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 01/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10-11 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.
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 1-3, 6-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavel et al. (US 2024/0147178) in view of Hornsby et al. (US 2021/0373843) in view of Bujnowski et al. (US 2019/0394057) in view of Singh (US 2024/0214454).
Regarding claim 1, Clavel et al. (hereinafter Clavel) discloses an information processing device (Clavel, [0016], “FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating an example computing device”) comprising
at least one memory storing instructions (Clavel, [0037], “the data store 120 may be a non-transitory computer readable memory”); and
at least one processor that, upon execution of the stored instructions (Clavel, [0183], “Processor 602 can be one or more processors and/or processing circuits to execute program code and control basic operations of the device 600”), is configured to:
determine, from obtained sound data items that overlap each other, a priority sound data item that is obtained from the determined priority sound source that is directed to an avatar of a user in a virtual space (Clavel, [0023-0024], “a number of simulated sounds may be such that it can exceed the computational capacity of a local user device…the virtual experience platform and/or a user device may perform “voice stealing” and only play the highest priority sounds, e.g., by playing only the N loudest sounds”. In addition, in paragraph [0082], “footsteps, clothing, and breathing sounds of an enemy may be prioritized (e.g., be assigned a relatively higher prioritization value) in a first person shooter game because they are important to the gameplay goal of being able to determine where unseen enemies might be located within the virtual environment. Dialogue spoken by a non-player character (NPC) may be prioritized because the dialogue associated with the NPC may be important in a narrative of a game”. In addition, [0092], “a player's avatar”); wherein other of the obtained sound data items are indicated as non-priority sound data items (Clave, [0180], “whereas a sound of background crowd noise in a stadium may be assigned a relatively low prioritization value and may be played back asynchronously at a user device”. A low prioritization value is considered non-priority);
perform control to notify a user of contents of the priority sound data item by causing the priority sound data item to be audibly reproduced by the wearable device at a first timing (Clavel, [0082], “footsteps, clothing, and breathing sounds of an enemy may be prioritized (e.g., be assigned a relatively higher prioritization value) in a first person shooter game because they are important to the gameplay goal of being able to determine where unseen enemies might be located within the virtual environment. Dialogue spoken by a non-player character (NPC) may be prioritized because the dialogue associated with the NPC may be important in a narrative of a game”);
while Clavel discloses perform control to notify the user of content of the non-priority sound data item (Clavel, [0180], “whereas a sound of background crowd noise in a stadium may be assigned a relatively low prioritization value and may be played back asynchronously at a user device”);
Clavel does not expressly disclose “without causing the non-priority sound data item to be audibly”;
Hornsby et al. (hereinafter Hornsby) discloses notify a user of contents of sound data item without causing the sound data item to be audibly, the sound data item is converted into a different form and provided to a user (Hornsby, [0081], “the device causes the audio playback function to deny the second application access to the audio playback function and instead to display the metadata (e.g., subtitles or audio description information), block 410”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Clavel’s generate a plurality of sounds for a user using the concept of Hornsby’s an audio playback function is shared among multiple applications each requesting access to the audio playback functions. The motivation for doing so would have been preventing overlapping sounds playing at once, ensuring users hear only the most relevant sound.
Though Clave teaches a wearable device (Clave, [0034], “virtual reality consoles”. In addition, in paragraph [0181], “The head orientation of the user may be utilized to adjust playback of the sound at the user device”); the avatar (Clave, [0092], “a player's avatar”);
Clave as modified by Hornsby does not expressly disclose “obtain, from a plurality of users each wearing a wearable device, sound data items captured by the wearable device, wherein the obtained sound data items are generated by different users each associated with an avatar in a virtual space and are each generated at a sound generation time that overlap each other and are directed to a target avatar associated with a target user in the virtual space;”;
Singh discloses a plurality of users each wearing a wearable device (Singh, [0037], “Device 201, 203 and 205 may be, for example…VR glasses, VR goggles, AR glasses, an AR head-mounted display (HMD), a VR HMD or any other suitable computing device”), obtain sound data items captured by the wearable device (Singh, [0038], “audio signals may be spoken by User A and/or other audio present in the environment surrounding User A”. The audio input can be captured by one or more devices), wherein the obtained sound data items are generated by different users each associated with an avatar in a virtual space (Singh, Figs. 2A-2D) and directed to a target avatar associated with a target user in the virtual space (Singh, [0027], “behavioral signals of other user profile(s) (e.g., User B, User C and User D shown in region 114 of FIG. 1B) in relation to User A may be monitored during interactive session”. In addition, in paragraph [0028], “certain behavior towards User A may be deemed more indicative of a positive or negative interaction than other behavior. For example, if the SIMS detects audio from a user praising all of the hard work that User A has done recently”);
a setting set by the target user (Singh, [0032], “As shown in the example of FIG. 1B, the SIMS may generate for display, e.g., upon receiving selection of interactive session 104 from user interface 100, user interface 112. User interface 112 may comprise an indication of interactive session 104 and user profiles (and/or emails and/or other suitable information) associated with such interactive session”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the VR environment of Clave to incorporate the interactive session of Singh, which includes a plurality of digital representations of users. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling multi-user interaction and collaboration.
Clave as modified by Hornsby and Singh does not expressly disclose “each generated at a sound generation time that overlap each other”;
Bujnowski et al. (hereinafter Bujnowski) discloses obtain, from a plurality of users, sound data items captured a device (Bujnowski,[0168], “If voice signals of two or more participants are provided during a predetermined time interval (e.g., 5 seconds), the electronic device 401 may determine that the speaking overlaps”), wherein the obtained sound data items are generated by different users (Bujnowski, Fig. 4) and are each generated at a sound generation time that overlap each other (Bujnowski,[0168], “If voice signals of two or more participants are provided during a predetermined time interval (e.g., 5 seconds), the electronic device 401 may determine that the speaking overlaps”);
determine, from among the different users a priority sound source associated with a particular user based on a terminal setting (Bujnowski, [0172], “In operation 930, the electronic device 401 may determine the priority of each of the two or more identified participants”. In addition, in paragraph [0173-0176], “determine the priority according to the roles of the participants…determine the priority according to the remaining speaking time of each of the participants…determine the priority of each of the participants on the basis of predetermined priority information”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interactive session in the VR environment of Clave as modified by Hornsby and Singh using the participant priority determination of Bujnowski. The motivation for doing so would have been ensuring orderly and coherent interactions in the VR environment when multiple participants are present.
Regarding claim 2, Clavel as modified by Hornsby with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses displaying a character representing the contents of the non-priority sound data item (Hornsby, [0081], “display the metadata (e.g., subtitles or audio description information)”).
Regarding claim 3, Clavel discloses reproducing the non-priority sound data item at a second timing after reproduction of the priority sound data item is ended (Clavel, [0180], “a sound associated with an specific object that is important to the virtual experience, e.g., a gunshot associated with the firing of a weapon, may have a relatively high prioritization value and may be played synchronously to actions within the virtual experience, whereas a sound of background crowd noise in a stadium may be assigned a relatively low prioritization value and may be played back asynchronously at a user device”).
Regarding claim 6, Clavel discloses determines the priority sound data item on a basis of a relationship between each of sound sources of the plurality of sound data items and the avatar in the virtual space (Clavel, [0005], “a prioritization value of at least one sound source of the plurality of sound sources. The prioritization value is based on one or more of a loudness of the at least one sound source and a distance of the at least one sound source from the virtual microphone in the virtual experience”).
Regarding claim 7, Clavel discloses determines the priority sound data item on a basis of sound volumes of the plurality of sound data items (Clavel, [0005], “a prioritization value of at least one sound source of the plurality of sound sources. The prioritization value is based on one or more of a loudness of the at least one sound source and a distance of the at least one sound source from the virtual microphone in the virtual experience”).
Regarding claim 8, Clavel discloses determines the priority sound data item on a basis of a distance between each of sound sources of the plurality of sound data items and the avatar in the virtual space (Clavel, [0005], “a prioritization value of at least one sound source of the plurality of sound sources. The prioritization value is based on one or more of a loudness of the at least one sound source and a distance of the at least one sound source from the virtual microphone in the virtual experience”),
Regarding claim 10, Clavel discloses an information processing method (Clavel, [0130], “FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating an example method to generate an audio mix of a plurality of sounds”).
The limitations recite in claim 10 are similar in scope to the functions recited in claim 1 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of an information processing apparatus configures the information processing apparatus to execute a method (Clavel, [0190], “the code can be implemented by one or more digital processors (e.g., microprocessors or other processing circuitry), and can be stored on a computer program product including a non-transitory computer readable medium”).
The limitations recite in claim 11 are similar in scope to the functions recited in claim 1 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavel et al. (US 2024/0147178) in view of Hornsby et al. (US 2021/0373843) in view of Bujnowski et al. (US 2019/0394057) in view of Singh (US 2024/0214454), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Chhabra et al. (US 2023/0017111) in view of Burton et al. (US 2014/0222437).
Regarding claim 4, Clavel discloses a terminal of a second user provides a sound data item to the information processing device (Clavel, [0052], “In other implementations, the control instructions may be sent from a user device 110 to another user device (e.g., from user device 110b to user device 110n)…play a voice communication message or other sounds from another user on an audio device (e.g., speakers, headphones, etc.)”. In addition, in paragraph [0110], “the sounds may include voice chat”), provides the non-priority sound data item (Clavel, [0140], “high priority sounds play nearly instantly, while lower priority sounds play with some delay”);
Clavel as modified by Hornsby, Bujnowski and Singh does not expressly disclose “a second user provides the non-priority sound data item”;
Chhabra et al. (hereinafter Chhabra) discloses a user provides the non-priority sound data item (Chhabra, [0126], “a user device associated with avatar 502 may receive prioritized audio streams associated with avatars 504 and 506, as well as ambient sounds associated with any objects or non-player items within the radius 525. However, data associated with avatar 508 may also be readied to be prioritized should avatar 508 continue to approach the radius 525 as shown by arrow 581”. An avatar operated by a user outside the defined radius is considered to generate non-priority sound data).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Clavel’s generate a plurality of sounds for a user using Chhabra’s radius parameter as a factor in prioritizing audio playback. The motivation for doing so would have been providing spatialized audio in virtual experiences.
In addition, though Clavel teaches the non-priority sound data item is not reproduced at the first timing; Clavel as modified by Hornsby, Bujnowski, Singh and Chhabra does not expressly disclose “notify the terminal that the non-priority sound data item is not reproduced at the first timing”;
Burton et al. (hereinafter Burton) discloses notify a terminal that sound data item is not reproduced (Burton, [0054], “On detecting that the conference bridge 606 is muted, the conference server 608 transmits a notification message 640 to the phone 604”),
a case where the terminal is notified that the sound data is not reproduced, the terminal notifies a user that the sound data is not reproduced (Burton, [0054], “When the phone 604 determines that the conference bridge 606 is muted while the headset 602, or the phone 604, is reporting voice activity, the phone 604 displays a message indicating the conference bridge 606 is muted”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Clavel’s voice communication between user devices using the concept of Burton’s notify a user of the muting status via message. The motivation of doing so would have been preventing misunderstandings that the listener heard the message.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavel et al. (US 2024/0147178) in view of Hornsby et al. (US 2021/0373843) in view of Bujnowski et al. (US 2019/0394057) in view of Singh (US 2024/0214454), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Morris et al. (US 2022/0385491).
Regarding claim 5, Clavel discloses determine, from among the plurality of sound data items, the sound data item to the avatar as the priority sound data item (Clavel, [0180], “a sound associated with an specific object that is important to the virtual experience, e.g., a gunshot associated with the firing of a weapon, may have a relatively high prioritization value and may be played synchronously to actions within the virtual experience, whereas a sound of background crowd noise in a stadium may be assigned a relatively low prioritization value and may be played back asynchronously at a user device”); Clavel as modified by Hornsby, Bujnowski and Singh does not expressly disclose “uttered earliest”;
Morris et al. (hereinafter Morris) discloses uttered earliest (Morris, [0002], “allows a first participant with earlier detected speech to finish speaking before a second participant with later detected speech to begin speaking”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Clavel’s voice communication between user devices using the concept of Morris’s queueing system allows a first participant with earlier detected speech to finish speaking. The motivation for doing so would have been improving voice communication for efficiency, natural flow and clarity.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavel et al. (US 2024/0147178) in view of Hornsby et al. (US 2021/0373843) in view of Bujnowski et al. (US 2019/0394057) in view of Singh (US 2024/0214454), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Vautrin et al. (US 2022/0103941).
Regarding claim 9, Clavel discloses determines a sound data item of a sound source from among sound sources of the plurality of sound data items in the virtual space, as priority sound data item (Clavel, [0082], “footsteps, clothing, and breathing sounds of an enemy may be prioritized (e.g., be assigned a relatively higher prioritization value) in a first person shooter game because they are important to the gameplay goal of being able to determine where unseen enemies might be located within the virtual environment”. In addition, in paragraph [0180], “whereas a sound of background crowd noise in a stadium may be assigned a relatively low prioritization value and may be played back asynchronously at a user device”); Clavel as modified by Hornsby, Bujnowski and Singh does not expressly disclose “selected by the first user”;
Vautrin et al. (hereinafter Vautrin) discloses select a sound data item by a user (Vautrin, [0123], “The audio content source region 533e includes a listing of one or more media content sources from which a user can select media items for play back and/or adding to a playback queue”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Clave’s generate prioritized sound data using the concept of Vautrin’s a user can select media item for playback. The motivation for doing so would have been allowing users to choose media that matches theirs interests or current task.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ZHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3740. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. 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.
/KYLE ZHAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights