DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 2/11/2025:
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is missing appropriate punctation at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, they recite “…equalize an energy level of the extracted late reverberation….” However, there lacks antecedent basis for the first recitation of “the extracted late reverberation” as the claims actually recite “determining a late reverberation”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are respectively considered indefinite as they depend upon an indefinite parent claim.
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) 1-4, 10-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta (US20030159569) in view of Ma (WO2014153943, translated by EPO).
Regarding claim 1, Ohta teaches a method for expanding ambient sound for a vehicle (¶3, method of sound field control; ¶25, 66, modifying the sound field in the rendered environment to be “not as narrow” (i.e. expanding the sound field)), the method comprising:
detecting impulse response of the vehicle (Fig. 5, determining an impulse response of the reproduction environment sound field);
determining a late reverberation of the detected impulse response of the vehicle (¶74, determining reverberation characteristics of the reproduction sound field);
extracting a late reverberation from a reference impulse response of a room (¶67, determining reverberation characteristics of the original sound field (e.g. music hall));
Ohta fails to explicitly teach equalize an energy level of the extracted late reverberation of the vehicle to match an energy level of the extracted late reverberation of the room; and
applying the energy level equalized late reverberation to the vehicle
Ma teaches equalize an energy level of the extracted late reverberation of the vehicle to match an energy level of the extracted late reverberation of the room (pg. 13, optimal equalization parameters can be obtained for a given sound field); and
applying the energy level equalized late reverberation to the vehicle (pg. 13, applying optimal equalization values to derive an equalized sound field)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the equalization technique (as taught by Ma) to the sound field generation system (as taught by Ohta). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of creating a simplified EQ system without much user input (Ma, pg. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Ohta in view of Ma teaches further comprising limiting frequency bandwidths of the late reverberation extracted from the reference impulse response of the room (Ohta, ¶64, realism is the goal of the sound field control wherein reverberation characteristics are determined based on various frequency bands and limiting/setting a threshold on the frequency bands is seen as a design choice).
Regarding claim 3, Ohta in view of Ma teaches further comprising identifying additional late reverberation levels and decay times of one or more audio channels (Ohta, Fig. 3A-3B, ¶64, reverberation characteristics are determined for a plurality of frequency bands and wherein the decay time is further shown; Ma, pg. 14, the EQ system of Ma is shown to have multichannel capabilities so the combination of the art would yield sound field processing in more than one channel).
Regarding claim 4, Ohta in view of Ma teaches wherein the identified additional late reverberation levels and decay times are used to derive multi-channel signals (Ohta, Fig. 3A-3B, ¶64, reverberation characteristics are determined for a plurality of frequency bands and wherein the decay time is further shown; Ma, pg. 14, the EQ system of Ma is shown to have multichannel capabilities so the combination of the art would yield sound field processing in more than one channel).
Regarding claims 10-13, they are rejected similarly as claims 1-4, respectively. The system can be found in Ohta (¶3, sound field control system).
Regarding claim 20, Ohta in view of Ma teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine an extraction time index and insertion time index (Ohta, ¶66, a reflected sound pattern is added at a set time (te) after a lapse of predetermined time (tc) from time (t0) at which direct sound has arrived and sequentially, reflected sound patterns every frequency band are added – Fig. 4 shows the correction technique being applied to the reproduction sound field to better approximate an original sound field (i.e. wider sound field) wherein both insertion and extraction points are determined so that a combination of the two results in the corrected reverberation sound field).
Claim(s) 5-9 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta (US20030159569) in view of Ma (WO2014153943, translated by EPO) in further view of Schuijers et al (WO201414091375, provided by Applicant, hereinafter “Schuijers”).
Regarding claim 5, Ohta in view of Ma fail to explicitly teach further comprising applying the additional late reverberation levels and decay times to each of one or more audio objects.
Schuijers teaches further comprising applying the additional late reverberation levels and decay times to each of one or more audio objects (pg. 11-12, input audio components may be channel-based and/or audio objects and wherein the processor may apply various processes to generate a surround sound experience).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the audio processing techniques (as taught by Schuijers) to the sound field generation system (as taught by Ohta in view of Ma). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of improving adaptability to various rendering configurations while providing reduced complexity and improving user experience (Schuijers, pg. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Ohta in view of Ma in further view of Schuijers teaches wherein the audio objects include dialogues, music and special effects (Schuijers, pg. 1, audio content includes speech, music, and effects).
Regarding claim 7, Ohta in view of Ma in further view of Schuijers teaches wherein applying the additional late reverberation levels and decay times includes separating sources of an input content when the input content is not object-based (Schuijers, pg. 24, signal decomposition can be performed in channel-based inputs).
Regarding claim 8, Ohta in view of Ma in further view of Schuijers further comprising applying the additional late reverberation levels and decay times based on listener preferences (Schuijers, pg. 10, user input to determine reference reverberation characteristics).
Regarding claim 9, Ohta in view of Ma in further view of Schuijers teaches further comprising applying the additional late reverberation levels and decay times based on content metadata (Schuijers, pg. 24, metadata can be used as an indicator for characteristics of the audio signal).
Regarding claims 14-18, they are rejected similarly as claims 5-9, respectively. The system can be found in Ohta (¶3, sound field control system).
Regarding claim 19, Ohta in view of Ma in further view of Schuijers teaches wherein the identified additional late reverberation levels and decay times are adjustable at a direct source level and one of the additional late reverberation levels (Schuijers, pg. 7-8, a level adjuster may be provided for adjusting the levels of the diffuse audio signals relative to the direct audio signals (and vice versa)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights