,DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 2/6/2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ithapu fails to disclose “in response to the indication, determining a second model corresponding to a direction based on the first direction and the second direction [from which the listener perceives the first signal to have originated], the direction being different from the second direction (remarks, pg. 6).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “rendering a first signal for a listener using a first model corresponding to a first direction of a loudspeaker”, “receiving an indication that the listener perceives the first signal o have originated from a second direction”, “in response to the indicated, determining a second model corresponding to a direction based on the first direction and the second direction”. The first direction is defined as the direction of the first signal (i.e. “a target location”). The second direction is defined as the listener’s perceived location. Lastly, a direction is defined as corresponding to a second model and being different than the first and second directions. Ithapu in Fig. 3 discloses a test location (310) which corresponds to a “first model” (e.g. initial HRTF model). The user is asked to give feedback on where they perceive the test location to be (e.g. perceived location 320). Based on the user’s response (e.g. perceived location 320), an updated HRTF model is determined which corresponds to test location 330. Said updated HRTF model and its corresponding test location 330 is different than the first direction (e.g. test location 310) and second direction (e.g. user’s perceived location 320). Furthermore, the updated HRTF model and its corresponding location was further determined based on the first direction and second direction as the step of updating requires an initial HRTF and a user’s response.
Response to Amendment
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, 6-8, 10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ithapu et al (US20210219085, hereinafter “Ithapu”).
Regarding claim 1, Ithapu teaches a method (¶5, method), comprising:
rendering a first signal for a listener using a first model corresponding to a first direction of a loudspeaker, the first signal representing sound produced by the loudspeaker (¶4, a plurality of test signals are output for the user and to get their response(s));
receiving an indication that the listener perceives the first signal to have originated from a second direction (Fig. 3, ¶62, the user indicates a perceived output position of the test signals (for example by looking in the direction of the perceived position));
in response to the indication, determining a second model corresponding to a direction based on the first direction and the second direction, the direction being different from the second direction (Fig. 3, ¶71, once user’s responses are determined, the HRTF model can be updated and testing can be repeated until a certain quality metric is achieved (e.g. until a certain error threshold is met); figure shows subsequent test locations that are different than the initial locations and are determined according to the updated HRTF); and
rendering a second signal for the listener using the second model (¶71, updated test signals are output to the user according to the updated HRTF model).
Regarding claim 3, Ithapu teaches wherein a difference between the direction and the second direction is equal to a difference between the second direction and the first direction (Fig. 3, ¶71, in the scenario that the first test signal is perceived to be the same position then the HRTF can be updated accordingly (with little/no change required); ¶78, the difference between the test location and the perceived location is the error/inaccuracy in the current model/HRTF so if the subsequent location is shifted -5 degrees (for example) from the initial test location, then perhaps the user will also change their perception of the sound by 5 degrees (as seen from the initial test location) such that the absolute value of the degree difference is still 5 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, Ithapu teaches wherein receiving the indication includes:
obtaining an image from an eye-tracking camera of an eye of the listener gazing at the second angular position (¶33, headset can capture images of the user’s eyes as part of its eye tracking unit).
Regarding claim 7, Ithapu teaches wherein the first audio signal includes an audible, high-bandwidth sound (¶76, test signal has to be audible for the user and can correspond to broadband speech or broadband noise signals).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 13-14, they are rejected similarly as claims 1, 3, and 6-7, respectively. The computer program product can be found in Ithapu (¶30, computer storage medium).
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) 4-5 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ithapu et al (US20210219085, hereinafter “Ithapu”) in view of Hooks et al (US20150208190, hereinafter “Hooks”) in further view of Lee et al (US20210266696, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 4, Ithapu fails to explicitly teach wherein the first direction is at a vertex of a cube inscribed in a sphere.
Hooks teaches wherein the first direction is at a vertex of a cube (Fig. 1, 14, ¶63, virtual audio objects can be “snapped” to locations such as vertices of a cube (representative of a listening environment)).
Hooks fails to explicitly teach in a sphere.
Lee teaches in a sphere (¶100-103, a sphere can be placed around the user to represent potential audio object positions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of determining HRTFs based on various shapes of the listening area (such as a sphere as taught by Lee or as a cube as taught by Hooks) to the audio device (as taught by Ithapu). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of improving the 3D listening experience (as taught by Hooks, ¶99 and Lee, ¶43).
Regarding claim 5, Ithapu in view of Hooks in further view of Lee teaches wherein the first angular position is one of eight angular positions representing eight vertices of the cube (Hooks, Fig. 1, 14, ¶63, virtual audio objects can be “snapped” to locations such as vertices of a cube (representative of a listening environment)) and the second audio signal is represented as a first order ambisonic signal (Hooks, ¶41, Ambisonics is a known rendering means and can be used to output the audio).
Regarding claims 11-12, they are rejected similarly as claims 4-5, respectively. The computer program product can be found in Ithapu (¶30, computer storage medium).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
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