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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1 in the reply filed on 3/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-5 and 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/26/2026.
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, 6-11 and 16-20 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 claim 1, it is unclear that “each transducer” recited on line 6 is a transducer of “an array of transducers” recited on line 3. The phrase “each transducer” recited on line 9 also has the similar ambiguity. If they are the same, perhaps the phrase could be amended as –each transducer of the array of transducers--. If they are different, perhaps the phrase could be amended as –each additional transducer--. Without clarification, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 11 includes similar ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fincham (US 20080212805 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Fincham discloses a method for providing a multi-beam constant beamwidth transducer (CBT) array, the method comprising:
generating a first sound beam and a second sound beam in a listening environment via an array of transducers that extends along a first planar axis (Fig. 3A, e.g.);
virtually curving the array of transducers that extends along the first planar axis to provide a first beamwidth for the first sound beam (by having the delay as shown in Fig. 22 simulating the curve as shown in Fig. 21; first sound beam with first beamwidth reads on 1621 in Fig. 16B, e.g.);
virtually curving the array of transducers that extends along the first planar axis to provide a second beamwidth for the second sound beam (the second beam with second beamwidth reads on 1622 in Fig. 16B, e.g.);
virtually rotating the array of transducers that extends along the first planar axis to steer the first sound beam one of on-axis or off-axis (angular shift as shown in Fig. 16B, comparing to Fig. 16A);
virtually rotating the array of transducers that extends along the first planar axis to steer the second sound beam in the one of on-axis or off-axis (angular shift as shown in Fig. 16B, comparing to Fig. 16A); and
superposing the first sound beam with the second sound beam to generate multiple steered sound beams (e.g., Fig. 16A).
Regarding claim 22, Fincham discloses the method further comprising transmitting multiple steered sound beams at the same time into the listening environment (such as in Fig. 16A, e.g.).
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.
Claims 1, 6-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fincham.
Regarding claim 1, Fincham discloses a system for providing a multi-beam constant beamwidth transducer (CBT) array, the system comprising:
an array of transducers (325, e.g.) configured to generate a first sound beam in a listening environment (area in front of 325, see Fig. 3B), wherein the array of transducers extends along a first planar axis (see Fig. 3A);
at least one controller (451 in Fig. 4B, [0074]) programmed to:
determine a first time delay for each transducer to virtually curve the array of transducers (“The curvature of the front faceplate 227 of the embodiment shown in FIGS. 2A-2B may instead be simulated by electronic delays dependent upon the relative location of the drive units 304, 305” in [0073], “adds delay to various audio output signals to simulate the curvature along the Legendre Shading function” in [0074]) that extends along the first planar axis to provide a first beamwidth for the first sound beam;
determine a second time delay for each transducer to virtually rotate the array to steer the first sound beam one of off-axis and on-axis (“To steer an audio beam … adjust the timing of signals to various drive unit” in [0140]); and
to steer the first sound beam with the first beamwidth at a first angle from the array of transducers into the listening environment (e.g., beam 1621 in Fig. 16B has a first beamwidth and being steered).
Fincham fails to explicitly show “sum the first time delay for each transducer and the second time delay for each transducer to steer the first beam with the first beamwidth”. However, based on the teaching by Fincham as a whole, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to derive a delay for the equalizer in Fig. 11B that satisfy both the beamwidth and the steering angle requirement ([0131]) as Fincham clearly teaches how to adjust the delay for beamwidth and the delay for steering. Fincham further teaches that “the audio processor adjusts the delay amount to each drive unit, effectively moving some drive units further back and some drive units closer to the target area--conceptually similar to the simulation of a curved surface through use of graduated delays as described previously with respect to FIG. 22” ([0140]). Since the two delays are being similarity being determined and applied to the drive signal, the two delays provides cumulative delay to the audio signal driving the speaker. Summing both delays would generate similar effect as having two separate delays. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fincham by summing the delay for beamwidth and the delay for steering in order to provide a single delay for the equalizer which would steer an audio beam with determined beamwidth.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, following the discussion with respect to claim 1 above, the claimed third time delay and the fourth delay reads delays for beam 1622 in Fig. 16B, for example while the first and second delays reads on the delays for beam 1621.
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 16B of Fincham illustrates the same beamwidth.
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 16A of Fincham illustrates superposing.
Regarding claim 10, Figs. 16s of Fincham illustrates beams being transmitted at the same time.
Most of limitations in claims 11 and 16-20 correspond to those in claims 1 and 6-10 with exception of a computer-program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium. Examiner takes Official Notice that processing audio signal as directed by instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium is notoriously well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fincham by using a well known computer medium, a non-transitory type, for storing computer instructions to be executed by a processor in order to process the complex calculations in an efficient manner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PING LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/PING LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights