Patent Drafting Analysis of Nokia Technologies OY’s Adaptive Loudspeaker Stereo Widening Audio Processing | US 12,170,882 B2
Patent Drafting Analysis of Nokia Technologies OY's Adaptive Loudspeaker Stereo Widening | US 12,170,882 B2
A structural and strategic analysis of Nokia's audio processing patent covering claim architecture, drafting quality, critical gaps, and prosecution positioning for adaptive spatial audio widening technology.
Spec Words
9,800
Across 6 sections
Draft now ↗
Total Claims
18
4 independent · 14 dependent
Draft now ↗
Figure Sheets
7
System architecture, signal flow, decomposer, re-panner, widening processor, method flowchart, apparatus
Draft now ↗
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · · 12 min read Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Overview
Structural Overview
The detailed description dominates at approximately 63% of total specification words, reflecting extensive mathematical treatment of decomposition coefficients and re-panning algorithms across equations (3)–(22). The claim set comprises 18 claims total — 4 independent claims (Claims 1, 12, 14, 17) and 14 dependent claims — covering apparatus (Claims 1 and 12) and method (Claims 14 and 17) claim types with a dependent-to-independent ratio of 3.5:1, below the software/audio processing norm. Seven figure sheets provide system-level block diagrams for each major processing stage but omit detailed signal waveform figures that could strengthen written description support.
Section Word Distribution
↗ Click bars to exploreFigure Inventory — 7 Sheets
| Figure | Description | Role |
|---|---|---|
| FIG. 1A | Block diagram of audio processing system 100 showing transform entity 102, signal decomposer 104, re-panner 106, inverse transform entities 108-1 and 108-2, delay element 110, stereo widening processor 112, and combiner 114 producing widened stereo output 115.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 1B | Block diagram of variant audio processing system 100' showing transform-domain operation where inverse transform entities 108-1 and 108-2 are omitted and stereo widening processor 112' operates directly in the transform domain before inverse transform entity 108'.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 2 | Block diagram of portable handheld device 50 implementing audio processing system 100/100', showing memory 52, communication interface 54, audio pre-processor 56, audio processing block 100/100', audio driver 58, loudspeakers 60, loudspeaker configuration entity 62, and sensor 64.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
| FIG. 3 | Block diagram of signal decomposer 104 showing coherence analyzer 116, energy estimator 118, direction estimator 120, focus estimator 122, decomposition coefficient determiner 124, and signal divider 126 with interconnection paths and loudspeaker configuration inputs.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 4 | Block diagram of re-panner 106 showing energy estimator 128, direction estimator 130, direction adjuster 132, panning gain determiner 134, re-panning gain determiner 136, and re-pan processor 138 with loudspeaker position and configuration inputs.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 5 | Block diagram of stereo widening processor 112 showing four cross-coupled filters H_LL, H_RL, H_LR, H_RR applied to left and right channels 109-2 to produce widened left and right output channels 113.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 6 | Flowchart of method 200 depicting three sequential steps: deriving first and second signal components (block 202), processing the second signal component into a modified second signal component with extended spatial width (block 204), and combining them into an output audio signal (block 206).Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 7 | Block diagram of apparatus 300 showing processor 316, memory 315 storing computer program code 317, communication portion 312, and I/O components 318 as a generalized hardware platform for implementing the audio processing system.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Claims
Claim Architecture Analysis
The claim set contains 4 independent claims: Claims 1 and 12 recite apparatus claims directed to a processor/memory-based audio processing device, while Claims 14 and 17 are method claims — providing dual coverage across apparatus and method types. The 14 dependent claims yield a 3.5:1 dependent-to-independent ratio, below the typical 4–8:1 norm for audio/signal processing IPC class H04S, leaving limited prosecution fallback positions. The duplication strategy between Claims 1 and 12 (the latter adding explicit focus-range coherence decomposition requirements) represents a deliberate layered architecture, though the absence of a computer-readable medium claim is a notable enforcement gap.
Core inventive concept: The claims solve the problem of stereo widening degrading perceptually important 'focus' sounds (e.g., center-image vocals) by separately decomposing the input audio signal into a first signal component representing a 'focus portion' of the spatial audio image and a second signal component representing the 'non-focus portion,' then applying stereo widening only to the second (non-focus) component, and recombining them — as recited across Claims 1, 12, 14, and 17 — thereby preserving timbre and engagement of focus sounds while still extending the perceived stereo width.
Independent Claim Dissection
| Claim | Preamble | Transition | Key Body Elements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim 1 | An apparatus for processing an input audio signal comprising a multi-channel audio signal, the apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, which when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to: | comprising | derive first signal component (focus portion) and second signal component (non-focus portion); process first signal component into modified first signal component by repositioning sound sources per target loudspeaker configuration; process second signal component into modified second signal component with extended spatial width; combine modified first and modified second signal components into output audio signal representing partially extended spatial audio imageSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 12 | An apparatus for processing an input audio signal comprising a multi-channel audio signal, the apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, which when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to: | comprising | derive first signal component (coherent sounds within predefined focus range) and second signal component (coherent sounds outside focus range and non-coherent sounds); process second signal component into modified second signal component with extended spatial width; combine first and modified second signal components into output audio signal representing partially extended spatial audio image; wherein focus range comprises one or more predefined angular ranges defining sound arrival directionsSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 14 | A method for processing an input audio signal comprising a multi-channel audio signal, the method comprising: | comprising | deriving first signal component (focus portion) and second signal component (non-focus portion) from input audio signal; processing first signal component into modified first signal component by repositioning sound sources per loudspeaker configuration; processing second signal component into modified second signal component with extended spatial width; combining modified first and modified second signal components into output audio signal representing partially extended spatial audio imageSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 17 | A method for processing an input audio signal comprising a multi-channel audio signal, the method comprising: | comprising | deriving first signal component (coherent sounds within focus range) and second signal component (coherent sounds outside focus range and non-coherent sounds); processing second signal component into modified second signal component with extended spatial width; combining first and modified second signal components into output audio signal representing partially extended spatial audio image; wherein focus range comprises one or more predefined angular ranges defining sound arrival directionsSearch prior art ↗ |
Claim Dependency Tree
1 Apparatus — processor/memory-based audio processing system deriving focus/non-focus components, re-panning focus component, widening non-focus component, combining into partially extended spatial audio outputSearch Claim 1 prior art ↗
2 Adds: coherence-based decomposition deriving coherence values, focus coefficients, and decomposition coefficients per frequency sub-bandSearch in Eureka ↗
3 Further: focus coefficient set to non-zero within focus range and zero outside focus range per frequency sub-bandSearch in Eureka ↗
4 Further: decomposition coefficient derived as product of coherence value and focus coefficient per frequency sub-bandSearch in Eureka ↗
5 Further: first signal component derived as product of input signal and first scaling coefficient increasing with decomposition coefficient; second derived as product of input signal and second scaling coefficient decreasing with decomposition coefficientSearch in Eureka ↗
6 Adds: apparatus further delays first signal component by predefined time delay prior to combining to create temporal alignment with modified second signal componentSearch in Eureka ↗
7 Adds: target loudspeaker configuration defines target loudspeaker positions per assumed listening point; output loudspeaker configuration defines output loudspeaker positions per listening positionSearch in Eureka ↗
8 Further: target loudspeaker configuration defines target direction as angle with respect to reference direction; and/or output loudspeaker configuration defines output loudspeaker direction as angle with respect to reference directionSearch in Eureka ↗
9 Further: processing first signal component comprises modifying estimated sound arrival directions based on differences between target and output loudspeaker configurations; computing panning gains; deriving re-panning gains; deriving modified first signal component per re-panning gainsSearch in Eureka ↗
10 Further: modified first signal component derived as product of first signal component in respective frequency sub-band and channel with the re-panning gain for that sub-band and channelSearch in Eureka ↗
11 Adds: each multi-channel audio signal comprises a respective two-channel audio signalSearch in Eureka ↗
12 Apparatus — processor/memory-based audio processing with explicit coherence-based focus-range decomposition (coherent-in-focus, coherent-out-of-focus plus non-coherent separation) and focus range defined by angular rangesSearch Claim 12 prior art ↗
13 Adds: angular ranges comprise angular range defining sound arrival directions centered around the front direction of the spatial audio imageSearch in Eureka ↗
14 Method — deriving focus/non-focus signal components, re-panning focus component per loudspeaker configuration, widening non-focus component, combining into partially extended spatial audio imageSearch Claim 14 prior art ↗
15 Adds: deriving first and second signal components using coherence values, focus coefficients, decomposition coefficients per plurality of frequency sub-bandsSearch in Eureka ↗
16 Further: focus coefficient set to non-zero within focus range and zero outside focus range per frequency sub-bandSearch in Eureka ↗
17 Method — deriving components explicitly as coherent-within-focus-range versus coherent-outside-focus-range-plus-non-coherent sounds, widening non-focus component, combining; focus range defined by predefined angular rangesSearch Claim 17 prior art ↗
18 Adds: angular ranges comprise angular range defining sound arrival directions centered around the front direction of the spatial audio imageSearch in Eureka ↗
| Metric | This Application | Audio/Signal Processing Industry Norm |
|---|---|---|
| Total claims | 18 | 15 – 25 |
| Independent claim count | 4 | 3 – 5 |
| Dependent : Independent ratio | 3.50 : 1 | 4 – 8 : 1 |
| Method claims present? | Yes — Claims 14, 17 | Common |
| System / apparatus claims? | Yes — Claims 1, 12 | Always |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Drafting Quality
Drafting Quality Signals
The patent exhibits strong spec–claim consistency, with FIG. 3 and equations (3)–(8) providing direct mathematical support for the coherence-based decomposition limitations of Claims 2–5, and FIG. 6 mapping precisely to the three-step structure of Claims 14 and 17. However, the absence of a computer-readable medium (CRM) claim creates a significant enforcement gap, and Claims 12 and 17 replicate much of the structure of Claims 1 and 14 without meaningfully narrowing the independent scope, which dilutes the dependent claim fallback landscape.
✅
Antecedent Basis
Antecedent basis is consistently maintained throughout the claim set. Claim 1 introduces 'a first signal component' and 'a second signal component' before subsequent references to 'the modified first signal component' and 'the modified second signal component.' Claims 14 and 17 follow the same pattern. No instances of 'the [element]' appearing without prior introduction were identified in the 18 claims.
✅
Spec–Claim Consistency
All independent claim limitations map to specific figures and paragraphs. The signal decomposition limitations of Claim 2 are supported by FIG. 3 (coherence analyzer 116, energy estimator 118, direction estimator 120, focus estimator 122) and equations (3)–(8). The re-panning limitations of Claims 9–10 map to FIG. 4 (direction adjuster 132, panning gain determiner 134, re-panning gain determiner 136). The stereo widening processor limitation maps to FIG. 5. No independent claim limitation lacks specific figure or paragraph support.
✅
Transition Word Usage
All 4 independent claims use 'comprising' as the transition, which is the strategically optimal open-ended choice for audio processing apparatus and method claims of this type. The open transition ensures that additional processing steps (e.g., pre-processing, post-processing, encoding) performed alongside the claimed elements do not defeat infringement. No instance of 'consisting of' or 'consisting essentially of' was used where it would unnecessarily limit claim scope.
✅
§112(f) Means-Plus-Function Risk
No 'means for' or 'step for' language appears in any of the 18 claims. The Summary section (col. 4) includes a 'means for deriving,' 'means for processing,' and 'means for combining' apparatus embodiment in the specification, but these do not appear in the granted claims. The granted claims use functional language tied to structural elements (processor, memory, program code) sufficient to avoid §112(f) invocation under post-Williamson standards, provided the processor-memory structure is deemed sufficiently structural in the art unit.
⚠️
§101 Eligibility Risk
Claims 1 and 12 face moderate Alice step-two risk because the core inventive concept — decomposing an audio signal into focus/non-focus components based on coherence and directional analysis — is implemented as 'computer program code' executed on a generic processor (Claim 1's structural preamble recites only 'at least one processor' and 'at least one memory'). The hardware tie-in is generic; the claims do not recite a specific DSP architecture, FPGA, or loudspeaker-coupled transducer. Method Claims 14 and 17 face even greater §101 exposure as they recite purely functional processing steps without any structural anchor, making them potentially vulnerable if an examiner frames the claims as mathematical processing of audio signals.
⚠️
Dependent Claim Fallback Quality
Dependent claim quality is uneven. Claims 2–5 add strong, technically distinct fallback positions by specifying the coherence-value/focus-coefficient/decomposition-coefficient computation chain with equation-level specificity. Claim 6's delay-for-temporal-alignment limitation provides a meaningful fallback. However, Claims 13 and 18 (both adding only that angular ranges are 'centered around the front direction') are near-identical to each other and add only a single, trivially specific limitation to their respective independent claims, creating weak fallback rungs. The absence of a CRM/non-transitory medium fallback claim is a structural gap in the fallback ladder.
⚠️
Abstract Quality
An examiner reading the abstract would identify the general signal decomposition and widening concept but might not immediately recognize the distinguishing 'focus/non-focus separation prior to selective widening' mechanism as the novel contribution — the abstract describes signal components 105-1 and 105-2 and the widening of the second component accurately, but only at the end of the abstract's second page continuation does it connect to 'partially extended spatial audio image.' The abstract does not mention coherence analysis, frequency sub-band processing, or re-panning, all of which are key technical differentiators over the cited prior art of Kirkeby and Kim.
✅
Figure Support Quality
Figure coverage for all structural claim elements is strong. FIG. 1A maps directly to all processing-chain elements of Claim 1 (signal decomposer 104 → components 105-1/105-2 → re-panner 106 → stereo widening 112 → combiner 114). FIG. 3 maps to all sub-elements of Claim 2's coherence-based decomposition. FIG. 4 maps to Claims 9–10's re-panning sub-steps. FIG. 5 maps to the stereo widening processor of Claim 1. FIG. 6 maps to the three-step method of Claims 14 and 17. FIG. 7 supports the hardware apparatus context. No claim limitation lacks figure support, though temporal waveform diagrams showing before/after spatial audio width would have further strengthened the written description.
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Scorecard
Strategic Intent Scorecard
Multi-dimensional assessment of this application's patent strategy quality, based on claim structure, specification depth, and prosecution positioning.
Claim Breadth
3.5
Prosecution Defensibility
3.2
Spec–Claim Consistency
4.5
Dependent Claim Coverage
3
Claim Type Diversity
3
Figure Support Quality
4.2
Key observation: Spec–Claim Consistency scores highest at 4.5/5 because every independent and dependent claim limitation traces directly to a named figure element, a specific equation number, or a labeled block in FIGs. 1A–5, providing exceptionally clean written description support. Claim Type Diversity scores lowest at 3.0/5 because the patent omits a computer-readable medium (CRM) claim entirely — a significant enforcement gap in the software/audio processing space where CRM claims are standard and would have covered Nokia's SDK and firmware distribution channels without requiring a showing of apparatus use. Practitioners should assess filing a continuation to add CRM claims and to introduce claims specifically reciting the frequency sub-band transform domain (STFT/QMF) embodiment, which is extensively supported in the specification but not recited at the independent claim level.
See how your own draft compares — Open Eureka IP Drafting →
Critical Gaps
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
A senior-attorney lens on the three highest-priority structural weaknesses — what each exposes in prosecution and litigation, and what a stronger filing would have done differently.
🔒
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
See the full attorney-level analysis of what this application leaves unprotected — and how to draft it more defensively for your own filings.
No CRM claim filed Transform domain embodiment unclaimed Sensor-adaptive loudspeaker configuration unclaimed
Unlock Full Analysis — Free Frequently asked questions
US 12,170,882 B2 — key questions answered
Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them from patent data instantly. Search in Eureka
Disclaimer: This analysis is generated by PatSnap Eureka AI based on publicly available patent data from the USPTO. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Patent data may be subject to change as prosecution progresses. Scores and assessments reflect automated analysis and may not capture all relevant legal or technical nuances. Always consult a qualified patent attorney for formal legal opinions on patentability, freedom to operate, or infringement.
Ask anything about this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard