DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on November 12, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-22 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-22 being rejected. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11-15, 18-19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2008/0280730 A1 to Alexanderson in view of US Patent No 9615190 B1 to Norris et al. (“Norris”).
As to claim 1, Alexanderson discloses sound signal generation circuitry, configured to: obtain a position of a virtual user and sound of the virtual user, the virtual user representing a training partner of a real user (see figures 1 and 3-4; pgs. 3-4, ¶ 0051 - ¶ 0055); and generate, based on the position of the virtual user, the sound of the virtual user, a control signal for at least two loudspeakers positioned in a real space, such that the at least two loudspeakers generate sound representing the virtual user at a predetermined position relative to the real user in the real space (see figures 1-3; pg. 2, ¶ 0035 - ¶ 0038; pg. 4, ¶ 0054).
Alexanderson further discloses the spatial audio can vary across two or more axes (see pg. 1, ¶ 0002), and wherein the spatial audio is based on the position of the virtual user relative to the real user (see pg. 4, ¶ 0057), but does not expressly disclose generating the control signal based on a head position of the real user, wherein the head position of the real user includes at least a head height, the at least two loudspeakers are adjacent to each other and disposed in a same sound box that is fixed at a location spaced apart from the real user, nor wherein the sound is generated to be perceived by the real user as originating from the predetermined position of the virtual user independent of head movement of the real user.
Norris discloses a similar spatial sound generation system, and further discloses wherein the localization can be personalized according to the listener, including following as the listener moves or being fixed and positioned relative to the user’s height (see col. 4, lines 4-9; col. 8, lines 35-42), wherein the speakers at the listener position can be a variety of devices including stand-alone speakers or electronic devices with speakers that are spaced apart at a fixed position from the listener, such as a computer on a table or chair (see figures 16 and 26; col. 8, lines 1-13 and 51-64; col. 9, lines 11-18; col. 29, lines 47-55; col. 30, lines 18-36; col. 38, lines 55-60), and the sound can be generated to be perceived at a predetermined or fixed position independent of head movement of the listener (see figures 13A-13C and 18-19; col. 8, lines 57-66; col. 9, lines 30-57).
Alexanderson and Norris are analogous art because they are both drawn to spatial sound generating systems.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the spatial positioning features as taught by Norris in the device as taught by Alexanderson. The motivation being to provide a more realistic communication between users via virtual sound points in a real space that can be adjusted to provide enhanced perception that emulates real-world interactions (Norris col. 4, lines 24-33; col. 5, lines 37-50; col. 32, lines 2-9).
As to claim 2, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein the position of the virtual user and the sound of the virtual user are based on simulated data (Alexanderson pg. 2, ¶ 0038; pg. 4, ¶ 0057).
As to claim 3, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein at least one of the position of the virtual user and the sound of the virtual user is based on real data (Alexanderson pg. 6, ¶ 0076).
As to claim 4, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein, if the position is based on real data, the position is acquired by a camera directed towards a further real user representing the virtual user (Norris col. 7, lines 22-37; col. 33, lines 16-27; col. 41, lines 32-44).
As to claim 5, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein, if the sound is based on real data, the sound is acquired from the further real user (Norris col. 7, lines 22-37; col. 10, lines 61-67; col. 11, lines 1-10; col. 41, lines 9-32).
As to claim 8, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein the sound is generated based on a head-related transfer function of the real user (Norris col. 2, lines 55-67; col. 4, lines 24-33).
As to claim 9, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein the control signal is generated based on a movement of the real user (Alexanderson figure 3; pg. 3, ¶ 0050 - ¶ 0051).
As to claim 11, Alexanderson discloses a sound signal generation method, comprising: obtaining a position of a virtual user and sound of the virtual user, the virtual user representing a training partner of a real user (see figures 1 and 3-4; pgs. 3-4, ¶ 0051 - ¶ 0055); and generating, based on the position of the virtual user, the sound of the virtual user, a control signal for at least two loudspeakers positioned in a real space, such that the at least two loudspeakers generate sound representing the virtual user at a predetermined position relative to the real user in the real space (see figures 1-3; pg. 2, ¶ 0035 - ¶ 0038; pg. 4, ¶ 0054).
Alexanderson further discloses the spatial audio can vary across two or more axes (see pg. 1, ¶ 0002), and wherein the spatial audio is based on the position of the virtual user relative to the real user (see pg. 4, ¶ 0057), but does not expressly disclose generating the control signal based on a head position of the real user, wherein the head position of the real user includes a head height, the at least two loudspeakers are adjacent to each other and disposed in a same sound box that is fixed at a location spaced apart from the real user, nor wherein the sound is generated to be perceived by the real user as originating from the predetermined position of the virtual user independent of head movement of the real user.
Norris discloses a similar spatial sound generation system, and further discloses wherein the localization can be personalized according to the listener, including following as the listener moves or being fixed and positioned relative to the user’s height (see col. 4, lines 4-9; col. 8, lines 35-42), wherein the speakers at the listener position can be a variety of devices including stand-alone speakers or electronic devices with speakers that are spaced apart at a fixed position from the listener, such as a computer on a table or chair (see figures 16 and 26; col. 8, lines 1-13 and 51-64; col. 9, lines 11-18; col. 29, lines 47-55; col. 30, lines 18-36; col. 38, lines 55-60), and the sound can be generated to be perceived at a predetermined or fixed position independent of head movement of the listener (see figures 13A-13C and 18-19; col. 8, lines 57-66; col. 9, lines 30-57).
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the spatial positioning features as taught by Norris in the method as taught by Alexanderson. The motivation being to provide a more realistic communication between users via virtual sound points in a real space that can be adjusted to provide enhanced perception that emulates real-world interactions (Norris col. 4, lines 24-33; col. 5, lines 37-50; col. 32, lines 2-9).
As to claim 12, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein at least one of the position of the virtual user and the sound of the virtual user is based on simulated data (Alexanderson pg. 2, ¶ 0038; pg. 4, ¶ 0057).
As to claim 13, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein at least one of the position of the virtual user and the sound of the virtual user is based on real data (Alexanderson pg. 6, ¶ 0076).
As to claim 14, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein, if the position is based on real data, the position is acquired by a camera directed towards a further real user representing the virtual user (Norris col. 7, lines 22-37; col. 33, lines 16-27; col. 41, lines 32-44).
As to claim 15, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein, if the sound is based on real data, the sound is acquired from the further real user (Norris col. 7, lines 22-37; col. 10, lines 61-67; col. 11, lines 1-10; col. 41, lines 9-32).
As to claim 18, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein the sound is generated based on a head-related transfer function of the real user (Norris col. 2, lines 55-67; col. 4, lines 24-33).
As to claim 19, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein the control signal is generated based on a movement of the real user (Alexanderson figure 3; pg. 3, ¶ 0050 - ¶ 0051).
As to claim 21, Alexanderson in view of Norris further discloses wherein if the position is based on real data, the position is acquired by at least one of radio frequency tracking or infrared tracking of the real user (Norris col. 6, lines 35-48; col. 41, lines 32-44).
As to claim 22, Alexanderson in view of Norris does not expressly disclose wherein the camera includes one of a red-green-blue camera, a time-of-flight camera, a stereo camera, or a combination thereof. However the use of a red-green-blue camera, a time-of-flight camera, and/or a stereo camera is merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select and is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Alexanderson in view of Norris, particularly as Alexanderson in view of Norris teaches the use of electronic devices such as laptops or hand-held devices with cameras and video call functionality (Norris figure 16; col. 7, lines 22-37; col. 33, lines 16-27; col. 41, lines 32-44). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the motivation being as a matter of design, and further depending on the type of electronic device being used to capture the user data, as long as the device can provide the user position data using a camera, as taught by Alexanderson in view of Norris.
4. Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexanderson in view of Norris, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2014/0133658 A1 to Mentz et al. (“Mentz”).
As to claims 6 and 16, Alexanderson in view of Norris discloses the sound signal generation circuitry and method of respective claims 1 and 11.
Alexanderson in view of Norris does not expressly disclose wherein the sound is generated based on a calibration of the at least two loudspeakers with respect to the real space.
Mentz discloses a similar device for providing 3D or localized audio, and further discloses the speakers being calibrated with respect to a reference point or direction in the space occupied by the user (see pg. 3, ¶ 0028 - ¶ 0031).
Alexanderson in view of Norris and Mentz are analogous art because they are drawn to sound generation systems.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the speaker calibration as taught by Mentz in the system as taught by Alexanderson in view of Norris. The motivation being to determine initial reference points and/or direction of the speakers that can then be used to provide the 3D or virtual audio (Mentz pg. 3, ¶ 0028 - ¶ 0031).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed November 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that in Norris, “none of the scenarios illustrated in Figs. 16 and 18, upon which the Office Action relies, illustrates at least two speakers in a same speaker box that is fixed at a location separate from the real user,” as “the headphones are not separate from the user since the user is wearing them,” “the cell phone is also not separate from the user since the user is holding it,” and “the speakers are in two separate speaker boxes located a distance away from each other,” therefore “none of these correspond to the claimed at least two speakers that are adjacent to each other and disposed in a same sound box that is fixed at a location spaced apart from the real user, as defined in amended Claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by Applicant, Norris discloses various embodiments for the speakers providing sound to the user, such as headphones and a cell phone. Norris further discloses other electronic devices to provide sound to the user, such as a notebook computer or desktop computer (see col. 9, lines 11-18). Like the other embodiments, the notebook computer is configured to track the user as he moves with respect to the computer. Norris further notes the computer can be positioned in a stationary location (e.g. a chair), and can be configured to provide audio in stereo sound or binaural sound (see figures 16 and 26; col. 8, lines 1-13 and 51-64; col. 29, lines 47-55; col. 38, lines 55-60). That is, Norris discloses embodiments of the electronic device that can include multiple speakers to provide two-channel or multi-channel audio to a user, and can further be positioned at a fixed location when providing sound to the user, e.g. a notebook computer. Norris is therefore considered to teach a device with at least two speakers that is fixed at a location spaced apart from the user, as claimed.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693