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 .
Examiner’s Remark
In line 4 of claim 20, the numeral reference “(211)” is recited. It is out of place and it appears Applicant forgot to delete it when amending the claims. Applicant is suggested to delete it for clarity.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 of claim 4 the acronym “HOA” is recited. The acronym’s full name higher order ambisonics should be described at least once, before the acronym can be used to avoid ambiguity.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6 of claim 18 “(n+1)” is recited. The definition of n should be described at least once, before it can be used to avoid ambiguity.
Claims 2-13, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the issues as set forth in the claim objection above.
Drawings
The drawing(s) is/are objected to for the following reason:
Fig. 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (Fig. 1 illustrates only prior art and lacks the label of “prior art”, see specification (ln. 21-23, pg. 6). 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 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.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faller et al. (US 20170078821 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Faller teaches
“A method for rendering an...signal using a loudspeaker arrangement comprising S
loudspeakers, wherein the method comprises“ ( an audio processing method is a method for rendering a signal, see [0029] : ”the disclosure relates to an audio signal processing method…”, one loudspeaker arrangement comprises four loudspeakers, i.e. S = 4, see [0215] : “…the first pair of loudspeakers 1001… the second pair of loudspeakers 1003.”, also see Fig. 2 ):
“converting a set of N…channel signals into a set of unfiltered prerendered signals, wherein N > 1 and S > 1” (the output of 901 is a set of N multichannel signals, wherein N =5, i.e. N > 1, and unfiltered by the NFC Element 103, the output of 103 goes to multiple loudspeakers, i.e. S > 1, see [0181]: “The further filter 901 is configured to provide binaural signals for all 5 channels.”, also see Fig. 15);
- performing near field compensation, referred to as NFC, filtering of M unfiltered pre-rendered signals of the set of unfiltered pre-rendered signals to provide a set of S filtered loudspeaker channel signals for rendering using the corresponding S loudspeakers (Element 103 is NFC and performs filtering on NFC unfiltered and prerendered signals, the number of which is M, and provides S NFC filtered channel signals for loudspeakers, see, [0137]: “The filter 103 processes…” , also see Fig. 15).
Faller teaches a method for rendering signal using loudspeaker arrangement and converting a set of N channel signals. Faller does not mention rendering an ambisonics signal and converting a set of N ambisonics signals. However, Faller never excludes the possibility of his method being used on rendering an ambisonics signal and converting a set of N ambisonics signals. Therefore, it would have been obvious the method taught by Faller could have been used on rendering an ambisonics signal and converting a set of N ambisonics signals. Applying such known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to produce desirable number of ambisonics signals to the audience.
Regarding claim 19, Faller teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection. Moreover, since the claimed computer program comprises the same operations conducted by the method in claim 1, claim 19 is rejected as being unpatentable over Faller.
Regarding claim 20, since the claimed device comprises the same operations conducted by the method in claim 1, claim 20 is rejected as being unpatentable over Faller.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faller et al. (US 20170078821 A1) in view of Sen (US 20140086416 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Faller teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Faller further teaches “performing NFC filtering on M unfiltered pre-rendered signals of the set of unfiltered pre-rendered signals comprises performing time domain filtering…on each one of the M unfiltered pre-rendered signals individually” (a convolution with the inverted NFTFs is filtering on unfiltered pre-rendered signals of the set of unfiltered pre-rendered signals, which is done in time domain. The number of the unfiltered pre-rendered signals are M, and the filtering is performed on each channel, i.e. on each of the M unfiltered pre-rendered signals individually, see [0212] :“the left and right ear entrance signals eL and eR can be filtered… The implementation can be done in time domain with a two stage convolution for each loudspeaker channel…Secondly, a convolution with the inverted NFTFs, i.e. gL and gR, can be performed”, the convolution with the inverted NFTFs is NFC filtering, see [0148] : “By inverting the NFTFs (27) from the loudspeakers to the ears, the effect of the close distances between the loudspeakers and the ears in Eqn. (26) can be cancelled”)
Faller does not teach “…using a digital finite impulse response filter or a digital infinite impulse response filter…”
Sen teaches “…using a digital finite impulse response filter or a digital infinite impulse response filter…” (convolution is at least one implementation of finite impulse response filtering see [0110]:” where anm (t) denotes the time-domain spherical harmonic coefficient at order n and suborder m for time sample t, qs.n(t) denotes the time-domain impulse response of a filter for order n for the spherical-wavefront model, and * is the time-domain convolution operator. Each filter qs.n(t)…may be implemented as a finite-impulse-response filter”, the finite impulse response filter operation on DSP is digital, see [0293]: “operations may be implemented or performed with…a digital signal processor (DSP)”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the digital finite impulse response filter as taught by Sen in the method as taught by Faller. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved processing method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “address this bandwidth challenge” (Sen: [0086])
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faller et al. (US 20170078821 A1) in view of Peters et al. (US 20150127354 A1)
Regarding claim 15, Faller teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Faller does not teach “determining a reference distance of the set of N ambisonics channel
signals; and determining a filter for performing the NFC filtering based on the reference distance.”
Peters teaches “determining a reference distance of the set of N ambisonics channel signals; and
determining a filter for performing the NFC filtering based on the reference distance” ( a reference distance related to the HOA soundfield is a reference of the set of N ambisonics channel signals, the NFC filtering process contains a filter for operations based on the reference distance, see [0790]: “The HOA soundfield may be subject to a Near Field pre-Compensation (NFC) filtering process according to a given reference distance”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the reference distance and NFC filtering based on the reference distance as taught by Peters in the method as taught by Faller. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved processing method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “optimize the HOA encoding process in this NFC situation” (Peters: [0790]).
Regarding claim 16, Faller teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Faller does not teach “the set of N ambisonics channel signals is a higher order ambisonics (HOA) signal; and N = (n + 1)2, with n being an order of the HOA signal, with n > 1.”
Peters teaches “the set of N ambisonics channel signals is a higher order ambisonics (HOA) signal; and N = (n + 1)2, with n being an order of the HOA signal, with n > 1.” (the set of SHC corresponds to the set of N ambisonics channel signals, see [0075]:” One example of a hierarchical set of elements is a set of spherical harmonic coefficients (SHC).”, N = (n + 1)2 wherein n is the order of ambisonics signals, n = 4, therefore n > 1, see [0079]: “For example, a fourth-order representation involving (1+4)2 (25, and hence fourth order) coefficients may be used.”, for N = (n + 1)2 also see Fig. 1).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the reference distance and NFC filtering based on the reference distance as taught by Peters in the method as taught by Faller. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved processing method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “optimize the HOA encoding process in this NFC situation” (Peters: [0790]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faller et al. (US 20170078821 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180338212 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Faller teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Faller does not teach “S > 2, and S = 6 or S = 16”.
Kim teaches “S > 2, and S = 6 or S = 16” (audio channel can be 16 or 6, loudspeaker feeds i.e. S, can be the same as audio channel, therefore, S = 6 or S =16 and S > 2, [0056]: “the spatial audio encoding device 20 may be configured to obtain the mezzanine audio data 15 having 16 or fewer audio channels (and possibly as few as 6 audio channels given that legacy audio equipment may, in some examples, allow for processing 5.1 audio content, where the ‘0.1’ represents the sixth audio channel)”, see[0056]: “The loudspeaker feeds 25 may drive one or more loudspeakers 3.”)
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected S = 6 or S =16 loudspeakers as taught by Kim in the method as taught by Faller. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved processing method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “ enable a better representation of a soundfield that also accommodates backward compatibility” (Kim: [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsingos et al. ( WO 2021/061680 A2) or (US 2022/0345845 A1) teaches near field post-processing and NFC processed signals eventually feed to S loudspeakers (Fig. 6)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/SHIN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights