DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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: “an obtainer that obtains,” “a processing determiner that determines,” and “an outputter that outputs” in claim 9.
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.
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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Port et al. (WO 2021/119214 A2).
As to claim 1, Port discloses an acoustic reproduction method comprising:
obtaining a sound signal and processing information, the sound signal indicating a sound that reaches a listener in a sound reproduction space, the processing information indicating whether to perform, on the sound signal, reduction processing for reducing noise included in the sound (p. 43 lines 25-27 and p. 44 lines 23-28, Fig. 15. “An encoder 1401 is shown transmitting an encoded audio bitstream 1402 and one or more types of metadata 1504 to a decoder 1403.” “The metadata 1504 may indicate which noise compensation mode is allowed, e.g., for some or all of the audio bitstream 1402.”);
determining processing content of the reduction processing when the processing information obtained indicates that the reduction processing is to be performed (p. 44 lines 23-28, Fig. 15. “the metadata 1504 may indicate which noise compensation mode is allowed, e.g., for some or all of the audio bitstream 1402.”);
performing the reduction processing, based on the processing content determined (p. 48 lines 5-18, Fig. 18. ”Figs. 18-23 show examples in which a noise compensation module is configured to base a noise compensation process, at least in part, on data from one or more previous or “upstream” audio processes… in some examples the one or more upstream audio processes may have previously occurred on the decoder side, e.g., after decoding but prior to audio processing by noise compensation module.” “a noise compensation module is configured to base a noise compensation process, at least in part, on data from an upstream linear processing module.”); and
outputting the sound signal on which the reduction processing has been performed (p. 49 lines 6-8, Fig. 18. “the noise compensation module 1805 is configured to output the noise-compensated audio data 1806.”).
As to claim 4, Port discloses wherein in the obtaining, processing content information indicating the processing content is obtained, and in the performing, the processing content indicated by the processing content information obtained is performed (p. 43 lines 25-27 and p. 44 lines 23-28, Fig. 15. “An encoder 1401 is shown transmitting an encoded audio bitstream 1402 and one or more types of metadata 1504 to a decoder 1403.” “The metadata 1504 may indicate which noise compensation mode is allowed, e.g., for some or all of the audio bitstream 1402.”);
determining processing content of the reduction processing when the processing information obtained indicates that the reduction processing is to be performed (p. 44 lines 23-28, Fig. 15. “the metadata 1504 may indicate which noise compensation mode is allowed, e.g., for some or all of the audio bitstream 1402.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under claim 1 using the same rationale as claim 1 above, with further reference made to Port, p. 7 lines 1-7.
Claim 9 is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Port, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0211574 A1), hereinafter “Lee.”
As to claim 2, Port does not expressly disclose wherein in the obtaining, space information and position information are obtained, the space information indicating a shape and an acoustic property of the sound reproduction space, the position information indicating a position of the listener in the sound reproduction space, and
in the performing, whether to perform the reduction processing is determined based on the space information obtained and the position information obtained.
Lee discloses disclose wherein in the obtaining, space information and position information are obtained, the space information indicating a shape and an acoustic property of the sound reproduction space, the position information indicating a position of the listener in the sound reproduction space (Lee, ¶0159 and ¶0161. “The room information may include at least one of information on a size of the room (800) in which the audio reproducing device (600) is located, information on a reflection coefficient of a substance (or material) configuring the room (800) in which the audio reproducing device (600) is located, information on a location of the user (810) within the room (800) in which the audio reproducing device (600) is located.”), and
in the performing, whether to perform the reduction processing is determined based on the space information obtained and the position information obtained (Lee, ¶0159 and ¶0161. “The room information may include at least one of information on a size of the room (800) in which the audio reproducing device (600) is located, information on a reflection coefficient of a substance (or material) configuring the room (800) in which the audio reproducing device (600) is located, information on a location of the user (810) within the room (800) in which the audio reproducing device (600) is located... he room information may be used for a purpose of room response correction.”).
Port and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to environmental audio.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain room size, room material reflection coefficient and user location, as taught by Lee. The motivation would have been to use for room response correction (Lee, ¶0159).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Port in view of Lee, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Braun et al. (US 2020/0219524 A1), hereinafter “Braun.”
As to claim 5, Port in view of Lee does not expressly disclose generating a reverberation signal indicating reverberation, based on the sound signal on which the reduction processing has been performed and the space information obtained,
wherein in the outputting, a synthesized sound signal is output, the synthesized sound signal resulting from synthesizing the sound signal on which the reduction processing has been performed and the reverberation signal generated.
Braun disclose generating a reverberation signal indicating reverberation, based on the sound signal on which the reduction processing has been performed and the space information obtained (¶0127 and ¶0129. “Accordingly, a modified (shaped) reverberation signal 305b can be added (for example after an optional scaling).”),
wherein in the outputting, a synthesized sound signal is output, the synthesized sound signal resulting from synthesizing the sound signal on which the reduction processing has been performed and the reverberation signal generated (¶0127 and ¶0129. “the reverberation signal 304a is subtracted from the sum of the scaled noise reduced signal 303b and the scaled input signal 410a. accordingly, an intermediate signal 520 is obtained. Moreover, a scaled version 305b of the shaped reverberation signal 305a is added to the intermediate signal 520 in order to obtain an output signal 512.”).
Port, Lee and Braun are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to environmental audio.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add reverb, as taught by Braun. The motivation would have been to obtain an output signal with a shaped reverberation and an adjustable degree of noise reduction (Braun, ¶0129).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6 and 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Pance et al. (US 2013/0028443 A1) and Yoo (US 2013/0216059 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights