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 .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson (US 11477601 B2, hereinafter “Robinson”).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson teaches an electronic device comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: (see col. 8, line 43-65: interface system 10 includes one or more network interfaces between a control system 15 and a memory system and one/or more external device interfaces)
obtain playback layout information related to a playback of an audio using a plurality of channels; (see col. 13, line 8-44: a playback speaker layout data is received including an indication of one or more playback speakers in a playback environment)
obtain a first audio signal related to an audio to be played back via a low frequency effect (LFE) channel among the plurality of channels; (see col. 22, line 11-49: bitstream 1005 of audio data including audio objects and a low frequency effects LFE audio signal 1045 is received by a bitstream parser 1010 configured to provide received objects to panner 104)
obtain a second audio signal different from the first audio signal, by transforming the first audio signal based on the playback layout information; (see col. 22, line 50-63:panners 1040 produce LF speaker feed signals 1042 by panning LF audio objects based on the LFC loudspeaker location data (i.e. the playback layout information); the summation block 1047 sums the LF speaker feed signals 1042 and the LFE audio signals 1045, and provides the result (the LF signals 1049) {a signal derived from , and different from, the original LFE signal 1045, obtained using the layout-dependent panning data})
and transmit the second audio signal to an external device. (see col. 22, line 50-63: the equalization block 1055 is configured to output the resulting LF speaker feed signals 1057 to LFC reproduction speakers of the reproduction environment 1060 {i.e. to loudspeaker devices external to the processing apparatus).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the system claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 1 as discussed 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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 11477601 B2, hereinafter “Robinson”) in view of Kraemer (US 7801734 B2, hereinafter “Kraemer”).
Regarding claim 2, Robinson does not explicitly teach the at least one processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to obtain the second audio signal by adding one or more preset signals to the first audio signal.
However, Kraemer teaches the at least one processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to obtain the second audio signal by adding one or more preset signals to the first audio signal. (see col. 2, line 44-51: watermark encoder 104 embeds watermark in at least one channel of the multi-channel audio 110. Feature of some audio watermarking techniques is adding the embedded signal.)
Robinson and Kraemer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of audio processing and classifying multi-channel audio signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of an embedded or preset signal to the first audio signal from Kraemer to Robinson in order obtain a second audio signal that can be nearly imperceptible to the user.
Regarding claim 4, Robinson does not explicitly teach the at least one processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to obtain the second audio signal by adding at least one of a first preset signal, a second preset signal, or a third preset signal to the first audio signal, based on the playback layout information.
However, Kraemer teaches the at least one processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to obtain the second audio signal by adding at least one of a first preset signal, a second preset signal, or a third preset signal to the first audio signal, based on the playback layout information. (see col. 8, line 20-50: audio stream comprises embedding a watermark in multi-channel audio, where the watermark identifies the audio as surround sound matrix encoded audio. A second or third preset signal may be added based on the layout information.)
Robinson and Kraemer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of audio processing and classifying multi-channel audio signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of an embedded or preset signal to the first audio signal from Kraemer to Robinson in order obtain a second audio signal that can be nearly imperceptible to the user.
Regarding claim 5, Robinson does not explicitly teach the second audio signal is a signal obtained by adding, to the first audio signal, a combination of the one or more preset signals corresponding to the playback layout information.
However, Kraemer teaches the second audio signal is a signal obtained by adding, to the first audio signal, a combination of the one or more preset signals corresponding to the playback layout information. (see col. 8, line 20-50: audio stream comprises embedding a watermark in multi-channel audio, where the watermark identifies the audio as surround sound matrix encoded audio. A second or third preset signal may be added based on the layout information.)
Robinson and Kraemer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of audio processing and classifying multi-channel audio signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of an embedded or preset signal to the first audio signal from Kraemer to Robinson in order obtain a second audio signal that can be nearly imperceptible to the user.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the system claim 2 and 4; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 2 and 4 as discussed above
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 11477601 B2, hereinafter “Robinson”) in view of Kraemer (US 7801734 B2, hereinafter “Kraemer”)
and Nam (Nam US 12062377 B2, hereinafter “Nam”).
Regarding claim 3, Robinson in view of Kraemer does not explicitly teach the LFE channel is a channel for outputting a low frequency effect sound, and wherein the one or more preset signals is each a signal having a frequency band higher than the first audio signal.
However, Nam teaches the LFE channel is a channel for outputting a low frequency effect sound, and wherein the one or more preset signals is each a signal having a frequency band higher than the first audio signal. (see col. 8, line 4-18: a low frequency effect “LFE” channel outputting a low frequency effect sound)
Robinson and Nam are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of audio processing and classify multi-channel audio signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of an LFE channel from Nam to Robinson in order to provide louder bass and sub-bass effects.
Regarding claims 10, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the system claim 3; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 3 as discussed above
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 11477601 B2, hereinafter “Robinson”) in view of Nam (Nam US 12062377 B2, hereinafter “Nam”).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson does not explicitly teach the playback layout information includes information about a channel layout, the channel layout corresponding to a combination of 8 channels, and including a 5.1.2 channel layout and a 7.1.0 channel layout.
However, Nam teaches the playback layout information includes information about a channel layout, the channel layout corresponding to a combination of 8 channels, and including a 5.1.2 channel layout and a 7.1.0 channel layout. (see col. 1, line 42-51: combination of 8 channel layouts including 5.1.2 channel layout and a 7.1.0 channel layout)
Robinson and Nam are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of audio processing and classify multi-channel audio signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of a 5.1.2 and 7.1.0 channel layout from Nam to Robinson in order to distinguish and reproduce audio content through various channel layouts according to an environment in which the audio content is consumed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 and 12 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights