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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 3/11/2026.
Claims 1-19, 21 & 22 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 10/7/2024 are noted.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3, 17-19, 21 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Disch et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2018/0350375 A1, hereafter “375 reference”.)
Regarding Claims 1, 21 & 22: The ‘375 reference discloses a computer-implemented method (Abstract), comprising: obtaining a set of decorrelation filters, (Fig. 1 and related descriptions); identifying a set of simulated audio signals, (e.g., ¶ 99); selecting, from among the set of decorrelation filters, a subset of the decorrelation filters based at least on a measure of decorrelation provided by the subset of the decorrelation filters, (e.g., ¶ 144); and applying the selected subset of the decorrelation filters to the set of simulated audio signals, (Fig. 1 and related descriptions).
Regarding Claim 2: The ‘375 reference discloses the measure of decorrelation comprises a measure of cross-correlation between the subset of the decorrelation filters, (e.g., ¶¶ 15, 17, 18).
Regarding Claim 3: The ‘375 reference discloses the measure of decorrelation is based at least on one or more properties of the identified set of simulated audio signals, (e.g., ¶ 187).
Regarding Claim 17: See ‘375 reference e.g., ¶¶ 216, 356.
Regarding Claim 18: See ‘375 reference e.g., ¶¶ 23-26, 101.
Regarding Claim 19: See ‘375 reference e.g., ¶¶ 366, 382, 383.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the ‘375 reference in view of Disch et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2023/0421979 A1, hereafter “979 reference”.)
The ‘375 reference discloses the invention substantially but does not make explicit the property includes a delay between audio signals. However, in a related invention, the ‘979 reference teaches introducing delays in an audio decorrelator system, (‘979 reference, e.g., Abstract, ¶¶ 4, 5, 10, 80.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have introduced a delay calculation parameter as suggested by the ‘979 reference, in system of the ‘375 reference for several reasons including efficiently allocating computing resources, (e.g., ‘979 reference, ¶ 4.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: A thorough search of the prior art yielded references to U.S. Pub. No.: 2018/0350375 A1 and U.S. Pub. No.: 2023/0421979 A1. These references are relied on herein and of record on the attached references-cited (892) form.
However, these references fail to disclose, suggest or render obvious, in combination with the other claimed limitations:
Per Claims 5-13: computing a respective measure of decorrelation for each of different combinations of decorrelation filters in the set of decorrelation filters.
Per Claims 14-16: wherein the measure of decorrelation comprises a measure of inefficacy of decorrelation provided by a combination of filters within the set of decorrelation filters.
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. 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.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights