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
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
Claims 1-21, 23, 24 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11483670. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims are considered substantially similar and any differences of subject matter in the independent and dependent claims are considered well-known, routine and conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-21, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullam: 20160212538 hereinafter Full further in view of Kadri: 20170094437 and further in view of Lee: 20210099146.
Regarding claim 1
Full teaches:
A media playback system (Full: ¶ 42-45; Fig 3-5: computing system in concert with speaker devices) comprising:
first and second playback devices (Full: Fig 2, 3, etc.: a media playback environment comprising plurality- of first, second, etc. playback devices such as 110,114,116,118,120); and
a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the media playback system to perform operations (Full: ¶ 42-45; Fig 5: system operative upon a processor to execute code in concert with playback devices) comprising:
receiving, from a media content provider, virtual media audio content associated with a virtual environment (Full: ¶ 37-40; Fig 4: system generates virtual media content such as an audio signal at a position of a virtual character in a user environment);
determining a first position of the first playback device in a listening environment (Full: ¶ 32; Fig 1, 4: system determines location of each/any remote speaker such as speakers 118, 120);
determining a second position of the second playback device in a listening environment (Full: ¶ 32; Fig 1, 4: system determines location of each/any remote speaker such as speakers 118, 120);
determining a boundary of the virtual environment, the boundary defining an area based on at least the first position and the second position (Full: ¶ 36; Fig 1: system recognizes a room in which the system is operative, thereby determining a position, type, etc. of speakers, devices, etc. therein or other playback data associated therewith; said locating based on location, image, etc. information);
generating a first audio signal based on the boundaries and the virtual media audio content (Full: ¶ 37-40, 53: system outputs audio from a first device adjusted with respect to determined position, distance, etc.);
generating a second audio signal based on the boundaries and the virtual media audio content (Full: ¶ 29, 37-40, 53: system outputs audio from a second device adjusted with respect to determined position, distance, etc.),
wherein the generated first and second audio signals include one or more audio cues configured to enable a user to spatially perceive a location of a virtual object within the listening environment (Full: ¶ 8, 29, 40, etc.; Fig 3, 5: such as by adjusting audio from the first and second speaker to account for latency in reaching the listener thereby imparting a dimensional effect to the audio such as based on location); and
causing playback of the first audio signal via the first playback device and causing playback of the second audio signal via the second playback device (Full: ¶ 29, 40: audio adjusted based on location to maintain synchrony between first and second playback devices with respect to location).
Full teaches a system operable to cause the boundary of a virtual environment to match or be slightly different than an area defined by the first and second playback devices as Full teaches a system wherein displayed content appears to be located within a surrounding real-world environment (Full: ¶ 8) such as to enhance an augmented reality presentation, wherein audio content corresponding to a virtual object may be sent to a remote speaker located proximate the virtual object, such that the sound originates from a direction of virtual object in the environment (Full: ¶ 9) such that sound-producing devices in the real-world environment provide spatial audio that corresponds to the three-dimensional placement of virtual objects in the real world environment (Full: ¶ 18).
Full does not explicitly disclose receiving, from a media content provider; that is, in Full the receipt of virtual media is not disclosed as originating “from a media content provider.”
Additionally, Full does not explicitly teach determining, by the first playback device, a first position of the first playback device in a listening environment; nor the adjustment of the boundary of the virtual environment; wherein the adjustment of the boundary of the virtual environment causes the boundary of the virtual environment to match or be slightly different than an area defined by the first and second playback devices and subsequently generating a first, second, etc. audio signal based on the adjusted boundary and the virtual media audio content such as for the output of the Full taught spatialized audio.
In a related field of endeavor Kad teaches a system and method for the receipt and output of streaming media (Kad: ¶ 40, 42, 45, 68: system operates to retrieve audio data from an audio source accessible from the media playback system such as to stream media content such as via the internet) wherein a first, second, etc. speaker of the playback system operates to determine its position relative to other playback devices in the system (Kad: ¶ 28, 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify or improve the Full virtualization system and method wherein the detection of the location of the speakers in the environment is accomplished by each speaker determining it’s position relative to the others such as taught or suggested by Kad to thereby utilize the Full method for detecting the speaker location in concert with the Kad taught method for calibrating the present speakers to determine and optimize physical properties of sound in the physical environment by calibration of the speakers based on the detection of the location of the speakers in the environment as accomplished by each speaker determining it’s position relative to the others to thereby cause the Full in view of Kad system to generate first and second audio signal such as streamed or received from the internet as taught or suggested by Kad and output in concert with virtual media audio content as discussed by Full (Full: ¶ 37-40, 53: system outputs audio from a first, second, etc. device adjusted with respect to determined position, distance, etc.), such as by streaming in the manner discussed in Kad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of distributing location processing among devices of the system to thereby optimize compute and would have expected only predictable results therefrom without undue experimentation thereon.
It may be argued that Full in view of Kad does not address the manipulation of virtual boundaries to thereby adjust speaker output. In keeping with the Abstract; ¶ 31-33, 90, 120-126; and Fig 8 of the instant specification the adjustment of a virtual scene, perceived boundaries thereof, etc. is considered manipulation of a room representation allowing a user to perceive spatial audio comprising objects at locations with the room such as may be effected by instructing a user to adjust the position of a physical device and/or replace a missing physical device; or by adjustment of audio characteristics of present and operable output devices. This is considered an obvious utility and strongly suggested by Full in view of Kad, which identifies a particular media playback location, such as a room, boundaries thereof, and speakers therein for the purpose of adjusting signals output therefrom to localize audio within the room such as by identifying locations of speakers (see at least Full: ¶ 33, etc.; Fig 4, etc.) and adjusting the output thereof based thereon (please see Full: ¶ 29-40, 53; Fig 4).
Nevertheless Ful and Kad do not explicitly discuss manipulations of virtual boundaries beyond that available as a result of manipulation of audio parameters and as such Full in view of Har is considered to strongly suggest but not explicitly teach adjustment of the boundaries of the virtual environment; causing boundaries of the virtual environment to match or be slightly different than an area defined by the first and second playback devices.
In a related field of endeavor Lee teaches a system and method operable to optimize the boundaries of an acoustic space based on detection of acoustic properties by a user device of an augmented reality system (Lee: ¶ 12, 13, 80-82: detection of environmental factors determine location parameters, such as a changed location and direct speakers to adjust output sound parameters or to cease producing sound); wherein the system operates to adjust audio output based on detected properties in augmented reality to adapt the “fit” of an audio output to a determined output environment, including adjusting room boundaries (Lee: ¶ 80-83). Lee discusses these properties of sound manipulation in augmented reality with regard to real physical spaces in a video conferencing environment however video games such as those of Full represent a well-known utility of augmented reality functionality. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adjust the boundaries of a virtual space as taught or suggested by Lee to bring convincing reality to the wizard battle of Full in view of Kad for at least the purpose of allowing dimensionalities of a variety of spaces both matching and slightly different from the actual environment to be brought to bear on in-game action of a video game thereby audibly presenting a space of battle such as a park or room—one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predicable results from such adjustments.
Regarding claim 2
Full in view of Kad in view of Lee teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the second playback device is portable and comprises a battery. Examiner has taken official notice which Applicant has failed to timely and explicitly traverse and it is thus accepted as Admitted Prior Art (APA: please see MPEP 2144.03) that the utility of a battery in a portable device was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of allowing a user to reposition various speakers in the system such as when a user changes location; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Full in view of Kad in view of Lee or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise playing back, in response to movement of the second playback device from the second position to a third, different position, an adjusted second audio signal of the virtual media audio content via the second playback device (Full: ¶ 29-40, 54, 81-83, 122, 127; Fig 4: such as by iteration of the figure 4 method for configuring based on relocation of a particular speaker and the adjustment of playback by the generation of a second transfer, characteristic, etc., function corresponding to the environment based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Full as modified by Kad, and Lee as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Full, Kad, and/or Lee to the modified device of Full, Kad and Lee; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results from such a modification.
Regarding claim 4
Full in view of Kad in view of Lee teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting the second audio signal from the first playback device to the second playback device (Full: ¶ 12, 31, etc.: such as by receipt of the signal in a reception buffer for wifi, Bluetooth, etc. within the first audio device and internal transmission thereof such as upon expected modules comprising a DAC, amplifier, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Full as modified by Kad, and Lee as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Full, Kad, and/or Lee to the modified device of Full, Kad and Lee; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results from such a modification.
Regarding claim 5
Full in view of Kad in view of Lee teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the virtual media audio content is played back while a visual representation of the virtual object within the virtual environment is overlaid on a real-world space in the listening environment (Full: ¶ 15, etc.; Fig 2). The claim is considered obvious over Full as modified by Kad, and Lee as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Full, Kad, and/or Lee to the modified device of Full, Kad and Lee; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results from such a modification.
Regarding claim 6
Full in view of Kad in view of Lee teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the audio cues include at least one of interaural time difference, interaural level difference, spectral cues, or time domain cues (Full: ¶ 37-40, 53: time domain parameters processed to co-locate sound image with visual image). The claim is considered obvious over Full as modified by Kad, and Lee as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Full, Kad, and/or Lee to the modified device of Full, Kad and Lee; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results from such a modification.
Regarding claim 7
Full in view of Kad in view of Lee teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the virtual media audio content includes a trajectory of the virtual object relative to the virtual environment (Sole: ¶ 6, 62, 66: objects rendered with respect to trajectory metadata). The claim is considered obvious over Full as modified by Kad, and Lee as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Full, Kad, and/or Lee to the modified device of Full, Kad and Lee; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results from such a modification.
Regarding claim 8, 15 – the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9 – the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 10 – the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 11, 17 – the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 4 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, 18 – the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13, 19 – the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14, 20 – the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16 – the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claims 2 and 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 21
Full in view of Kad in view of Lee teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: suggesting that the user move at least one of the first and second playback devices to fill a gap in the listening environment. Examiner has taken official notice that alteration of the location of a speaker such as to materially affect poles, or resonances; and zeroes or gaps in the frequency response of a particular location was well known in the art before the effective filing date and would have comprised and obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of generating a more linear frequency response of an audio output by manipulation of physical properties in a listening environment. Applicant had traversed. To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Applicant has failed to provide a proper traversal and amounts to a mere request for documentary evidence and/or a general allegation that the subject matter is not well known. Nevertheless Examiner provided instant and unquestionable demonstration in the form of LeBlanc: 20110091055 ¶ 66: which teaches a system determining a need for a corrective action, such as to fill a gap left by an incorrectly positioned speaker wherein the user is instructed to physical move a loudspeaker, modify a volume, etc.; or consider Beaucoup: 20140119552: ¶ 21, 69: in which when an acoustic source localization module determines incorrect setting of loudspeakers a user interface directs a user to reposition a speaker to fill the detected gap; or Kim: 20140146984: ¶ 46, 137: in which a user interface directs a user to reposition a speaker to a more optimal position for music delivery; or Carlsson: 20150208187: ¶ 46, Fig 2: system detects and configures a network of speakers and suggests modifying position of speakers for improved output; or Trestain: 20160165337: in which the user is bypassed and the speakers move themselves into positions of optimal performance, or ultimately Shi: 20180249273: wherein a position estimation engine suggests a location for repositioning the loudspeaker. Applicant has remained silent with regard to the well-known nature of the contested subject matter. As such the well-known utility of the claimed subject matter is shown to be abundantly encompassed by one of ordinary skill in the art who would have found it obvious to combine or otherwise incorporate such functionality into the Full in view of Har in view of Lee system, method, etc. for at least the purpose of generating a more linear frequency response of an audio output by manipulation of physical properties in a listening environment; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results from such a modification.
Regarding claim 24
Full in view of Kad in view of Lee teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein determining the first position of the first playback device in the listening environment comprises determining the first position of the first playback device relative to the user (Kad: ¶ 24, 25, 32, etc.; Claim 4: system determines and operates to deliver audio with respect to a listening location of the user); (Lee: Abstract, 2, 3, 50, 78, etc.; system determines locations of device, particularly wearable devices which additionally bear the location of a user for the purposes of determining to perform processing on an audio signal based thereon). The claim is considered obvious over Full as modified by Kad, and Lee as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Full, Kad, and/or Lee to the modified device of Full, Kad and Lee; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results from such a modification.
Claims 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullam: 20160212538 hereinafter Full further in view of Kadri: 20170094437 and further in view of Lee: 20210099146 as applied to claim 1 supra and further in view of Schmidt: 20190116448 hereinafter Sch.
Regarding claim 23
Full in view of Kad in view of Lee teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1.
Full in view of Kad in view of Lee does not explicitly teach the system, method, etc. operable for receiving an acoustic profile of the listening environment, the acoustic profile explicitly identifying locations of surfaces within the listening environment relative to one or more of the first and second playback devices, wherein the adjustment of the boundary of the virtual environment is further based on the received acoustic profile of the listening environment.
IN a related field of endeavor Sch teaches a system for determining a response of an environment said response in the form of acoustic parameters of a room and based on room geometry, and surfaces thereof (Sch: ¶ 6, 57, 59, 64, 69, 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adjust the boundary created by the output of speakers of the Full in view of Har in view of Lee such as by using one or more acoustic profiles encompassing the walls, materials, obstructions of one or more rooms as taught or suggested by Sch for at least the purpose of adapting the output of audio to better match or be more similar to a particular real environment based on explicit wall, ceiling floor, etc. measurement parameters; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in concert with claim amendments, see Remarks and Claims, as filed 5/4/24, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21, 23 under 35 USC 103 over Fullam in view of Hartung in view of Lee and/or Fullam in view of Hartung in view of Lee in view of Schmidt have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fullam in view of Kadri in view of Lee and/or Fullam in view of Kadri in view of Lee in view of Schmidt.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights