DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27-28 is/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.
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 23-24, 26, 29-38 and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herre US PG-Pub 2020/0228913 in view of Lee US PG-Pub 2023/0345197.
Regarding claim 23, 37 and 42, Herre teaches determine a listening distance that comprises a distance from which the listener listens to the audio source (Fig. 5 & [0167]: dl is the distance from the listener-500 to source-510); determine a recording distance that indicates a distance from which an audio signal for the audio source was recorded (Fig. 5 & [0167]: dr is the distance from the microphone-520 to source-510); and render the audio source based on the listening distance and the recording distance, by: calculating one or more distance parameter gain values such that: on a logarithmic (dB) scale, each distance parameter gain value is positive if the listening distance is less than the recording distance or negative if the listening distance is greater than the recording distance; or on a linear scale, each distance parameter gain value is greater than one if the listening distance is less than the recording distance or less than one if the listening distance is greater than the recording distance; and applying the one or more distance parameter gain values to the audio signal (Fig. 5 & [0167]: determining if the listening distance is greater or smaller than the recording distance and adjusting gain based on the 1/r law that sound decreases with distance, so if listener closer than recording mic it will be higher sound, if listener farther than recording mic then sound will be lower).
Herre failed to teach medium absorption and applying the one or more medium absorption gain values to the audio signal.
However, Lee teaches medium absorption and applying the one or more medium absorption gain values to the audio signal ([0009] & [0048]: considering absorption effect based on the medium for how sound travels through a medium, to be used in MPEG-I immersive audio).
Herre and Lee are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. Therefore, 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, because also considering how sound is affected in the medium of air helps to provide a more enhance audio experience. In addition, calculating parameter in logarithmic or linear is an inventor choice that does not provide any unexpected result.
Regarding claim 24 and 38, Lee teaches wherein applying the one or more medium absorption gain values to the audio signal simulates medium absorption over the listening distance, given medium absorption over the recording distance already represented in the audio signal ([0009] & [0048]: considering absorption effect based on the medium for how sound travels through a medium, to be used in MPEG-I immersive audio, so when you apply absorption gain you are simulating it over the listening distance). Therefore, 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, because also considering how sound is affected in the medium of air helps to provide a more enhance audio experience.
Regarding claim 26 and 40, Herre teaches wherein calculating the one or more distance parameter gain values comprises calculating the one or more distance parameter gain values as a function of a difference between the listening distance and the recording distance (Fig. 5 & [0167]: determining if the listening distance is greater or smaller than the recording distance and adjusting gain based on the 1/r law that sound decreases with distance, so if listener closer than recording mic it will be higher sound, if listener farther than recording mic then sound will be lower, therefore the difference is being used).
Herre failed to teach medium absorption.
However, Lee teaches medium absorption ([0009] & [0048]: considering absorption effect based on the medium for how sound travels through a medium, to be used in MPEG-I immersive audio, so when you apply absorption gain you are simulating it over the listening distance). Therefore, 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, because also considering how sound is affected in the medium of air helps to provide a more enhance audio experience.
Regarding claim 29 and 41, Herre teaches if the listening distance is less than the recording distance: limiting or scaling the one or more distance parameter gain values; and applying the one or more distance parameter gain values, as limited or scaled, to the audio signal (Fig. 5 & [0167]: when reproducing/listening distance is smaller than recording then you have scaling).
Herre failed to teach medium absorption.
However, Lee teaches medium absorption ([0009] & [0048]: considering absorption effect based on the medium for how sound travels through a medium, to be used in MPEG-I immersive audio, so when you apply absorption gain you are simulating it over the listening distance). Therefore, 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, because also considering how sound is affected in the medium of air helps to provide a more enhance audio experience.
Regarding claim 30, Herre and Lee teaches wherein scaling the one or more medium absorption gain values (Herre, Fig. 5 & [0167]: scaling; Lee, [0009] & [0048]: considering absorption effect ).
The combination failed to explicitly teach limiting to not exceed a maximum gain value.
However, as the listener moves closer and closer to the sound source relative to the microphone distance, there will be a maximum limit, which will be the original sound level of the sound source. Meaning, the gain will be as much, as to get the sound to sound like the sound source dB when the user is at the sound source location. Therefore, 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.
Regarding claim 31, Herre teaches wherein limiting or scaling the one or more distance parameter gain values comprises limiting or scaling the one or more distance parameter gain values to an extent that depends on the listening distance (Fig. 5 & [0167]: the scaling is based on the distance as the listener is moving closer than the microphone distance to the sound source).
Herre failed to teach medium absorption.
However, Lee teaches medium absorption ([0009] & [0048]: considering absorption effect based on the medium for how sound travels through a medium, to be used in MPEG-I immersive audio, so when you apply absorption gain you are simulating it over the listening distance). Therefore, 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, because also considering how sound is affected in the medium of air helps to provide a more enhance audio experience.
Regarding claim 32, Herre teaches wherein the audio source comprises the audio signal and metadata describing how to render the audio source from the audio signal, and wherein determining the recording distance comprises determining the recording distance from one or more parameters included in the metadata ([0103]-[0105]: metadata can be used to determine distance of sound sources and positions). Therefore, 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, because using information from Metadata can be used to calculate many different information.
Regarding claim 33, Herre teaches wherein the one or more parameters include: a recording distance parameter that explicitly indicates the recording distance; or a medium absorption recording distance parameter that explicitly indicates a distance over which medium absorption is already represented in the audio signal ([0103]-[0105]: metadata can be used to determine distance of sound sources and positions & [0128]: audio source is recorded with PoV of microphone, so the microphone is the reference). Therefore, 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, because any distance will then be based relative to the microphone already.
Regarding claim 34, Herre teaches wherein rendering the audio source is performed as part of rendering audio of an extended reality application ([0010]-[0011] & [0117]: virtual reality, but not limited to virtual reality only).
Regarding claim 35, Herre teaches wherein rendering the audio source comprises rendering the audio source into an audio output signal and wherein the method further comprising providing the audio output signal for playback to the listener, wherein the audio output signal is a binaural signal ([0010]: binauralization).
Regarding claim 36, Herre teaches further comprising receiving an audio stream that encapsulates the audio source as an audio object with associated metadata about how to render the audio object ([0010]: Virtual Reality and immersive experience).
Herre failed to explicitly teach wherein the audio stream is an MPEG-H 3D audio stream or MPEG-I Immersive Audio stream.
However, Lee teaches teach wherein the audio stream is an MPEG-H 3D audio stream or MPEG-I Immersive Audio stream ([0048]: MPEG-H audio stream).
Herre and Lee are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. Therefore, 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, because using MPEG-H or -I is an alternate equivalent way to provide high quality audio.
Claim 25 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herre US PG-Pub 2020/0228913 in combination with Lee US PG-Pub 2023/0345197 in view of Namba US PG-Pub 2021/0029485.
Regarding claim 25 and 39, the combination teaches rendering the audio source comprises applying the one or more medium absorption gain values to the audio signal to obtain a processed audio signal (Lee, [0009] & [0048]: considering absorption effect).
The combination failed to teach applying noise reduction to the processed audio signal.
However, Namba teaches applying noise reduction to the processed audio signal (Fig. 6 & [0106]: after processing audio signal through unit 161-163, then performing noise reduction to the processed audio signal).
The combination and Namba are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. Therefore, 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, because
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA whose telephone number is (571)270-5519. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-9am and 11am-6pm.
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.
/WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights