DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 12/5/2025:
Claims 1-10, 12-19, and 23-26 are pending
Claims 11 and 20-22 are cancelled
Claim objection is withdrawn
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12-19, and 23-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner further notes that the remarks appears to indicate the advantages of the current invention (remarks pg. 10) but the supposed advantages are not written into the claims or reflected or at least made obvious when reading the currently amended claims.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-19, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marculescu et al (US20220279303, hereinafter “Marculescu”).
Regarding claim 1, Marculescu teaches an apparatus for rendering (abstract, apparatus), comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 1, smartphone and wearable has a processor); and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor (Fig. 1, smartphone and wearable has computer memory storing computer instructions), cause the apparatus at least to:
receive one or more audio input signals (Fig. 1, smartphone and wearable able to receive audio/video data);
receive information indicative of a user head position (Fig. 6, ¶61, wearable capable of generating motion and acceleration data indicative of a user’s pose estimate including head position);
process the received one or more audio input signals to obtain a spatial audio signal based on the user head position (Fig. 6, modifying audio for the user with respect to a user’s pose including head position to create spatial audio output);
obtain compensation metadata wherein the compensation metadata comprises information indicating adjustments for the spatial audio signal to account for a change in the user head position (Fig. 6, pose metadata is obtained and used to modify audio output in accordance with a user’s change in pose and head position); and
enable the compensation metadata to be used to adjust the spatial audio signal to account for at least one change in the user head position (Fig. 6, pose metadata is obtained and used to modify audio output in accordance with a user’s change in pose and head position).
Regarding claim 2, Marculescu teaches wherein the compensation metadata comprises information indicating the user head position on which the spatial audio signal is based (¶76, pose metadata is modified in accordance with a user’s pose including head movement and orientation).
Regarding claim 3, Marculescu teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to enable the compensation metadata to be transmitted with the spatial audio signal for playback with a playback apparatus (Fig. 5, pose metadata is transmitted for playback audio to enable a modified audio playback).
Regarding claim 4, Marculescu teaches wherein the spatial audio signal comprises a binaural signal (¶74, binaural output signals).
Regarding claim 5, Marculescu teaches wherein the compensation metadata comprises information indicating how one or more spatial features of the spatial audio signals are to be adjusted to account for a difference in the user head position compared to the user head position on which the spatial audio signal is based (Fig. 5, generating an initial pose metadata and modifying the initial metadata in accordance with a user’s change in their pose including head position; ¶60, HRTF techniques require head position and includes one or more parameters to adjust the spatial audio output).
Regarding claim 6, Marculescu teaches wherein the compensation metadata comprises instructions to a playback apparatus that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to enable the adjustments to the spatial audio to be performed with the playback apparatus (Fig. 5, pose metadata is transmitted and updated between a user’s smartphone and a wearable apparatus for spatial audio playback).
Regarding claim 7, Marculescu teaches wherein the adjustments to the spatial audio signal that are enabled with the compensation metadata require fewer computational resources than the processing of the audio input signals to provide the spatial audio signal (¶61, Fig. 5, splitting up the task of estimating a user’s pose between a user’s smartphone and wearable device enables not only less delay between the capture of pose metadata but increases accuracy on spatial audio reproduction while also alleviating a computational strain if only a single device was used to compute the pose metadata).
Regarding claim 8, Marculescu teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, enable a lag in processing of at least one of the audio signals or transmission of the audio signals to be accounted for (¶61, less delay between capture of pose metadata implies that there is a delay in the capture of pose metadata and thus a delay in transmitting of pose metadata and also a delay in processing of spatial audio in accordance with the pose metadata).
Regarding claim 9, Marculescu teach wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, enable at least one of an error in a predicted head position to be accounted for or minor corrections to be made to the spatial audio signal (Fig. 5, updated pose estimate allows for refining of spatial audio).
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The method can be found in Marculescu (¶4, method).
Regarding claims 12-13, they are rejected similarly as claims 1-2, respectively. The playback device can be found in Marculescu (Fig. 1, playback apparatus).
Regarding claims 14-15, they are rejected similarly as claims 4 and 6, respectively. The playback device can be found in Marculescu (Fig. 1, playback apparatus).
Regarding claim 16, Marculescu teaches comprising one or more sensors configured to determine the user head position (¶10, sensors to track user’s pose including head position).
Regarding claim 17, Marculescu teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to provide information indicative of a user head position to a rendering device (Fig. 5, pose metadata is transmitted to a rendering device (e.g. smartphone) and then sent to a playback device (e.g. wearable)).
Regarding claim 18, Marculescu teaches wherein the user head position comprises an angular orientation of at least one of the user's head or a location of the user (¶83, tracking a user’s pose includes head and body position; ¶61, user’s pose may also include orientation data).
Regarding claims 19 and 23, they are rejected similarly as claims 12-13, respectively. The method can be found in Marculescu (¶4, method).
Regarding claim 24, it is rejected similarly as claim 17. The method can be found in Marculescu (¶4, method).
Regarding claim 25, it is rejected similarly as claim 10. The storage device can be found in Marculescu (¶134, storage medium).
Regarding claim 26, it is rejected similarly as claim 19. The storage device can be found in Marculescu (¶134, storage medium).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691