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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims be found allowable, claims 14-19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding claims 14-19, they are duplicates of instant claims 4, 7-8, and 10-12, respectively.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11, 13-18, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,183 B2 (hereafter ‘183). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) 1-NNN of ‘183 anticipate pending claim(s) 1-AAA of the instant application.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of ‘183 anticipates the instant claim because it is narrower in scope than the instant claim, where the patented feature of “a first audio track” anticipates the instant feature of “a sound”.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 8, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Patented claim 1 of ‘183 anticipates the dependent features found in these claims.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 4 above. Patented claim 2 of ‘183, which is dependent on patented claim 1, anticipates the features of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 7, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Patented claim 4 of ‘183, which is dependent on patented claim 1, anticipates the features of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 8 above. Patented claim 5 of ‘183, which is dependent on patented claim 1, anticipates the features of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Patented claim 6 of ‘183, which is dependent on patented claim 1, anticipates the features of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Patented claim 7, 8, or 9 of ‘183, which is dependent on patented claim 1, anticipates the features of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, claim 11 of ‘183 anticipates the instant claim because it is narrower in scope than the instant claim.
Regarding claims 14-17, see the preceding claim objections above. These claims are duplicates of claims 4, 7-8, and 10, respectively. Therefore, claims 14-17 are anticipated for the same reasons as stated above, where patented claims 1, 4, 1, and 6 of ‘183, respectively, anticipates the features of these claims.
Regarding claim 18, see the preceding claim objection above. This claim is a duplicate of claim 11, and is anticipated for the same reasons as stated above, where patented claim 7, 8, or 9 of ‘183 anticipates the features of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 of ‘183 anticipates the instant claim because it is narrower in scope than the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 13-18, and 20 are objected to and/or rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as stated above. Claims 1-11, 13, and 20 would be allowable if the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome, and the objection to duplicate claims 14-19 would need to be addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1, 13, and 20, the prior art of Tomlin et al., US 2019/0289417 A1 (previously cited and hereafter Tomlin), in view of Visser et al., US 2018/0020312 A1 (hereafter Visser), teaches and/or suggests many features of the claims.
With respect to claim 1 limitations, Tomlin appears to teach a system and method that renders audio in a shared video game experience, which suggests a virtual reality experience (see Tomlin, ¶ 0070). Specifically, Tomlin teaches that the head-wearable device determines a shared model component by establishing and/or updating shared maps of sound fields presented to two or more users, such that locations of objects, layouts of the environment, etc., are shared between users for modeling real and/or virtual rooms, and these models include audio path transfer functions based on a user’s position and a sound source’s position in the modelled environment, such as a game environment shared by two or more individuals (see Tomlin, ¶ 0027-0028, 0062-0064, and 0070, figure 2, units 212 and 220, and figure 5). Therefore, Tomlin does not explicitly state that the system and/or method includes a “mixed reality environment”.
Visser discloses a method for outputting audio in a virtual, augmented, and mixed reality (see Visser, abstract). Specifically, Visser teaches a similar head-wearable device, that provides a mixed reality environment for the user (see Visser, ¶ 0027 and 0056, figure 1, unit 102, and figure 3). Visser also provides an example of placing and manipulating virtual sounds in the mixed reality environment (see Visser, ¶ 0038-0043 and figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Tomlin with the teachings of the mixed reality environment of Visser for the purpose of allowing a first and second user to share a mixed reality environment (see Tomlin, ¶ 0070 in view of Visser, ¶ 0003-0004 and figures 4-5).
Therefore, the combination of Tomlin and Visser makes obvious:
“A system comprising: a head-wearable device;” (see Tomlin, ¶ 0016 and 0020, figure 1, units 116 and 118, and figure 2, unit 200);
“one or more speakers; and” (see Tomlin, ¶ 0021 and figure 2, units 204 and 208)
“one or more processors configured to perform a method” (see Tomlin, ¶ 0024 and 0096-0099, figure 2, unit 216, and figure 8, unit 810), where Tomlin teaches these features to execute a method to share a synchronized spatial audio experience that is individualized to each person, such as synchronizing movie playback for two or more people in the same room (see Tomlin, ¶ 0030 and figure 3) and/or a video game environment (see Tomlin, ¶ 0061 and figure 5),
“comprising: receiving a request to present a sound” (see Tomlin, ¶ 0061, 0063-0064, and 0071, and figure 5, where a user initiates a shared experience with a video game);
“determining, based on a location of the head-wearable device in a mixed reality environment, a shared model component, wherein the shared model component is associated with an acoustic property of the mixed reality environment” (see Tomlin, ¶ 0027-0028, 0062-0064, and 0070, figure 2, units 212 and 220, and figure 5, in view of Visser, ¶ 0038-0043 and figure 5, where the head-wearable device determines a shared model component by establishing and/or updating shared maps of sound fields presented to two or more users, such that locations of objects, layouts of the environment, etc., are shared between users for modeling real and/or virtual rooms (i.e., mixed reality), and these models include audio path transfer functions based on a user’s position and a sound source’s position in the modelled environment, such as that a mixed reality environment is shared by two or more individuals and acoustic properties are applied to the virtual sounds placed in the mixed reality environment based on the relative locations of the user(s), virtual sound object(s), and the actual environment, physical room, or physical space);
…
“rendering the sound based on the shared model component” (see Tomlin, ¶ 0028 and 0069, figure 2, unit 222, and figure 5, step 530, in view of Visser, ¶ 0038-0039, where the first sound corresponding to a first virtual object is rendered based on the shared map and the relative position with respect to the first user, and it is obvious that the shared map is a shared mixed reality environment so that the first sound is output with the appropriate acoustic property for its location in the shared mixed reality environment);
…; and
“presenting, via the one or more speakers, an audio signal comprising the sound” (see Tomlin, ¶ 0028 and Visser, ¶ 0039).
The combination of Tomlin and Visser, alone or in combination, do not appear to teach or reasonably suggest the features for:
“determining whether to update the shared model component;
in accordance with a determination to update the shared model component, updating a copy of the shared model component;
in accordance with a determination to not update the shared model component, forgoing updating the copy of the shared model component;”
and
“in accordance with the determination to update the shared model component, updating the shared model component;
in accordance with the determination to not update the shared model component, forgoing updating the shared model component;”
In particular, the prior art does not appear to teach or reasonably suggest the features for “updating a copy of the shared model component” when determining to update the shared model and “forgoing updating the copy of the shared model component” when determining the shared model is not to be updated.
Claims 13 and 20 recited similar features, and for the same reasons as stated above, the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest the similar features of updating or not updating the copy of the shared model component based on an update determination.
Claims 2-11 and 14-18 depend on one of claims 1, 13, and 20, and would be allowable as stated above if the claim objections and/or double patenting rejections are overcome.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the double patenting rejection of claim 1 are overcome.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the double patenting rejection of claim 1 and the duplicate claim objection is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel R Sellers whose telephone number is (571)272-7528. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-4:00.
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, Fan S Tsang can be reached at (571)272-7547. 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.
/Daniel R Sellers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694