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 Amendment
This is in response to applicant's amendment which was filed on 7/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-12 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 11-12 being independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2012151529) in view of Sunder (US 2020/0107149).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches A signal processing system, comprising at least one first processor; and at least one memory storing at least one program that, when executed by the at least one first processor, causes the at least one first processor (Suzuki figures 2-4) to:
calculate a transfer characteristic based on a difference between a first audio signal and a second audio signal (Suzuki figure 2, and ¶0055 “the filter characteristic derivation unit 30 performs adaptive signal processing at high speed, tracking in real time the changes in spatial transmission characteristics that occur due to changes in the positional relationship between speakers 3, 4,and 9 and the ear position of the listener 7 (i.e., microphones 5 and 6)” and ¶0056, “correction function”), the first audio signal being acquired by a first sound input device (Suzuki figure 2, microphones 5-6), the second audio signal being the first audio signal that is reproduced and output by a first sound output device (Suzuki figure 2, and ¶0055 “state of transaural playback”), and generate a fourth audio signal by convolving an inverse characteristic of an acoustic characteristic of the first sound output device
with a sound source signal that is derived from sound generated by a sound source (Suzuki ¶0075, “correction filters 11 and 12 independently perform convolution processing on the left recorded audio, and correction filters 13 and 14 independently perform convolution
processing on the right recorded audio, using the determined filter coefficients. This performs
correction processing adapted to the corresponding changes in spatial transfer characteristics” and ¶0068,” inverse characteristic”) to be subjected to binaural recording (The limitations “to be subjected to binaural recording” is considered intended use), however does not explicitly teach calculate a transfer characteristic based on a difference between a first audio signal and a second audio signal.
Sunder teaches calculate a transfer characteristic based on a difference between a first audio signal and a second audio signal (Sunder figure 1, ¶0023, “each microphone signal is an HRTF,” and figure 3, step 310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Sunder to improve the known system of Suzuki to achieve the predictable result of reducing cost and computational complexity with spatializing sound (Sunder ¶0019).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches A signal processing method, comprising:
acquiring a first audio signal by a first sound input device (Suzuki figure 2, microphones 5-6); reproducing the first audio signal as a second audio signal by a first
sound output device (Suzuki figure 2, and ¶0055 “state of transaural playback”); calculating a transfer characteristic based on a difference between the first audio signal and the second audio signal (Suzuki figure 2, and ¶0055 “the filter characteristic derivation unit 30 performs adaptive signal processing at high speed, tracking in real time the changes in spatial transmission characteristics that occur due to changes in the positional relationship between speakers 3, 4,and 9 and the ear position of the listener 7 (i.e., microphones 5 and 6)” and ¶0056, “correction function”); generating a fourth audio signal by convolving an inverse characteristic of an acoustic characteristic of the first sound output device with a sound source signal that is derived from sound generated by a sound source (Suzuki ¶0075, “correction filters 11 and 12 independently perform convolution processing on the left recorded audio, and correction filters 13 and 14 independently perform convolution processing on the right recorded audio, using the determined filter coefficients. This performs correction processing adapted to the corresponding changes in spatial transfer characteristics” and ¶0068,” inverse characteristic”) to be subjected to binaural recording (The limitations “to be subjected to binaural recording” is considered intended use), however does not explicitly teach calculating a transfer characteristic based on a difference between a first audio signal and a second audio signal.
Sunder teaches calculating a transfer characteristic based on a difference between a first audio signal and a second audio signal (Sunder figure 1, ¶0023, “each microphone signal is an HRTF,” and figure 3, step 310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Sunder to improve the known system of Suzuki to achieve the predictable result of reducing cost and computational complexity with spatializing sound (Sunder ¶0019).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having a program stored therein, the program for causing a computer to: calculate a transfer characteristic based on a difference between a first audio signal and a second audio signal (Suzuki figure 2, and ¶0055 “the filter characteristic derivation unit 30 performs adaptive signal processing at high speed, tracking in real time the changes in spatial transmission characteristics that occur due to changes in the positional relationship between speakers 3, 4,and 9 and the ear position of the listener 7 (i.e., microphones 5 and 6)” and ¶0056, “correction function”), the first audio signal being acquired by a first sound input device (Suzuki figure 2, microphones 5-6), the second audio signal corresponding to being the first audio signal that is reproduced and output by a first sound output device (Suzuki figure 2, and ¶0055 “state of transaural playback”), and generate a fourth audio signal by convolving an inverse characteristic of an acoustic characteristic of the first sound output device with a sound source signal that is derived from sound generated (Suzuki ¶0075, “correction filters 11 and 12 independently perform convolution processing on the left recorded audio, and correction filters 13 and 14 independently perform convolution processing on the right recorded audio, using the determined filter coefficients. This performs correction processing adapted to the corresponding changes in spatial transfer characteristics” and ¶0068 ,”inverse characteristic”) by a sound source to be subjected to binaural recording (The limitations “to be subjected to binaural recording” is considered intended use), however does not explicitly teach calculate a transfer characteristic based on a difference between a first audio signal and a second audio signal.
Sunder teaches calculate a transfer characteristic based on a difference between a first audio signal and a second audio signal (Sunder figure 1, ¶0023, “each microphone signal is an HRTF,” and figure 3, step 310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Sunder to improve the known system of Suzuki to achieve the predictable result of reducing cost and computational complexity with spatializing sound (Sunder ¶0019).
Claim(s) 2-3, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2012151529) in view of Sunder (US 2020/0107149) in further view of Hayashi (US 2019/0149940).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Sunder does not explicitly teach wherein at least one first processor causes a storage to store the generated fourth audio signal.
Hayashi teaches wherein at least one first processor causes a storage to store the generated fourth audio signal (Hayashi figure 3, metadata 25 and 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Hayashi to improve the known system of Suzuki in view of Sunder to achieve the predictable result of more efficient processing by utilizing already stored data.
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki in view of Sunder in further view of Hayashi teaches wherein the signal processing system further comprises a second processor (Hayashi figure 7, reproducing apparatus 14) configured to cause a second sound output device (Sunder figure 1, left and right earpieces 128) to reproduce the fourth audio signal stored by the storage (Hayashi figure 3, metadata 25 and 32).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki in view of Sunder in further view of Hayashi teaches wherein the at least one first processor and the second processor are mounted on different devices (Hayashi figure 7, recording apparatus 14 and reproducing apparatus 15).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki in view of Sunder in further view of Hayashi teaches wherein the first sound input device is disposed near an eardrum of a first user (Hayashi ¶0089 “eardrum”), the sound output device is disposed at an auricle of the first user (Hayashi figure 7, headphones 16), and the second sound output device is disposed at an auricle of a second user different from the first user (Hayashi ¶0147, “With this configuration, it is possible to obtain binaural recording content recorded by another user having similar skeleton and ear shapes”).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki in view of Sunder in further view of Hayashi teaches wherein the second sound output device is different from the first sound output device (Hayashi ¶0147, “With this configuration, it is possible to obtain binaural recording content recorded by another user having similar skeleton and ear shapes”).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki in view of Sunder in further view of Hayashi teaches wherein the second sound input device is disposed near the eardrum of the first user (Hayashi figure 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground of rejection relying on newly found prior art.
Conclusion
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 NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
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.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights