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
Examiner’s Comments
As per claim 15, the cited microphones are read as receivers that are tuned specifically to receive ultrasonic signals, noting that traditional microphones are used to capture audio/sound signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,11,14,15,16,17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexandrov (US 9277343 B1) and further in view of Lukasiak et al (US 20150332668 A1).
As per claim 1, Alexandrov discloses an information processing device, comprising
a processing unit that makes changes to a reproduced signal to be perceived by a user (Fig. 5a, 504,506,508, 554,556,558 into the summation stages),
based on an ultrasonic response signal returned from a space with respect to an inspection signal of an ultrasonic frequency band that is emitted into the space (the ultrasonic sensor, para 36, which by definition comprises an emitter/chirp in ultrasonic frequencies, which are emitted into a space, then reflected/echo and sensed by receivers),
according to a situation of the space (the ultrasonic sensor is used to detect a head/head position, a listener’s position, ears/distance between the ear, para 36).
However, Alexandrov does not disclose,
wherein the ultrasonic response signal is returned from a space based on an inspection signal of an ultrasonic frequency band that is-emitted into the space,
and the ultrasonic response signal is based on according to a situation of the space;
shift a frequency band of the ultrasonic response signal to an audible frequency band in the space, to Generate an impulse response signal; and
apply an acoustic effect to the reproduced signal based on the impulse response signal.
Lukasiak teaches that devices can use received/returned from space ultrasonic response signals, such that an ultrasonic response signal based on an emitted inspection signal Is used to shift a frequency band to an audible band (per para 47. The audio recognition module via 211 and 213 in fig. 3 to make the echo signal), and then generate an impulse response signal (the echo signal ), and then apply an acoustic effect (effect applied via stage 220) on a reproduced signal/via stage 240 per fig. 3).
Lukasiak teaches that this allows compensation module 230 to compensate the signal as shown in fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the ultrasonic based processing for the purpose of compensating for the reproduced signal of the system of Alexandrov.
As per claim 2, the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the inspection signal is a pulse signal emitted at a predetermined cycle (the emitter signal of the cited ultrasonic sensor is by definition comprised of ultrasonic frequencies, which are pulse signals with predetermined cycles).
As per claim 3, the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the situation of the space is a situation of arrangement of objects in the space (the arrangement of the listener, the head and the ears per the claim 1 rejection).
As per claim 4, the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the reproduced signal is a sound signal in an audible frequency band (the output of the speakers in fig. 5a is by definition in the audible frequency band).
As per claim 5, the information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the processing unit applies an acoustic effect based on the ultrasonic response signal in accordance with a situation of the space (per the adaptation via 502).
As per claim 6, the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the processing unit generates a transfer function for a second sound signal of an audible frequency band in the space based on the ultrasonic response signal, and applies the acoustic effect based on the transfer function to the reproduced signal (the adaptation and summation of the processing of stages 504,506,508, 554,556,558 create a transfer function for the audible frequencies of the speaker signals).
As per claim 8, the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the processing unit generates the transfer function based on a frequency component of the ultrasonic response signal (the ultrasonic sensor is defined by ultrasonic signal emissions and receptions which each comprise ultrasonic frequency components to produce the transfer function per fig. 5a).
As per claim 11, the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the processing unit generates an impulse response signal of the audible frequency band in the space based on the ultrasonic response signal, and applies the acoustic effect based on the impulse response signal to the reproduced signal (per the processing based on the impulse responses per para 20 which are then sent out into the space after being applied, per the speakers in fig. 5a).
As per claim 14, the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the ultrasonic response signal is composed of a right ear ultrasonic response signal detected for a right ear and a left ear ultrasonic response signal detected for a left ear (the system can detect the ears/left ear and right ear and the distance between them per para 17 and as per the processing cited in the rejections above),
And
the processing unit makes the changes to the reproduced signal for the right ear to be perceived by the right ear of the user based on the right ear ultrasonic response signal (the position of the right ear as detected via the ultrasonic sensor), and makes the changes to the reproduced signal for the left ear to be perceived by the left ear of the user based on the left ear ultrasonic response signal (the position of the left ear as detected via the ultrasonic sensor). Where said detected ears are used to modify the transfer function that is to be applied to the xL and xR signals per fig. 5a. in order for the crosstalk cancellation per para 34).
As per claim 15, the information processing device according to claim 14, wherein the ultrasonic response signal is acquired by a right microphone for acquiring the right ear ultrasonic response signal placed in the right ear of the user, and a left microphone for acquiring the left ear ultrasonic response signal placed in the left ear of the user. (the device can comprise a stereo microphone including a left and right microphones para 46 which will receive any sound and ultrasound response signals including those which originate in the ears as shown in fig. 5a).
As per claim 16, The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the reproduced signal is a vibration signal that causes the user to perceive vibration (the signals to drive the speakers in fig. 5a are vibration signals that are perceived by the user when they are played out of the speakers).
As per claim 17, An information processing method, comprisinq:in which a processing unit of an information processing device having the processing unit changing makes changes to a reproduced signal to be perceived by a user, based on an ultrasonic response signal, wherein the ultrasonic response signal is returned from a space based on with respect to an inspection signal of an ultrasonic frequency band that is emitted into the space, andthe ultrasonic response signal is based on according to a situation of the space;shiftinq a frequency band of the ultrasonic response signal to an audible frequency band in the space, for generatinq an impulse response signal; andapplying an acoustic effect to the reproduced signal based on the impulse response signal. (per the claim 1 rejection).
As per claim 18, 18. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable medium havinq stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising program causing a computer to function as:a processing unit that makes changes to changinga reproduced signal to be perceived by a user, based on an ultrasonic response signal, wherein the ultrasonic response signal is returned from a space based on with respect to an inspection signal of an ultrasonic frequency band that is emitted into the space, andthe ultrasonic response signal is based on according to a situation of the space.shifting a frequency band of the ultrasonic response signal to an audible frequency band in the space, for generating an impulse response signal; andapplying an acoustic effect to the reproduced signal based on the impulse response signal. (per the claim 1 rejection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7,9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexandrov (US 9277343 B1) in view of Lukasiak et al (US 20150332668 A1) as applied to claim 1,8, above.
As per claim 7, Alexandrov discloses the embodiment per the claim 6 rejection but does not specify the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the processing unit multiplies the reproduced signal of a frequency domain obtained by Fourier transformation of the reproduced signal by the transfer function, thereby applying the acoustic effect to the reproduced signal.
Alexandrov teaches that the filters may implement the transfer function, wherein the frequency domain is based on Fourier transformation of the reproduced signa via a fourier transform per para 28, in order to derive a filter and also provides for convolution with the reproduced signal per para 19.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the functions shown in fig. 5a, including the convolution which is multiplying in the frequency domain via a fourier transform, where the inputs to the summing stage/reproduced signal must be transformed via fourtier transform to the frequency domain in order to implement the cited functions in fig. 5a, for the purpose of implementing a well known standard in order to implement a filter to perform the cited functions.
As per claim 9, the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the processing unit includes, as processing for generating the transfer function, processing for associating a frequency of the ultrasonic frequency band with a frequency of the audible frequency band, and setting a frequency component corresponding to each frequency of the ultrasonic response signal in the ultrasonic frequency band as a frequency component of the transfer function for each frequency in the audible frequency band associated with each frequency of the ultrasonic response signal (the frequency domain processing per the claim 7 rejection requires a mapping on a frequency/band by frequency/band basis as both the ultrasonic frequencies/bands and audible frequencies/bands of the Xl and Xr signals are corresponded and mapped via the adaptation and translation of the signaling from 502 through to the summations stages.
Claim(s) 10,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexandrov (US 9277343 B1) in view of Lukasiak et al (US 20150332668 A1) as applied to claim 1,8, above and further in view of McCarthy et al (US 20210345947 A1).
As per claim 10, Alexandrov discloses the device of claim 8 and also teaches the use of the frequency processing using frequency components to implement the transfer function per respective frequency components (per the claim 7 rejection) with respect to the frequency component of the of the ultrasonic response signal, but does not specify, wherein the processing unit estimates a frequency component of the transfer function with respect to the frequency component of the ultrasonic response signal by using an inference model generated by machine learning.
McCarthy teaches that ultrasonic sensor based systems can perform the estimating with an inference model generated by machine learning (para. 111,112). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use well known protocols including and inference model and machine learning when implementing the estimating of the objects in the system of Alexandrov, including the estimating of the transfer function, for the purpose of compatibility with well known architectures and processing protocols.
As per claim 13, the information processing device according to claim 11, wherein the processing unit is further configured to generate generates the impulse response signal from the ultrasonic response signal based on using an inference model, (per the 1 and 12 rejections) and the inference model is Generated by a [[in]] machine learning operation/ using an inference model in machine learning (in view of the teachings per the claim 10 rejection).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The submitted arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN whose telephone number is 571-272-7498, and whose email address is alexander.krzystan@uspto.gov
The examiner can usually be reached on m-f 7:30-4:00 est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Examiner Alexander Krzystan
September 12, 2025