DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
-Fig. 2C references element 40 which is not found referenced within the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
-Fig. 5E labeled “L [-4;0;-4” should possibly read –L [-4;0;-4]—
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Examiner recommends replacing all instances of the use of underscores (e.g. “26_x”) to include subscripts as shown in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 14, 15, 16, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “the respective virtual points” in lines 7. Examiner recommends amending to –the respective plurality of virtual points—
-Claim 1 recites “wherein each audio signal” in line 8. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein each audio signal—
-Claim 3 recites “wherein the time delay” in line 12. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the time delay—
-Claim 14 recites “wherein the signal attenuation” in line 9. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the signal attenuation—
-Claim 14 recites “is obtained by for” in lines 3-4. Examiner recommends amending too—is obtained by: for— or another correction such as reordering of limitations. The current structure does not make sense grammatically.
-Claim 15 recites “is obtained by for” in lines 3-4. Examiner recommends amending too—is obtained by: for— or another correction such as reordering of limitations. The current structure does not make sense grammatically.
-Claim 15 recites “wherein the signal attenuation” in line 9. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the signal attenuation—
-Claim 16 recites “is obtained by for” in lines 3-4. Examiner recommends amending too—is obtained by: for—
-Claim 16 recites “wherein the first and second signal attenuation” in line 11. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the first and second signal attenuation— or another correction such as reordering of limitations. The current structure does not make sense grammatically.
-Claim 18 recites “wherein each audio” in line 8. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein each audio—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 17 recites “data processing system” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to determine each audio signal component based on the position of its associated virtual point. According to the specification the data processing system includes a computer processing unit [Pg 17, lines 7-8] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Regarding claims 1 and 17, the phrase "for example" specifically “e.g. human or animal” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
-Claim 1 recites “such that the audio signal is perceived by the subject as originating from the virtual sound source having said shape and said position relative to the subject” in lines 9-11. It is unclear what is required by this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this includes the subject being able to hear the sound source, locate the sound source, identify the shape and position of said sound source or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “the respective virtual points of the virtual sound source” in lines 7-8. It is unclear which virtual points are being referred to under this limitation. Further clarification should include whether this includes specific points, some points, all points, or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “each audio signal component has been determined” in line 8. It is unclear what exactly is being determined in regards to the audio signal component. Further clarification should be provided to identify what is required to be determined per this limitation.
-Claim 2 recites “wherein the method is a non-therapeutic method” in lines 1-2. It is unclear how the method would not be therapeutic if it is improving a physiological condition of a subject as indicated in claim 1, line 1.
-Claim 3 recites “the respective positions of the virtual points” in lines 2-3. It is unclear which positions of the virtual points are being referred to under this limitation. Further clarification should include whether this includes specific positions, some positions, all positions, or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 3 recites “the determined audio signal components” in line 18. It is unclear which multiple components are being referred to due to the previous recitation of this limitation including a single determined audio signal component in claim 3, line 15.
-Claim 3 recites “the respective audio signal components for the respective virtual points based on….the respective positions of the virtual points” in lines 6-7. It is unclear what respective audio signal components, and positions of the virtual points this is referring to. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 3 recites “a virtual point” in line 9. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from each virtual point originally referenced in claim 1, line 5.
-Claim 3 recites “determining the respective audio signal components” and variations of this limitation in lines 7, 10, 16, 19. It is unclear what exactly is being determined in regards to the audio signal component. Further clarification should be provided to identify what is required to be determined per this limitation.
-Claim 4 recites “an audio signal” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the audio signal originally recited in claim 1, line 3.
-Claim 5 recites “the respective loudspeaker” in line 5. It is unclear which loudspeakers are being referred to under this limitation. Further clarification should include whether this includes specific loudspeakers, some loudspeakers, all loudspeakers, or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 5 recites “determining a loudspeaker audio signal” in line 4. It is unclear what aspect of the loudspeaker audio signal is required per this claim limitation Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 5 recites “determined based on the audio signal components” in line 5. It is unclear what exactly is being determined in regards to the audio signal component. Further clarification should be provided to identify what is required to be determined per this limitation.
-Claim 7 recites “determining a loudspeaker audio signal” in line 2. It is unclear what aspect of the loudspeaker audio signal is required per this claim limitation Further clarification should be provided.
-The term “right of the subject” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “right of the subject” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. These requirements are based on the perspective of the user or viewer. Therefore the limitation is unclear as to what is required.
-The term “left of the subject” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “left of the subject” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. These requirements are based on the perspective of the user or viewer. Therefore the limitation is unclear as to what is required.
-Claim 8 recites “in front of, below the subject” in line 4. It is unclear whether one of these or both limitations are required by the claim. Further clarification should be provided. Should possibly read –in front of and below the subject—if both are required.
-Claim 8 recites “in front of, to the left of, above the subject” in line 5. It is unclear whether one of these or both limitations are required by the claim. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 8 recites “in front of, to the right of, above the subject” in line 6. It is unclear whether one of these or both limitations are required by the claim. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 8 recites “behind, above the subject” in line 7. It is unclear whether one of these or both limitations are required by the claim. Further clarification should be provided. Should possibly read –behind, and above the subject—if both are required.
-Claim 8 recites “behind, to the left of, below the subject” in line 8. It is unclear whether one of these or both limitations are required by the claim. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 8 recites “behind, to the right of, below the subject” in line 9. It is unclear whether one of these or both limitations are required by the claim. Further clarification should be provided.
-The term “right of” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “right of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. These requirements are based on the perspective of the user or viewer. Therefore the limitation is unclear as to what is required.
-The term “left of” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “left of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. These requirements are based on the perspective of the user or viewer. Therefore the limitation is unclear as to what is required.
-Claim 10 recites “such that it is perceived by the subject that said virtual sound source is surrounding the subject” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is required by this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this includes the subject being able to hear the sound source surrounding them, locate the sound source to an area surrounding them, identify the shape and position of said surrounding sound source or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 13 recites “such that the audio signal is perceived by the subject as originating from the virtual sound source.” It is unclear what is required by this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this includes the subject being able to hear the sound source, locate the sound source, identify the shape and position of said sound source or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 13 recites “the respective positions relative to the subject of the respective virtual points” in lines 3-4. It is unclear what respective positions of the virtual points this is referring to. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 14 recites “the audio signal component in question” in lines 5-6, 9, and 11. It is unclear which audio signal component is being referred to in this limitation. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 15 recites “the audio signal component in question” in lines 5-6, 9. It is unclear which audio signal component is being referred to in this limitation. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 16 recites “a virtual distance” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the virtual distance originally referenced in line 2.
-Claim 16 recites “the audio signal component in question” in lines 5-6, 10. It is unclear which audio signal component is being referred to in this limitation. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 17 recites “determining an (each) audio signal” and variations of this limitation in lines 3, 9, 13. It is unclear what exactly is being determined in regards to the audio signal component. Further clarification should be provided to identify what is required to be determined per this limitation.
-Claim 17 recites “the respective virtual points of the virtual sound source” in lines 7-8. It is unclear which virtual points are being referred to under this limitation. Further clarification should include whether this includes specific points, some points, all points, or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 18 recites “the respective virtual points of the virtual sound source” in lines 7-8. It is unclear which virtual points are being referred to under this limitation. Further clarification should include whether this includes specific points, some points, all points, or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 18 recites “each audio signal component has been determined” in line 9. It is unclear what exactly is being determined in regards to the audio signal component. Further clarification should be provided to identify what is required to be determined per this limitation.
-Claim 18 recites “the virtual position” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recites(s) a series of mental processes used to provide an audio signal to a subject. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data processing system is recited as performing the generic computer function of determining values related to audio signals to provide to the subject via loudspeakers. The computer readable medium executing instructions and a process of calculating audio signal, virtual points and components of each of these is a generic function of computer-readable media. Further, mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic processor does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited in claims 1-19 do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.
An analysis of the claims is shown below:
Step 1: Claims 1-16 are directed towards a method which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 17-19 are directed towards a system, and computer readable medium which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites limitations that are directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites determine audio signal components for virtual points of a virtual sound source. Claims 17 and 18 recite determining each audio signal component based on the position of its associated virtual point such that the audio signal is perceived by the subject as originating from the virtual sound source. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. It would be practically performable in a human’s mind, or with pen and paper, to determine audio signal components for a loudspeaker system. Analyzing information and making a determination based on information is akin to an observation, evaluation or judgement that defines the mental process grouping. While independent claims 1, 17 and 18 do specify providing an audio signal to a subject, this could equate to making a decision that the audio signal component should be changed based on data collected. Thus claims 1, 17, and 18 are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1-19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1-19 recite the following additional elements:
-virtual sound source (claims 1, 3, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
-virtual points (claims 1, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
-tuning fork (claim 4)
-plurality of loudspeakers/one or more loudspeakers (claims 5, 7, 8, 17)
-data processing system (claim 17)
-processor (claim 18)
The virtual sound source, virtual points, tuning fork, loudspeakers, data processing system and processor are generically recited at a high level of generality. Further, mere instructions or programs to apply judicial exception using a generic processor independently does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Most notably, none of the additional elements recited in these claims apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. While the bodies of these claims discuss aspects related to improving a physiological condition of a subject, there is no claim limitation the recites a particular treatment method.
Thus claims 1-19 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: When considered individually and in combination, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of determining audio signal components, obtaining virtual sound source information, obtaining input audio signals, modifying the input audio signal, combining determined audio signal components, determining loudspeaker audio signal for each loudspeaker, attenuating audio signal components, positioning virtual sound sources, adding depth, height, distance characteristics to the audio signal components, determining audio signals associated with virtual sound sources and introducing time delays are also generically recited at a high level of generality. Mere determination or execution or control of a processor of a loudspeaker system to apply a judicial exception using a generic audio signal components of speaker equipment does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the processes and steps can be considered nonfunctional descriptive material because there are no elements that show how the determination of audio signal components interacts with providing the determined audio signal to the subject through the system.
In reconsidering the additional elements of the loudspeaker system and methods, the additional elements were determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on the following evidence:
-Watson et al. U.S. 20160228771 discloses a virtual sound source [0031; “sound source”], virtual points [0083; “points in space”], tuning fork [0098], plurality of loudspeakers/one or more loudspeakers [0093; “left-ear speaker” “right ear speaker”], data processing system [0123; “clients”], processor [0123; “processor”] in reference to methods and systems that manage motion sickness of a user. Therefore, these elements are demonstrated to be generic, well understood components that are commonly recited in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Currell (U.S. 20030007648).
Regarding Claim 1, Currell teaches a method for improving a physiological condition of a subject [0631]—reference to implementing the system in a medical field, radiation therapy, doctor therapist, etc., e.g. a human or animal [Fig. 16]—depicting human listener and animals, the method comprising: providing an audio signal to the subject [0010]—description on audio signal paths provided to a user, wherein the audio signal is associated with a virtual sound source [abstract; “virtual sound sources”] having a shape and a position relative to the subject [0243]—reference to next generation virtual audio system design which includes characterization of the shape of the room, position and acoustic texture of objects in the room and positions of the user and sound sources, wherein the virtual sound source is defined by a plurality of virtual points [0255]—reference to reflection and reverberation effects on channels and [Fig. 3, elements “reflection locations”], each virtual point having a position relative to the subject [Fig. 3, elements “reflection location and element “25” which is a virtual listener as described in [0157], and wherein the audio signal comprises audio signal components for the respective virtual points of the virtual sound source [0010; “routing schematics may be various signal processors such as volume, delay, reverb, pitch shifters, panning and equalization”], wherein each audio signal component has been determined based on the position of its associated virtual point such that the audio signal is perceived by the subject as originating from the virtual sound source having said shape and said position relative to the subject [0010]—described achieve illusions that desired audio effects are coming from specific location in a 3-D space based on implementing routing schematics (audio signal components) and incorporation positional audio channels, paths and routings and directing these through transfer functions and [0236].
Regarding Claim 2, Currell teaches wherein the method is a non-therapeutic method [0158]—reference to use of the system to simulate environmental effects.
Regarding Claim 3, Currell teaches wherein the audio signal is obtained by
obtaining virtual sound source information defining the respective positions of the virtual points relative to the subject [Fig. 35, “The Input Mixer (a) takes all the systems audio channels and splits them into eight channels using APM”] and [0550], the virtual points defining the virtual sound source having said shape and said position relative to the subject [0550 and 0552]—reference to sound source in 360 horizontal and vertical space and spatial coordinates,
obtaining an input audio signal [0048]—receiving audio signals and [0236], and
determining the respective audio signal components for the respective virtual points based on the input audio signal and based on the respective positions of the virtual points [0236]—reference to E channel room simulation module providing direct portions of sound to be processed, wherein for each audio signal component respectively associated with a virtual point, determining the audio signal component comprises:
- modifying the input audio signal to obtain a modified audio signal component using a signal delay operation introducing a time delay [0151]—reference to the recorded signals processed and derived to consist of numbers describing time delay for particular sound source location to the left or right ear of the subject, wherein the time delay is based on the position of the virtual point associated with the audio signal component relative to the shape of the virtual sound source [0151; “ Each HRTF, typically consisting of several hundred numbers, describes the time delay, amplitude, and tonal transformation for the particular sound source location to the left or right ear of the subject.”];[AltContent: ] - determining the audio signal component based on a combination of the input audio signal, or of an inverted and/or attenuated or amplified version of the input audio signal [0107]—reference to delay times and application of an attenuation or filter to approximate the transmission and reflection losses to properly spatialize the reflection, and the modified audio signal component [0232]—reference to programming the room acoustics: and - combining the determined audio signal components to obtain the audio signal [0232; “Each room simulation module is separately programmed by input room data to add room acoustics as appropriate for sounds originating in separate one of the six directions from the listener.”]
Regarding Claim 5, Currell teaches comprising: providing the audio signal to the subject using a plurality of loudspeakers [0049], and determining a loudspeaker audio signal for each loudspeaker [0050; “The second pair of loud speakers receives the same signals as the front pair, at a slightly reduced level.”] , wherein each loudspeaker audio signal is determined based on the audio signal components [Fig. 30, elements “stereo amplifier”], and providing the loudspeaker audio signals to the respective loudspeakers [Fig. 30]—signal provided from amplifiers to Meyer HD-1 Speakers.
Regarding Claim 6, Currell teaches wherein determining the loudspeaker audio signal for each loudspeaker comprises, for each loudspeaker audio signal, attenuating each audio signal component based on a loudspeaker specific coefficient in order to obtain a loudspeaker specific set of attenuated audio signal components and combining the attenuated audio signal components in the loudspeaker specific set of attenuated audio signal components [0086-0087]—reference to attenuation of tone due to sound propagation interactions due to air absorption and how realistic occlusion is implemented using FIR filters that reflect Sabine coefficients with absorption and reflection characteristics of materials in the room.
Regarding Claim 7, Currell teaches wherein the plurality of loudspeakers comprises a loudspeaker in front of the subject and a loudspeaker behind the subject and a loudspeaker to the right of the subject and a loudspeaker to the left of the subject and a loudspeaker above the subject and a loudspeaker below the subject. See annotated Fig. 31 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Currell teaches wherein the plurality of loudspeakers comprises at least eight loudspeakers [Fig. 32 “Eight Virtual Speakers”]: - a loudspeaker above the subject; (interpreted above the head of the subject) - a loudspeaker in front of, below the subject; (interpreted below the top of the head of the subject) - a loudspeaker in front of, to the left of, above the subject (interpreted above the body of the subject); - a loudspeaker in front of, to the right of, above the subject (interpreted above the body of the subject); - a loudspeaker behind, above the subject (interpreted above the body of the subject); - a loudspeaker behind, to the left of, below the subject (interpreted below the top of the head of the subject);- a loudspeaker behind, to the right of, below the subject (interpreted below the top of the head of the subject); and - a loudspeaker below the subject (interpreted below the head of the subject).
See annotated Fig. 32 below where the interpretations cited above apply.
PNG
media_image2.png
582
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Currell teaches wherein the virtual sound source is shaped as a cube or a pyramid or a sphere [Fig. 33 and 52]—referencing the sound source rotating around the head and shaped in a sphere and circular configuration.
Regarding Claim 10, Currell teaches wherein the audio signal is configured such that it is perceived by the subject that said virtual sound source is surrounding the subject [0155; “It is within this module that surround panning between selected outputs is created. Panning laws are implemented within this module. All panning parameters are automated. The outputs can be configured for stereo or in 5.1 or 7.1 surround format.”]
Regarding Claim 11, Currell teaches comprising providing the audio signal to the subject using a plurality of loudspeakers that surround the subject [Fig. 3, elements 255 “plurality of loudspeakers”], and [0155].
Regarding Claim 12, Currell teaches wherein the audio signal is provided to the subject for at least one minute [0163]—reference to audio provided for 3-minutes.
Regarding Claim 13, Currell teaches wherein the virtual sound source associated with the audio signal changes shape and/or position while the audio signal is provided to the subject thus wherein the respective positions relative to the subject of the respective virtual points defining the virtual sound source change while the audio signal is provided to the subject such that the audio signal is perceived by the subject as originating from the virtual sound source having a varying position and/or orientation relative to the subject [0232-0233]—describe the process of changing the panning module outputs to room simulation modules, adding reflections and reverberations to input signals to produce virtual speaker signals, and then a sound engineer issuing an input device to assign 3D trajectories to sounds arriving on the channels with the ability to continuously change the source position data. Further described is the sound engineer’s hearing a sound following a trajectory.
Regarding Claim 17, Currell teaches a system for improving a physiological condition of a subject [0631]—reference to implementing the system in a medical field, radiation therapy, doctor therapist, etc., e.g. a human or animal [Fig. 16]—depicting human listener and animals, the system comprising; a data processing system for determining an audio signal associated with a virtual sound source having a shape and a position relative to the subject [0074]—reference to location processor with inclusion of all components of the room simulator, wherein the virtual sound source [abstract; “virtual sound sources”] is defined by a plurality of virtual points [0255]—reference to reflection and reverberation effects on channels and [Fig. 3, elements “reflection locations”], each virtual point having a position relative to the subject [Fig. 3, elements “reflection location and element “25” which is a virtual listener as described in [0157], and wherein the audio signal comprises audio signal components for the respective virtual points of the virtual sound source [0010; “routing schematics may be various signal processors such as volume, delay, reverb, pitch shifters, panning and equalization”], the data processing system being configured to determine each audio signal component based on the position of its associated virtual point such that the audio signal is perceived by the subject as originating from the virtual sound source having said shape and said position relative to the subject [0010]—described achieve illusions that desired audio effects are coming from specific location in a 3-D space based on implementing routing schematics (audio signal components) and incorporation positional audio channels, paths and routings and directing these through transfer functions and [0236]., and the system comprising one or more loudspeakers for providing the determined audio signal to the subject [Fig. 3, elements 255 “plurality of loudspeakers”], and [0155].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nawfal (U.S. 20190104364).
Regarding Claim 18, Nawfal teaches a computer readable medium comprising instructions which when executed by a processor [0018] executes a method comprising:
providing an audio signal to a subject [Fig. 4, element 401], wherein the audio signal is associated with a virtual sound source having a shape and a position relative to the subject [Fig. 4, element 402] wherein
the virtual sound source is defined by a plurality of virtual points [Fig. 4, element 403], each virtual point having a position relative to the subject [Fig. 3C, element “listener”, and “centroids”], and wherein
the audio signal comprises audio signal components for the respective virtual points of the virtual sound source [Fig. 4, element 405, “VBAP GAINS”], wherein each audio signal component has been determined based on the virtual position of its associated virtual point such that the audio signal is perceived by the subject as originating from the virtual sound source having said shape and said position relative to the subject [Fig. 4, elements 404 and 407] and [0026]—user listening to audio content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currell (U.S. 20030007648) in view of Abolfathi (WO 2009151790).
Regarding Claim 4, Currell is silent on wherein the input audio signal is an audio signal produced by a tuning fork. Abolfathi teaches wherein the input audio signal is an audio signal produced by a tuning fork [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the audio signal via tuning fork as taught by Abolfathi to output an audio signal to a user as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses automating level controls of the audio for fine tuning of volume dynamics of the separate sound sources [0558] with Abolfathi because Abolfathi teaches programming signals to be set to specified frequencies for specified periods of time customized to patient tinnitus conditions [0095].
Claim(s) 14-16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currell (U.S. 20030007648) in view of Sibbald (U.S. 6738479).
Regarding Claim 14, Currell teaches wherein one or more virtual points of the virtual sound source are virtually positioned at a depth below the subject [0149] and [Fig. 31]—as described in claim 8, wherein the audio signal is obtained by for each audio signal component associated with a virtual point that is positioned at a virtual depth below the subject [0048]—receiving audio signals, [0236] and [0250]—described the below channel (channel D), Currell is silent on adding depth characteristics to the audio signal component in question, comprising modifying the audio signal component in question using a time delay operation introducing a time delay, a signal attenuation and a signal feedback operation in order to obtain a modified version of the audio signal component and combining the modified version of the audio signal component with the audio signal component in question, wherein the signal attenuation is performed in dependence of the virtual depth below the subject of the virtual point associated with the audio signal component in question. Sibbald teaches adding depth characteristics to the audio signal component in question [Fig. 2]—reference to room characteristics which in [Col 4, lines 26-33]—refer to these characteristics being room width, height and length where depth is interpreted to be (width), comprising modifying the audio signal component in question using a time delay operation introducing a time delay [Fig. 2, elements “pre-delay” and “room-width delay” and [Col 3, lines 44-47]—reference to delay corresponding to time taken for sound-waves to travel, a signal attenuation and a signal feedback operation in order to obtain a modified version of the audio signal component and combining the modified version of the audio signal component with the audio signal component in question [Col 3, lines 47-58]—describes the method using delay, feedback and an attenuator to account for the arrival of the direct sound to the listener and additional time take for reflection to arrive at the listener, wherein the signal attenuation is performed in dependence of the virtual depth below the subject of the virtual point associated with the audio signal component in question [Fig. 2]—depicts the attenuator (Q) taking into account a room-width delay (w) and an attenuator (P) factoring in pre-delay values ((a+b)-r) to create an output .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use depth and distance characteristics related to the room and the user as taught by Sibbald to modify an output an audio signal conveyed to a user as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses modifying spectral directional cues responsive to configurations of reflected sound [0034] with Sibbald because Sibbald teaches modifying these same spectral characteristics using ear response transfer functions [Col 16, lines 10-11].
Regarding Claim 15, Currell teaches wherein one or more virtual points of the virtual sound source are virtually positioned at a height above the subject [Fig. 31]—as described in claim 8, wherein the audio signal is obtained by for each audio signal component associated with a virtual point that is positioned at a virtual height above the subject [0048]—receiving audio signals, [0236] and [0250]—described the above channel (channel C), Currell is silent on adding height characteristics to the audio signal component in question comprising modifying the audio signal component in question using a signal inverting operation, a signal delay operation introducing a time delay and a signal attenuation to obtain a modified version of the audio signal component and combining the modified version of the audio signal component with the audio signal component in question, wherein the signal attenuation is performed in dependence of the virtual height of the virtual sound source. Sibbald teaches adding height characteristics to the audio signal component in question comprising modifying the audio signal component in question using a signal inverting operation [Fig. 2]—reference to room characteristics which in [Col 4, lines 26-33]—refer to these characteristics being room width, height and length, a signal delay operation introducing a time delay [Fig. 2, elements “pre-delay” and “room-width delay” and [Col 3, lines 44-47]—reference to delay corresponding to time taken for sound-waves to travel and a signal attenuation to obtain a modified version of the audio signal component, and combining the modified version of the audio signal component with the audio signal component in question [Col 3, lines 47-58]—describes the method using delay, and an attenuator to account for the arrival of the direct sound to the listener and additional time take for reflection to arrive at the listener, wherein the signal attenuation is performed in dependence of the virtual height of the virtual sound source [Fig. 2]—depicts the attenuator (Q) taking into account a room-width delay (w) and an attenuator (P) factoring in pre-delay values ((a+b)-r) to create an output .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use height and distance characteristics related to the room and the user as taught by Sibbald to modify an output an audio signal conveyed to a user as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses modifying spectral directional cues responsive to configurations of reflected sound [0034] with Sibbald because Sibbald teaches modifying these same spectral characteristics using ear response transfer functions [Col 16, lines 10-11].
Regarding Claim 16, Currell teaches wherein one or more virtual points of the virtual sound source are virtually positioned at a virtual distance from the subject [Fig. 31]—as described in claim 8 and [0081], wherein the audio signal is obtained by for each audio signal component associated with a virtual point that is positioned at a virtual distance from the subject [0048]—receiving audio signals, [0236] and [0250]—described the front and rear channels (channel E and F), Currell is silent on adding distance characteristics to the audio signal component in question comprising modifying the audio signal component in question using a first signal delay operation introducing a first time delay, a first signal attenuation operation and a signal feedback operation in order to obtain a first modified version of the audio signal component and combining the first modified version of the audio signal component with the audio signal component in question to obtain a second modified version of the audio signal component and performing a second signal attenuation wherein the first and second signal attenuation are performed in dependence of the virtual distance from the subject. Sibbald teaches adding distance characteristics to the audio signal component in question [Fig. 2]—reference to room characteristics which in [Col 4, lines 26-33]—refer to these characteristics being room width, height and length comprising modifying the audio signal component in question using a first signal delay operation introducing a first time delay [Fig. 2, elements “pre-delay” and “room-width delay” and [Col 3, lines 44-47]—reference to delay corresponding to time taken for sound-waves to travel, a first signal attenuation operation and a signal feedback operation in order to obtain a first modified version of the audio signal component, and combining the first modified version of the audio signal component with the audio signal component in question [Col 3, lines 47-58]—describes the method using delay, feedback and an attenuator to account for the arrival of the direct sound to the listener and additional time take for reflection to arrive at the listener to obtain a second modified version of the audio signal component [Fig. 2]—depicts the attenuator (Q) taking into account a room-width delay (w) and an attenuator (P) factoring in pre-delay values ((a+b)-r) to create an output where one of these loops is interpreted to be the second modified version of the audio signal component, and performing a second signal attenuation wherein the first and second signal attenuation are performed in dependence of the virtual distance from the subject [Fig. 2, element “Attenuator Q”]—attenuator Q is interpreted to be the second signal attenuation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use distance characteristics related to the room and the user as taught by Sibbald to modify an output an audio signal conveyed to a user as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses accounting for reduction in sound intensity as the distance from the source increases in free space [0082] with Sibbald because Sibbald teaches using a ray-tracing method to account for first-order reflections that specify positions of the virtual sound sources and the listeners [Col 6, lines 6-20].
Regarding Claim 19, Currell is silent on and further comprising performing a second signal delay operation introducing a second time delay on the second modified version of the audio signal component. Sibbald teaches and further comprising performing a second signal delay operation introducing a second time delay on the second modified version of the audio signal component [Fig. 2, element “room width delay”]—interpreted to be the second time delay on the second modified version which is the loop that includes “room-width delay (w)” and “Attenuator Q”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second time delay of the signal of the second modified version as taught by Sibbald to continuously change room simulation effects as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses these effects changing as sound sources move across the room and to account for acoustic non-uniformity throughout the room [0235] with Sibbald because Sibbald teaches the described process being iterative and continuing ad infinitum to create successive orders of simulated reflections [Col 4, lines 26-28].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Claar (U.S. 11956622)-discloses a process using time delays, attenuation and feedback to correct audio signals
-Iwamatsu (U.S. 5999630)-uses cancelling signals in combination with time delays, attenuation and feedback
-Giron (U.S. 20220167109)-teaches loudspeaker system containing virtual components
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791