audio playback in a given environment by adjusting audio output in accordance to the measured room acoustics (Miura, ¶77).
Regarding claim 2, Shirakihara in view of Miura teaches further comprising receiving a second acoustic characteristic of a venue environment of the distribution source (Shirakihara, pg. 4, the acoustic information of a first venue location is captured as part of the distribution source), wherein
the second parameter is adjusted further based the second acoustic characteristic (Shirakihara, pg. 6, parameter such as reverberation information is captured during the initial capture of the sound signals at a first venue and transmitted as part of the distribution source such that it can be adjusted based on the room acoustics determined (as taught by Miura)).
Regarding claim 3, Shirakihara in view of Miura teaches wherein
the first signal processing and the second signal processing include a process of adding reverb to the sound signal (Shirakihara, pg. 3, reverberation sound processing).
Regarding claim 4, Shirakihara in view of Miura teaches wherein
the sound signal is each of a plurality of sound signals corresponding to sounds from a plurality of sound sources (Shirakihara, pg. 2, sound signal can include a plurality of sources such as from a voice and musical instruments),
the first parameter is each of a plurality of first parameters corresponding to the plurality of sound sources (Shirakihara, pg. 3, the mixer provides processing on each of a plurality of input), and
control of the second signal processing is carried out individually for each of the plurality of sound signals in accordance with the plurality of first parameters (Shirakihara, Fig. 9, pg. 7, signal processing/associating one or more parameters with each of the sound sources is performed prior to distribution).
Regarding claim 5, Shirakihara in view of Miura teaches wherein
the sound signal that has been received is a sound signal before the first signal processing is applied (Miura, ¶59, Fig. 1, sound data is modified by the metadata and the determined room acoustics meaning the sound data reproduction unit comprises of a signal prior to processing (by the metadata analyzer and the room acoustic characteristics module)).
Regarding claim 6, Shirakihara in view of Miura teaches further comprising
acquiring, from a listener, a third parameter for adjusting an acoustic characteristic, and
the second parameter is adjusted further based on the third parameter (Shirakihara, pg. 9, a listener’s position information can be additional information/additional parameter prior to localizing the audio for the listener).
Regarding claims 7-12, they are rejected similarly as claims 1-6, respectively. The device can be found in Shirakihara (pg. 1, distribution device).
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The system can be found in Shirakihara (pg. 1, distribution system).
Regarding claim 14, Shirakihara in view of Miura teaches wherein the first parameter is a parameter for a process of adjusting a stereotactic position and a level of the sound signal, or a parameter for a process of adding reverb (Miura, ¶34, 87, reverbs are parameters present in the reproduced sound field and there is a reverberant sound adding component that can modify the output by adjusting a reverb parameter).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights