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
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11758347. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims a broader recitation of the dame device/system claimed by the patent, noting that the determining steps in the patent claim 1 encompass the embodiment described in the patent specification (para. 37-40) that includes the capturing of tracking data for the users head to process the voice data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following claims 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sheeder et al (US 20200335128 A1).
As per claim 21, A method comprising: capturing, via a microphone (para. 27, microphone 450) of a speaker's artificial reality device, voice data associated with a voice of a speaker (the receive data in para. 27) in communication with a listener (para. 24: one or more microphones 150 configured to detect audio signals generated by the user's voice; such microphones may be positioned in a wearable head device adjacent to the user's mouth. In some examples, wearable head device 100 may incorporate networking features (e.g., Wi-Fi capability) to communicate with other devices and systems, including other wearable systems.) in an artificial reality environment (augmented reality or virtual reality in para. 24,25) wherein the voice data lacks directivity corresponding to spatial sound patterns of sound wave propagation from a mouth of the speaker (the since the headset device is close to the user’s mouth it lacks directivity from the mouth);
capturing, via a sensor of the speaker's artificial reality device, tracking data associated with a change in pose of a head of the speaker (para. 25: The SLAM/visual odometry block 406 implementation can include a processor configured to process this imagery and determine a position and orientation of the user's head, noting bottom of para. 25: more timely information on rapid adjustments of the user’s head pose);
processing, based on/by using the tracking data to incorporate directivity associated with the changed pose of the head of the speaker, the voice data to create a directivity-attuned voice data for the listener (any or all of the following three steps: the speaker’s headset associating the captured voice with the captured tracking data/pose data from the SLAM unit, or any of the processing described in para. 48: a pause in a user's speech might correspond with a change in the user's eye gaze target, a change in the user's head pose, a gesture performed by the user, a change in the user's vital signs (e.g., breathing pattern, heart rate), a change in the user's facial expression, a change in movement or rotation away from a microphone, a change in the user's posture or other physical characteristics indicated by sensor input data 844/ “to incorporate directivity associated with the pose of the head of the speaker”, a change in orientation, and/or a rate of change of any one or more of the aforementioned characteristics. At stage 846, the process can evaluate whether any such non-verbal cues exist, and if so, whether they indicate that the input speech has paused (stage 860) or not (stage 850) ((where the change in orientation comprises directivity associated with a change in the pose of the head of the speaker)); or
additionally, the following additional process can read as a processing step: para. 27: para. 27: The DSP audio spatializer 422 can then apply the determined HRTF to an audio signal, such as an audio signal corresponding to a virtual sound generated by a virtual object. This can enhance the believability and realism of the virtual sound, by incorporating the relative position and orientation of the user relative to the virtual sound in the mixed reality environment—that is, by presenting a virtual sound that matches a user's expectations of what that virtual sound would sound like if it were a real sound in a real environment);
wherein the directivity-attuned voice data incorporates the spatial sound patterns based on the changed pose of the head of the speaker (the tracking/ pose data used to incorporate directivity as cited above);
and
delivering the directivity-attuned voice data to an artificial reality device of the listener (para. 48: to communicate with other devices and systems, including other wearable systems, in view of the processing above, further noting para. 25: maintain an illusion that the virtual object exists in the real environment (and does not, for example, appear positioned unnaturally in the real environment as the wearable head device 400A shifts and rotates), in an MR or AR application where any participants in the AR environment must receive the processed audio data in order communicate/hear the speaker).
As per claim 28,35, a system comprising: at least one physical processor; and physical memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the physical processor (the device of the claim 21 rejection requires a processor, software and memory in order to implement the cited functions and steps), cause the physical processor to:
capture, via a microphone of a speaker's artificial reality device, voice data associated with a voice of a speaker in communication with a listener in an artificial reality environment; wherein the voice data lacks directivity corresponding to spatial sound patterns of sound wave propagation from a mouth of the speaker (the since the headset device is close to the user’s mouth it lacks directivity from the mouth);
capture, via a sensor of the speaker's artificial reality device, tracking data associated with a change in a pose of a head of the speaker;
process, based on the tracking data, the voice data to create a directivity-attuned voice data for the listener;
wherein the directivity-attuned voice data incorporates the spatial sound patterns based on the changed pose of the head of the speaker (the tracking/ pose data used to incorporate directivity as cited above);
and
deliver the directivity-attuned voice data to an artificial reality device of the listener.(per the claim 21 rejection).
“to incorporate directivity associated with the changed pose of the head of the speaker”, (per the claim 21 rejection).
As per claim 22,29,36, the method of claim 21, wherein the sensor of the speaker's artificial reality device corresponds to an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (para. 25, IMU 49).
As per claim 23,30, the method of claim 21, wherein the sensor of the speaker's artificial reality device corresponds to a camera (para. 25).
As per claim 24,31, The method of claim 23, wherein the camera is configured for simultaneous location and mapping (SLAM) per the claim 21 rejection.
As per claim 37, it is rejected per the claim 23 and 24 rejections.
As per claim 25,32,38, the method of claim 21, wherein a position of the microphone of the speaker's artificial reality device is fixed relative to the head of the speaker (the microphone is on the headgear, para. 27) such that the captured voice data does not capture the directivity associated with the changed pose of the head of the speaker (since the headgear is on the user’s head the voice data will ot be as affected by changed pose of the head because it will change along with the change in head pose).
As per claim 26,33,39, the method of claim 25, wherein the position of the microphone of the speaker's artificial reality device changes as the pose of the head of the speaker changes (it changes because it is on the user’s head per the claim 25 rejection).
As per claim 27,34,40, the method of claim 21, wherein the pose of the head of the speaker corresponds to a tilt or a rotation of the speaker's head (para. 25: position and orientation of the user's head,).
Response to Arguments
The submitted arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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
August 15, 2025