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 .
This office action is responsive to the applicant’s correspondence filed on 11/05/2025.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding restriction requirement:
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
To clarify, the remarks alleges that Invention II is within the scope of identified Invention I for at least the conducting a search. Examiner notes that restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. Inventions I and II are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, designing of the room and determining speaker positions can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. Group I does not specifically require determining speaker positions according to the method of Group II; and Group II does not specifically require designing a room according to the method of Group I. Furthermore, Group I would require a search in at least G06F 30/12, along with a unique text search. Group II would not be searched as above and would instead require a search in at least CPC H04R 5/02, along with a unique text search. Therefore, the restriction is upheld.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to a method, which is a process, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claims 16-18 are directed to a server, which is a machine, falling under a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 16-18 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
The limitation “determining a first control location defining an eye height of a back viewer sitting in a back seat with the eye height comprising a first distance above the floor” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, a person can observe the eye height of a view and mentally judge on the appropriate control location.
This also covers mathematical concepts. Specification at [0059] discloses: “These calculations include a determination of a first control location CL1 which is where a viewer's eyes are located when seated in seat 30 b. Point CL1 is calculated as being the distance E above the floor 24.” Para [0058] discloses the equations for calculating sightlines. As per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The limitation “determining a second control location that is above a head of a front viewer sitting in a front seat and positioned between the back seat and the screen, the second control location comprising a combination of an amount the head of the front viewer is above the floor when sitting in the front seat plus a safety variable distance” covers a mental process and mathematical concepts for the similar reasons as determining the first control location. A person can mentally observe the amount the head of the front viewer is above the floor and the safely variable distance and mentally judge on the appropriate control location. Note that specification at para [0059] discloses that the similar equation and calculation method are used for the second control location.
The limitation “determining a viewpoint line that extends between the first control location and the screen with the viewpoint line being perpendicular to the screen” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, a person can observe the first control location and the screen and mentally imagine a perpendicular line from the first control location to the screen.
The limitation “determining an angle at the first control location formed between the viewpoint line and a straight line that extends between the first control location and the second control location” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this amounts to drawing two lines on a paper and measuring the angle formed by the lines using a protractor. It also covers mathematical concepts because calculating an angle between two lines covers mathematical calculations, formulas, or relationships.
The limitation “based on the angle and a distance between the first control location and the screen, calculating a screen height between the floor and a bottom edge of the screen” covers a mental process because a person can measure the distance between the floor and the bottom edge of the screen on a paper with a ruler. It also covers mathematical concepts because calculating a height/distance between two points covers mathematical calculations, formulas, or relationships.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
The limitations “generating an interactive graphical user interface that represents the room and comprises the back seat, the front seat, and the screen mounted to the front wall with a bottom of the screen positioned above the floor by the screen height” and “outputting the graphical user interface to a display of a user device” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are insignificant extra-solution activities. Specifically, they are post-solution activities of merely displaying the result on an interface. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities that are akin to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of presenting offers and gathering statistics. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2: The limitation “wherein determining the first control location comprises adding a back seat height plus forty-three (43) inches” covers a mental process because a person can mentally add 43 inches to the back seat height. This also covers a mathematical concept of adding numbers together.
Regarding claim 3: The limitation “determining the seat height of the back seat comprises: seat height=(rows−1)(riser height) where rows equals the numbers of rows and riser height equals a height of a riser above the floor” covers a mental process because a person can mentally evaluate such an equation. This also covers a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations using a mathematical equation.
Regarding claim 4: The limitation “wherein determining the second control location comprises adding a front seat height plus forty-six (46) inches” covers a mental process because a person can mentally add 46 inches to the back seat height. This also covers a mathematical concept of adding numbers together.
Regarding claim 5: The limitation “wherein the safety variable distance comprises two (2) inches” covers a mental process because a person can mentally determine the second control location as described previously, and by mentally adding 2 inches. This also covers a mathematical concept of adding numbers together.
Regarding claim 6: The limitation “wherein determining the second control location comprises: second control location=(rows−2)(riser height)+46+2 where rows equal the number of rows and riser height equal a height of a riser above the floor” covers a mental process because a person can mentally evaluate such an equation. This also covers a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations using a mathematical equation.
Regarding claim 7: The limitation “determining the first control location along the length of the room as a first predetermined distance from a back of the back seat and determining the second control location along the length of the room as a second predetermined distance from a back of the front seat” covers a mental process of mentally judging the first control location to be a first predetermined distance and the second control location to be the second predetermined distance.
Regarding claim 8:
The limitation “determining positions of speakers in the room and sound envelopes that are emitted from the speakers” covers a mental process of a person mentally observing the speakers to make judgments about their positions. Determining positions of speakers also amounts to mathematical concepts. Specification para [0086]-[0090] discloses: “The server 100 calculates the positioning of the side speakers 51. The side speakers 51 are positioned on the lateral side walls 23 equal distances away from the front wall 21. When there is a single row 31 of seats 30, the side speakers 51 are spaced away from the front wall 21 a distance that is six (6) inches less than the distance d between the point P on the primary seat 30 (i.e., placement=d−6). … The server 100 calculates the position of the side speakers 51 above the floor 24 as a predetermined value plus an average height of the risers 26. In one example, the server 100 calculates the height as fifty (50) inches plus the average height of the risers 26 (i.e., vertical distance = 50 + avg. riser height).”. As per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding sound envelopes, specification para [00119] discloses that the sound envelopes are visually displayed on a display. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, determining sound envelopes covers a person mentally observing such visual display of the sound envelopes and making mental judgments.
The limitations “generating the interactive graphical user interface comprising the sound envelopes” and “outputting the graphical user interface with the sound envelopes to the display of the user device” are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are insignificant extra-solution activities. Specifically, they are post-solution activities of merely displaying the result on an interface. See MPEP 2106.05(g). They are akin to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of presenting offers and gathering statistics. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Regarding claim 9:
The limitation “determining an immersion level based on the immersion distance and the display size” covers a mental process of a person mentally observing the immersion distance and the display size and mentally judging on the immersion level. This also amounts to mathematical concepts. Specification para [0080]-[0081] discloses: “The server 100 also calculates an immersion level for a viewer seated at a primary seat 30. … The server 100 calculates different immersion level based on the horizontal viewing angle taken from a point P at the primary seat 30. … The viewing angle α is calculated as follows: (Eq 13) viewing angle α = (tan−1(sw/2)/d)×2”. As per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The limitations “receiving a first input from the user device comprising an immersion distance of a primary viewing point away from the screen along the length” and “receiving a second input from the user device comprising a display type of the screen” are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are data gathering activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). They are akin to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 1, and therefore the similar analysis is applicable.
Furthermore, the limitations “memory circuitry” and “processing circuitry” are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also see July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47, claim 2, Pg. 8: “Further, limitations (a), (b), and (c) are recited as being performed by a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations (b) and (c), the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).”).
Regarding claims 17 and 18: Claims 17 and 18 are substantially similar to claims 8 and 9, and therefore the similar analysis is applicable.
Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7-9, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer (“A Tool for the Design of Audience Space with Predetermined Visibility Performance. The Design of Seating Surfaces by the Use of an Iseidomal Criteria.”) in view of Gjestland (“How to design a cinema auditorium”).
Regarding claim 1, Cramer discloses
determining a first control location defining an eye height of a back viewer sitting in a back seat with the eye height comprising a first distance above the floor (Pg. 7, 2nd paragraph: “The calculation gives the position of the eye of the patron seated in the ith row.”) (Pg. 5, list of symbols: “The height of the eye in the ith row above the row one floor level.”) (Pg. 34, under heading “Modes of Operation”: “2. Back Row Height. Develop the floor slope, using a given back row height, with best average probability of seeing.”) (Pg. 12, Figure 2.1 and Equation 2.1 “yi + s + leye”);
PNG
media_image1.png
530
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining a second control location that is above a head of a front viewer sitting in a front seat and positioned between the back seat and the screen, the second control location comprising a combination of an amount the head of the front viewer is above the floor when sitting in the front seat … (Pg. 7, 1st paragraph: “To establish the line of sight, the seated head height and the seated eye height dimensions are required. The problem is that the architect cannot, in general, predict the eye height of the person seated nor the head height of the person in front. An approximation is employed. As shown in Figure 1.1, ldiff is the necessary dimension. The value used in the literature, typically 5 inches (12.7 cm), is nearly, but not exactly, the difference between the mean value of the head height (lhead) and the mean value of the eye height (leye).”) (Pg. 7, 3rd paragraph: “The grazing incidence line from the eye over the head in front is one side of a pair of similar right triangles with a common vertex at the sighting point”) (Pg. 11, under the heading “2.1 Floor Slope Equation”: “Each person should be able to see over the head of the person seated in the row in front, or in the case of staggered seating, over the head of the person two rows in front.”) (Pg. 7, 1st paragraph: “For each row, starting with the second, draw a line of sight from the sighting point (in Russell’s case the mouth of the speaker) grazing the head of the person in front of the viewer. Locate the eye of the viewer at the point where the line off sight intersects the row.”) (Pg. 12, Figure 2.1);
determining a viewpoint line that extends between the first control location and the screen with the viewpoint line being perpendicular to the screen (Pg. 12, Figure 2.1; Equation 2.1: “ih + b”);
… a straight line that extends between the first control location and the second control location (Pg. 7, 3rd paragraph: “The grazing incidence line from the eye over the head in front is one side of a pair of similar right triangles with a common vertex at the sighting point.”) (Pg. 12, Figure 2.1);
based … a distance between the first control location and the screen, calculating a screen height between the floor and a bottom edge of the screen (Pg. 12, Figure 2.1: the variable “a” gives the distance between the sighting point and floor) (Pg. 6, 3rd paragraph: “The two critical points needed to start Russell’s layout procedure are the location of the eye of the person seated in the first row and the location of the sighting point which everyone should be able to see.”) (Pg. 27, 3rd paragraph: “the sighting point (which might be the bottom edge of the screen)”);
generating an interactive graphical user interface that represents the room and comprises the back seat, the front seat, and the screen mounted to the front wall with a bottom of the screen positioned above the floor by the screen height (Abstract: “This essay describes a prototype of an interactive CAD tool called "Seating Planner” which provides to the auditorium designer a quantitative "figure of merit” for the average visibility available to the audience. Using anthropometric data for head and eye heights, and a probabilistic model, the Seating Planner predicts the chances of successful viewing from any seat according to the criterion that every viewer should have a known probability of seeing a specified critical point on the stage.”) (Pg. 38, under the heading “3.5 The Selection of Input and Output Devices.”: “The Seating Planner has been conceived as an interactive CAD tool to aid in the design of theatres. While the system will need to store the floor contour data in numeric form, a schematic display of the room cross-section would seem more useful to the designer using the system. This type of display would show the location of the risers and steps which form the floor contour.”) (Pg. 33, under the heading “3.3 Communication with the User.”: “The very nature of an interactive system focuses attention on the narrow channel of the interface between the user’s sensory and perceptual apparatus and the computer system's input and output devices.”) (Pg. 12, Figure 2.1) (Pg. 27, 3rd paragraph: “the sighting point (which might be the bottom edge of the screen)”); and
outputting the graphical user interface to a display of a user device (Bottom of page 40 to top of page 41: “So in summary, for the Seating Planner the devices chosen for use as the interface between the user and the computer system were: … display device”) (Pg. 36, 2nd paragraph: “Thus, the results of a design trial are best shown as some form of graphic display.”).
Cramer does not explicitly teach:
… plus a safety variable distance;
determining an angle at the first control location formed between the viewpoint line and a straight line that extends between the first control location and the second control location;
based on the angle ….
However, Gjestland teaches accounting for extra distance in addition to the head height of the front viewer (Pg. 69, 1st paragraph: “The sightline clearance, c, must account for the height from eye to the top of the head, and must also account for situations where a taller person sits in front of a shorter person.”).
Gjestland also teaches determining an angle at the first control location formed between the viewpoint line and a straight line that extends between the first control location and the second control location (Pg. 64, the figure under section 4.3, “Std sightline (relaxed/seated): 15° down”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Gjestland on including the safety variable distance when calculating the head height/sightline and the angle at the first control location formed between the horizontal line and the sightline with the teachings from Cramer on determining the second control point using the head height and determining different dimensions including the sightlines, riser heights, screen heights, etc. The motivation to combine would have been that adding the safety variable distance allows accounting for situations where a taller person sits in front of a shorter person which would allow calculating more optimal viewing dimensions/angles (Gjestland, Pg. 69, 1st paragraph: “The sightline clearance, c, must account for the height from eye to the top of the head, and must also account for situations where a taller person sits in front of a shorter person.”); and considering such viewing angle allows achieving more comfortable viewing zone (Pg. 64, under the heading “4.3 Vertical viewing angles”: “The comfortable viewing zone is +/–15° relative to this sightline. … Larger vertical sightlines may be uncomfortable and can cause neck pain.”).
Examiner notes that Cramer teaches equations (for example, Equation 2.1) that represent the relationships between the variables such that if the values for some of the variables are given, other variables can be calculated using basic algebraic or geometrical concepts. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the screen height between the floor and a bottom edge of the screen based on the angle and a distance, given the angle and the distance. This would be akin to the obvious to try rationale of KSR. See MPEP 2143. This would also fall under the rearrangement of parts of MPEP 2144.04. For example, although Cramer does not explicitly disclose using the angle formed at the first control point between the straight line and the viewpoint line, Cramer discloses using the trigonometric relationships of the triangle formed by the first control point, the straight line, and the viewpoint line to solve for the eye height from the floor. One would be able to rearrange or manipulate the same equation to solve instead for the angle, screen height, etc., given the values for other variables in the equation.
Therefore, the combination of Cramer and Gjestland teaches
determining a second control location that is above a head of a front viewer sitting in a front seat and positioned between the back seat and the screen, the second control location comprising a combination of an amount the head of the front viewer is above the floor when sitting in the front seat plus a safety variable distance (Cramer, Pg. 7, 1st paragraph: “To establish the line of sight, the seated head height and the seated eye height dimensions are required. The problem is that the architect cannot, in general, predict the eye height of the person seated nor the head height of the person in front. An approximation is employed. As shown in Figure 1.1, ldiff is the necessary dimension. The value used in the literature, typically 5 inches (12.7 cm), is nearly, but not exactly, the difference between the mean value of the head height (lhead) and the mean value of the eye height (leye).”) (Cramer, Pg. 7, 3rd paragraph: “The grazing incidence line from the eye over the head in front is one side of a pair of similar right triangles with a common vertex at the sighting point”) (Cramer, Pg. 11, under the heading “2.1 Floor Slope Equation”: “Each person should be able to see over the head of the person seated in the row in front, or in the case of staggered seating, over the head of the person two rows in front.”) (Cramer, Pg. 7, 1st paragraph: “For each row, starting with the second, draw a line of sight from the sighting point (in Russell’s case the mouth of the speaker) grazing the head of the person in front of the viewer. Locate the eye of the viewer at the point where the line off sight intersects the row.”) (Cramer, Pg. 12, Figure 2.1) (Gjestland, Pg. 69, 1st paragraph: “The sightline clearance, c, must account for the height from eye to the top of the head, and must also account for situations where a taller person sits in front of a shorter person.”);
determining an angle at the first control location formed between the viewpoint line and a straight line that extends between the first control location and the second control location (Cramer, Pg. 7, 3rd paragraph: “The grazing incidence line from the eye over the head in front is one side of a pair of similar right triangles with a common vertex at the sighting point.”) (Cramer, Pg. 12, Figure 2.1; Equation 2.1) (Gjestland, Pg. 64, 1st paragraph, the figure under section 4.3, “Std sightline (relaxed/seated): 15° down”);
based on the angle and a distance between the first control location and the screen, calculating a screen height between the floor and a bottom edge of the screen (Cramer, Pg. 12, Figure 2.1: the variable “a” gives the distance between the sighting point and floor) (Cramer, Pg. 12, Figure 2.1; Equation 2.1: “ih + b”) (Cramer, Pg. 6, 3rd paragraph: “The two critical points needed to start Russell’s layout procedure are the location of the eye of the person seated in the first row and the location of the sighting point which everyone should be able to see.”) (Cramer, Pg. 27, 3rd paragraph: “the sighting point (which might be the bottom edge of the screen)”) (Gjestland, Pg. 64, the figure under section 4.3, “Std sightline (relaxed/seated): 15° down”).
Regarding claim 7, Cramer/Gjestland teaches the method of claim 1 as above. Cramer/Gjestland further teaches the method, further comprising
determining the first control location along the length of the room as a first predetermined distance from a back of the back seat and determining the second control location along the length of the room as a second predetermined distance from a back of the front seat (Cramer, Pg. 12, Figure 2.1) (Cramer, Pg. 5, list of symbols: “h The row-to-row”).
Regarding claim 8, Cramer discloses
generating the interactive graphical user interface (Bottom of page 40 to top of page 41: “So in summary, for the Seating Planner the devices chosen for use as the interface between the user and the computer system were: … display device”) (Pg. 36, 2nd paragraph: “Thus, the results of a design trial are best shown as some form of graphic display.”) and
outputting the graphical user interface … to the display of the user device (Bottom of page 40 to top of page 41: “So in summary, for the Seating Planner the devices chosen for use as the interface between the user and the computer system were: … display device”) (Pg. 36, 2nd paragraph: “Thus, the results of a design trial are best shown as some form of graphic display.”).
Cramer does not explicitly teach determining positions of speakers and sound envelopes.
However, Gjestland teaches determining positions of speakers in the room and sound envelopes that are emitted from the speakers (Pg. 121, 1st paragraph: “9 Speaker placement … It is important to bear in mind that immersive sound formats require speakers mounted in the ceiling.”) (Pg. 122, 2nd paragraph under the heading “9.1 Front speakers”: “Screens with 2.39:1 aspect ratio (fixed picture height): The centre speaker should always be placed on the picture’s vertical centerline, with its acoustic centre at 2/3 of the picture height from the picture bottom line. The Left and Right speakers should be placed at the same height, midway between the edges of the 2.39:1 and the 1.85:1 picture frame.”) (Pg. 128, 1st paragraph: “As an alternative, common for immersive audio systems, or to prepare for immersive audio, the side surround speakers can be placed on the side walls, along an axis running from the height of the rear surround speakers to the acoustic centre of the front speakers (shown as a straight red line in the illustration for alternative surround speaker placement below).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Gjestland on determining positions of speakers and sound envelopes with the teachings from Cramer on generating/outputting interactive graphical user interface, and determine and display positions of speakers and sound envelopes. The motivation to combine would have been that doing so would allow placing speakers for best sound experience (Gjestland, Pg. 121, 1st paragraph: “It is important to bear in mind that immersive sound formats require speakers mounted in the ceiling.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 126, 4th paragraph: “The speakers should be evenly distributed on the wall with a distance (d) between each of them (c–c) in the range of 1.0–2.5 m (maximum 3 m). Smaller spacing will provide better distribution of the sound, especially if the last row is close to the rear wall. … All rear surround speakers must be mounted at the same height (h) and offer a good coverage of the auditorium.”).
Therefore, the combination of Cramer and Gjestland teaches
determining positions of speakers in the room and sound envelopes that are emitted from the speakers (Gjestland, Pg. 121, 1st paragraph: “9 Speaker placement … It is important to bear in mind that immersive sound formats require speakers mounted in the ceiling.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 122, 2nd paragraph under the heading “9.1 Front speakers”: “Screens with 2.39:1 aspect ratio (fixed picture height): The centre speaker should always be placed on the picture’s vertical centerline, with its acoustic centre at 2/3 of the picture height from the picture bottom line. The Left and Right speakers should be placed at the same height, midway between the edges of the 2.39:1 and the 1.85:1 picture frame.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 128, 1st paragraph: “As an alternative, common for immersive audio systems, or to prepare for immersive audio, the side surround speakers can be placed on the side walls, along an axis running from the height of the rear surround speakers to the acoustic centre of the front speakers (shown as a straight red line in the illustration for alternative surround speaker placement below).”);
generating the interactive graphical user interface comprising the sound envelopes (Cramer, Bottom of page 40 to top of page 41: “So in summary, for the Seating Planner the devices chosen for use as the interface between the user and the computer system were: … display device”) (Cramer, Pg. 36, 2nd paragraph: “Thus, the results of a design trial are best shown as some form of graphic display.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 121, 1st paragraph: “9 Speaker placement … It is important to bear in mind that immersive sound formats require speakers mounted in the ceiling.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 122, 2nd paragraph under the heading “9.1 Front speakers”: “Screens with 2.39:1 aspect ratio (fixed picture height): The centre speaker should always be placed on the picture’s vertical centerline, with its acoustic centre at 2/3 of the picture height from the picture bottom line. The Left and Right speakers should be placed at the same height, midway between the edges of the 2.39:1 and the 1.85:1 picture frame.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 128, 1st paragraph: “As an alternative, common for immersive audio systems, or to prepare for immersive audio, the side surround speakers can be placed on the side walls, along an axis running from the height of the rear surround speakers to the acoustic centre of the front speakers (shown as a straight red line in the illustration for alternative surround speaker placement below).”); and
outputting the graphical user interface with the sound envelopes to the display of the user device (Cramer, Bottom of page 40 to top of page 41: “So in summary, for the Seating Planner the devices chosen for use as the interface between the user and the computer system were: … display device”) (Cramer, Pg. 36, 2nd paragraph: “Thus, the results of a design trial are best shown as some form of graphic display.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 121, 1st paragraph: “9 Speaker placement … It is important to bear in mind that immersive sound formats require speakers mounted in the ceiling.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 122, 2nd paragraph under the heading “9.1 Front speakers”: “Screens with 2.39:1 aspect ratio (fixed picture height): The centre speaker should always be placed on the picture’s vertical centerline, with its acoustic centre at 2/3 of the picture height from the picture bottom line. The Left and Right speakers should be placed at the same height, midway between the edges of the 2.39:1 and the 1.85:1 picture frame.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 128, 1st paragraph: “As an alternative, common for immersive audio systems, or to prepare for immersive audio, the side surround speakers can be placed on the side walls, along an axis running from the height of the rear surround speakers to the acoustic centre of the front speakers (shown as a straight red line in the illustration for alternative surround speaker placement below).”).
Regarding claim 9, Cramer discloses
receiving … input from the user device (Abstract: “This essay describes a prototype of an interactive CAD tool called "Seating Planner” which provides to the auditorium designer a quantitative "figure of merit” for the average visibility available to the audience. Using anthropometric data for head and eye heights, and a probabilistic model, the Seating Planner predicts the chances of successful viewing from any seat according to the criterion that every viewer should have a known probability of seeing a specified critical point on the stage.”) (Pg. 38, under the heading “3.5 The Selection of Input and Output Devices.”: “The Seating Planner has been conceived as an interactive CAD tool to aid in the design of theatres. While the system will need to store the floor contour data in numeric form, a schematic display of the room cross-section would seem more useful to the designer using the system. This type of display would show the location of the risers and steps which form the floor contour.”) (Pg. 33, 1st paragraph: “The user must enter his choice for these values and settings to establish the parameters for the trial design. … The very nature of an interactive system focuses attention on the narrow channel of the interface between the user’s sensory and perceptual apparatus and the computer system's input and output devices. … Before the design of the interactive aspect of the system can proceed, a definition is needed of the types and character of the input data and what commands will be recognized.”) (Pg. 42, under the heading “Update of the parameter Values.”: “If the parameter values need modification, the user is presented with an instructional menu which shows all the available parameters and indicates which are the allowed entries for those requiring a choice, and indicates a specification for those where numeric data is required (Figure 3.11).”).
Cramer does not explicitly disclose determining an immersion level based on the immersion distance and the display size.
However, Gjestland teaches
an immersion distance of a primary viewing point away from the screen along the length (Pg. 61, 1st paragraph: “4.1 Screen to first row distance The maximum picture width limits the distance from the first row to the screen on a 2.39:1 screen.”);
a display type of the screen (Pg. 61, 1st paragraph: “4.1 Screen to first row distance The maximum picture width limits the distance from the first row to the screen on a 2.39:1 screen.”) (Pg. 62, 1st paragraph: “Horizontal field of view between the edges on a 2.39:1 screen that is less than 80° is comfortable, corresponding to a distance from first row (eye) to the screen”); and
determining an immersion level based on the immersion distance and the display size (Pg. 63, under the figure: “Good values: 1 ≤ n ≤ 1.2 or a ≤ 35° Acceptable values: 1.2> n ≤ 1.4 or 35° < a ≤ 45° Unacceptable values: n > 1.4 or a > 45°”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Gjestland on determining screen size, distance between the viewing point and the screen, and immersion level with the teachings from Cramer on receiving user input on parameters for predicting successful viewing, and provide receiving inputs for screen size and distance between the viewing point and the screen to determine immersion level. The motivation to combine would have been that doing so allows determining optimal distance to the screen and immersion level which allows viewers to view the screen with minimal head movements (Gjestland, Pg. 61, 1st paragraph: “Sitting too close to the screen, the human visual system will not be able to perceive all the action on the screen and it will not be possible to recognise symbols and read subtitles with only minor head movements.”).
Therefore, the combination of Cramer and Gjestland teaches
receiving a first input from the user device comprising an immersion distance of a primary viewing point away from the screen along the length (Cramer, Abstract: “This essay describes a prototype of an interactive CAD tool called "Seating Planner” which provides to the auditorium designer a quantitative "figure of merit” for the average visibility available to the audience. Using anthropometric data for head and eye heights, and a probabilistic model, the Seating Planner predicts the chances of successful viewing from any seat according to the criterion that every viewer should have a known probability of seeing a specified critical point on the stage.”) (Cramer, Pg. 38, under the heading “3.5 The Selection of Input and Output Devices.”: “The Seating Planner has been conceived as an interactive CAD tool to aid in the design of theatres. While the system will need to store the floor contour data in numeric form, a schematic display of the room cross-section would seem more useful to the designer using the system. This type of display would show the location of the risers and steps which form the floor contour.”) (Cramer, Pg. 33, 1st paragraph: “The user must enter his choice for these values and settings to establish the parameters for the trial design. … The very nature of an interactive system focuses attention on the narrow channel of the interface between the user’s sensory and perceptual apparatus and the computer system's input and output devices. … Before the design of the interactive aspect of the system can proceed, a definition is needed of the types and character of the input data and what commands will be recognized.”) (Cramer, Pg. 42, under the heading “Update of the parameter Values.”: “If the parameter values need modification, the user is presented with an instructional menu which shows all the available parameters and indicates which are the allowed entries for those requiring a choice, and indicates a specification for those where numeric data is required (Figure 3.11).”) (Gjestland, Pg. 61, 1st paragraph: “4.1 Screen to first row distance The maximum picture width limits the distance from the first row to the screen on a 2.39:1 screen.”);
receiving a second input from the user device comprising a display type of the screen (Cramer, Abstract: “This essay describes a prototype of an interactive CAD tool called "Seating Planner” which provides to the auditorium designer a quantitative "figure of merit” for the average visibility available to the audience. Using anthropometric data for head and eye heights, and a probabilistic model, the Seating Planner predicts the chances of successful viewing from any seat according to the criterion that every viewer should have a known probability of seeing a specified critical point on the stage.”) (Cramer, Pg. 38, under the heading “3.5 The Selection of Input and Output Devices.”: “The Seating Planner has been conceived as an interactive CAD tool to aid in the design of theatres. While the system will need to store the floor contour data in numeric form, a schematic display of the room cross-section would seem more useful to the designer using the system. This type of display would show the location of the risers and steps which form the floor contour.”) (Cramer, Pg. 33, 1st paragraph: “The user must enter his choice for these values and settings to establish the parameters for the trial design. … The very nature of an interactive system focuses attention on the narrow channel of the interface between the user’s sensory and perceptual apparatus and the computer system's input and output devices. … Before the design of the interactive aspect of the system can proceed, a definition is needed of the types and character of the input data and what commands will be recognized.”) (Cramer, Pg. 42, under the heading “Update of the parameter Values.”: “If the parameter values need modification, the user is presented with an instructional menu which shows all the available parameters and indicates which are the allowed entries for those requiring a choice, and indicates a specification for those where numeric data is required (Figure 3.11).”) (Gjestland, Pg. 61, 1st paragraph: “4.1 Screen to first row distance The maximum picture width limits the distance from the first row to the screen on a 2.39:1 screen.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 62, 1st paragraph: “Horizontal field of view between the edges on a 2.39:1 screen that is less than 80° is comfortable, corresponding to a distance from first row (eye) to the screen”); and
determining an immersion level based on the immersion distance and the display size (Cramer, Abstract: “This essay describes a prototype of an interactive CAD tool called "Seating Planner” which provides to the auditorium designer a quantitative "figure of merit” for the average visibility available to the audience. Using anthropometric data for head and eye heights, and a probabilistic model, the Seating Planner predicts the chances of successful viewing from any seat according to the criterion that every viewer should have a known probability of seeing a specified critical point on the stage.”) (Cramer, Pg. 38, under the heading “3.5 The Selection of Input and Output Devices.”: “The Seating Planner has been conceived as an interactive CAD tool to aid in the design of theatres. While the system will need to store the floor contour data in numeric form, a schematic display of the room cross-section would seem more useful to the designer using the system. This type of display would show the location of the risers and steps which form the floor contour.”) (Cramer, Pg. 33, 1st paragraph: “The user must enter his choice for these values and settings to establish the parameters for the trial design. … The very nature of an interactive system focuses attention on the narrow channel of the interface between the user’s sensory and perceptual apparatus and the computer system's input and output devices. … Before the design of the interactive aspect of the system can proceed, a definition is needed of the types and character of the input data and what commands will be recognized.”) (Cramer, Pg. 42, under the heading “Update of the parameter Values.”: “If the parameter values need modification, the user is presented with an instructional menu which shows all the available parameters and indicates which are the allowed entries for those requiring a choice, and indicates a specification for those where numeric data is required (Figure 3.11).”) (Gjestland, Pg. 63, under the figure: “Good values: 1 ≤ n ≤ 1.2 or a ≤ 35° Acceptable values: 1.2> n ≤ 1.4 or 35° < a ≤ 45° Unacceptable values: n > 1.4 or a > 45°”).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis is applicable.
Furthermore, Cramer/Gjestland teaches
memory circuitry; and processing circuitry (Cramer, Pg. 1, 2nd paragraph: “The essay discusses an interactive CAD tool called the Seating Planner, which has as its goal to make the evaluation of audience floor contours faster and easier.”) (Cramer, Pg. 32, under the heading “3.2 Task Analysis.”: “The purpose of the Seating Planner is to allow the designer of an audience space to concentrate on making the design decisions based on performance, space used, and cost, while leaving the mathematics and bookkeeping to the computer.”).
Examiner notes that such software as CAD is run on a computer which includes a memory and a processing circuitry.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, claims 17 and 18 are substantially similar to claims 8 and 9. Therefore, the similar analysis is applicable.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer in view of Gjestland in further view of ADA (“ADA Standards for Accessible Design Title III Regulation 28 CFR Part 36 (1991)”), hereinafter ADA Standards.
Regarding claim 2, Cramer/Gjestland teaches a predetermined distance of 44 inches which provides the seated eye height (Cramer, Pg. 7, 2nd paragraph: “The calculation gives the position of the eye of the patron seated in the ith row. … The height of the floor underneath the seat is set by subtracting a fixed distance, z, from the eye height. The z that appears in the literature is an arbitrary value of 44.0 inches (112 cm)”).
Cramer/Gjestland does not explicitly teach forty-three (43) inches.
However, ADA Standards teaches a standard seated eye height being between 43-51 inches (Pg. 182, below Fig. A3: “Illustration shows a sideview of a man sitting in a wheelchair. Eye level is 43 - 51 inches (1090 -1295 mm).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from ADA Standards on the range of the standard seated eye height with the teachings from Cramer/Gjestland on the fixed distance by modifying it to one of the values selected from the standard seated eye height range. The motivation to combine would have been that doing so would allow accounting for reasonable expected eye height when designing a seat which allows more optimally designing the seat (ADA Standards, Pg. 182, below Fig. A3: “Illustration shows a sideview of a man sitting in a wheelchair. Eye level is 43 - 51 inches (1090 -1295 mm).”).
Therefore, the combination of Cramer/Gjestland and ADA Standards teaches
wherein determining the first control location comprises adding a back seat height plus forty-three (43) inches (Cramer, Pg. 7, 2nd paragraph: “The calculation gives the position of the eye of the patron seated in the ith row. … The height of the floor underneath the seat is set by subtracting a fixed distance, z, from the eye height. The z that appears in the literature is an arbitrary value of 44.0 inches (112 cm)”) (ADA Standards, Pg. 182, below Fig. A3: “Illustration shows a sideview of a man sitting in a wheelchair. Eye level is 43 - 51 inches (1090 -1295 mm).”).
Regarding claim 3, Cramer/Gjestland/ADA Standards teaches the method of claims 1-2 as above. Cramer/Gjestland/ADA Standards further teaches the method further comprising
determining the seat height of the back seat comprises: seat height=(rows−1)(riser height) where rows equals the numbers of rows and riser height equals a height of a riser above the floor (Cramer, Pg. 12, Figure 2.1) (Cramer, Pg. 5, list of symbols: “n The total number of rows in the seating area. … yi The height of the floor level at the ith row above (or below) the first row level.”) (Cramer, Pg. 9, 2nd paragraph: “Most fire codes prefer linear ramps or stairs with constant riser heights, to minimize the chance of patrons stumbling in the case of an emergency.”).
Examiner notes that given constant riser heights, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to solve for seat height using row number and riser height as shown in Figure 2.1.
Regarding claim 4, Cramer/Gjestland/ADA Standards teaches the method of claims 1-3 as above. Cramer/Gjestland/ADA Standards further teaches the method, wherein
determining the second control location comprises adding a front seat height plus forty-six (46) inches (Cramer, Pg. 7, 2nd paragraph: “The calculation gives the position of the eye of the patron seated in the ith row. … The height of the floor underneath the seat is set by subtracting a fixed distance, z, from the eye height. The z that appears in the literature is an arbitrary value of 44.0 inches (112 cm)”) (ADA Standards, Pg. 182, below Fig. A3: “Illustration shows a sideview of a man sitting in a wheelchair. Eye level is 43 - 51 inches (1090 -1295 mm).”).
The combination provided for claim 2 is applicable.
Regarding claim 5, Cramer/Gjestland/ADA Standards teaches the method of claims 1-4 as above. Cramer/Gjestland/ADA Standards further teaches the method, wherein
the safety variable distance comprises two (2) inches (Cramer, Pg. 7, 2nd paragraph: “The calculation gives the position of the eye of the patron seated in the ith row. … The height of the floor underneath the seat is set by subtracting a fixed distance, z, from the eye height. The z that appears in the literature is an arbitrary value of 44.0 inches (112 cm) … In fact, almost all men and most women have a seated eye height which is greater than this value. Thus, Russell’s method as found in the literature contains two arbitrary constants (z and jj ). They appear to be derived from anthropometric data”) (Cramer, Pg. 2, 3rd paragraph: “From this basic approach the notions of probability theory and the use of anthropometric measures provide a new way of determining the contour of the audience surface that provides an acceptable view of the defined critical point.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 69, 1st paragraph: “The sightline clearance, c, must account for the height from eye to the top of the head, and must also account for situations where a taller person sits in front of a shorter person.”) (ADA Standards, Pg. 182, below Fig. A3: “Illustration shows a sideview of a man sitting in a wheelchair. Eye level is 43 - 51 inches (1090 -1295 mm).”).
Examiner notes that all references Cramer, Gjestland, and ADA Standards teaches adding or accounting for an extra value derived from some kind of anthropometric/ergonomic data to the designed/calculated value to account for different heights of users. ADA Standards specifically teaches the range of standard seated height as being 43-51 inches. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to pick a safety variable which would make the expected seated height fit in the standard seated height taught by ADA Standards of 43-51 inches. For example, given the expected seated height of 46 inches, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to pick 2 inches as a safety variable in order to account for people with seated heights higher than 46 inches, and this number would be reasonable since the resulting 48 inches would still be in the standard seated height. This would be akin to the obvious to try rationale of KSR, as there are finite number of reasonable safety variables to pick from based on the teaching from ADA Standards, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to pick a desired number that makes the expected seated height fit in the range of standard seated height. See MPEP 2143.
34. The combination provided for claim 2 is applicable.
Regarding claim 6, Cramer/Gjestland teaches the method of claim 1 as above. Cramer/Gjestland/ADA Standards further teaches the method, wherein
determining the second control location comprises: second control location=(rows−2)(riser height)+46+2 where rows equal the number of rows and riser height equal a height of a riser above the floor (Cramer, Pg. 12, Figure 2.1) (Cramer, Pg. 5, list of symbols: “n The total number of rows in the seating area. … yi The height of the floor level at the ith row above (or below) the first row level.”) (Cramer, Pg. 9, 2nd paragraph: “Most fire codes prefer linear ramps or stairs with constant riser heights, to minimize the chance of patrons stumbling in the case of an emergency.”) (Gjestland, Pg. 69, 1st paragraph: “The sightline clearance, c, must account for the height from eye to the top of the head, and must also account for situations where a taller person sits in front of a shorter person.”) (ADA Standards, Pg. 182, below Fig. A3: “Illustration shows a sideview of a man sitting in a wheelchair. Eye level is 43 - 51 inches (1090 -1295 mm).”).
34. The combination provided for claim 2 is applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yaroni (“Evolution of Stadium Design”)
Szabo (“Guidelines for the Design of Effective Cine Theaters (Part I of a Proposed SMPTE Engineering Guideline)”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIN JEONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/HEIN JEONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186