DETAILED ACTION
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 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant submits that Gupta in view of Thompson does not expressly disclose a soundscape recording comprises AR comprising AR sounds associated with the target environment that are native to the target environment and have not been recorded. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Thompson (¶0046) discloses, “The object-based spatializer can be used in a… artificial reality system (such as, for example, an augmented or virtual reality system)… Each of plural (M) artificial sound objects can be defined within the soundscape. For example, in a forest soundscape, a bird sound object high up in a tree may be defined at one xyz position (e.g., as a point source), a waterfall sound object could be defined at another xyz position or range of positions (e.g., as an area source), and the wind blowing through the trees could be defined as a sound object at another xyz position or range of positions (e.g., another area source)… The sound of the waterfall object could be captured from a real waterfall, or it could be synthesized in the studio.” The waterfall in the augmented reality soundscape is a native sound to the target environment (forest) that has not been recorded (instead synthesized in the studio).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, it is unclear if “that have not have been recorded” is intended to be “that have not been” or “that have been” recorded. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as “that have not been recorded.”
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected for depending on the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2011/0160882 A1), hereinafter “Gupta,” in view of Thompson (US 2023/0132774 A1).
As to claim 1, Gupta discloses a system (¶0001) comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 1.); and
logic encoded in one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media for execution by the one or more processors (¶0098) and when executed operable to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving an environmental recording of a target environment (¶0038. “the encoded stream with embedded environmental parameters is provided to the environmental parameter based decoder 110.”),
wherein the environmental recording comprises a soundscape recording (¶0034, Fig. 1. “a system 100 for providing an immersive surround environment for enhanced content experience, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. In various embodiments of the present invention, enhanced content experience includes viewing, listening, feeling, touching or any other sensory experience related to the rendered content. The system of the invention uses environmental parameters to extend existing concepts of `surround` sound and vision to provide an immersive experience to users.” A soundscape is a sound or combination of sounds that forms an immersive environment. The sound use to form an immersive environment reads on the claim.);
transmitting the environmental recording to at least one home entertainment system (¶0038, Fig. 1. “The media and environmental parameter splitter 112 splits the media output from the environmental effects. The media output is provided to audio/visual equipment for rendering the stream. In an embodiment of the present invention, environmental effects from the media and environmental parameter splitter 112 is provided to the environmental effect playback system 114.”); and
enabling the at least one home entertainment system to present the environmental recording such that a presentation of the environmental recording replicates the target environment in an immersive experience (¶0038, Fig. 1. “The system 100 controls the environment so that the viewer is fully involved in the audio-visual scene, experiences what is going on and becomes part of content happening.”).
Gupta does not expressly disclose wherein the soundscape recording comprises augmented reality (AR), wherein the AR comprises sound AR that comprises AR sounds associated with the target environment that have not have been recorded, and wherein the AR sounds are native to the target environment.
Thompson discloses wherein the soundscape recording comprises augmented reality (AR), wherein the AR comprises sound AR that comprises AR sounds associated with the target environment that have not have been recorded, and wherein the AR sounds are native to the target environment (Thompson, ¶0046 and ¶0049. “The object-based spatializer can be used in a… artificial reality system (such as, for example, an augmented or virtual reality system).” “Each of plural (M) artificial sound objects can be defined within the soundscape. For example, in a forest soundscape, a bird sound object high up in a tree may be defined at one xyz position (e.g., as a point source), a waterfall sound object could be defined at another xyz position or range of positions (e.g., as an area source), and the wind blowing through the trees could be defined as a sound object at another xyz position or range of positions (e.g., another area source).” “the sound of the waterfall object could be captured from a real waterfall, or it could be synthesized in the studio.” Waterfall example of native sound to a target environment (forest soundscape) that has been synthesized and not recorded.).
Gupta and Thompson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to immersive audio.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the soundscape to augmented reality, as taught by Thompson. The motivation would have been to simulate sound sources so we perceive them having realistic spatial locations in 3D space (Thompson, ¶0004).
As to claim 2, Gupta in view of Thompson discloses wherein the soundscape recording comprises 360-degree spatial audio (Thompson, ¶0017 and ¶0048. “This enables a sound designer to precisely position sound sources in a soundscape, creating the illusion of realistic 3D sound.” “The resulting collection or library of sound files 109 can be stored (FIG. 1A block 208) and used to create and present one or more sound objects in a virtual 3D soundscape.”).
The motivation is the same as claim 1 above.
As to claim 4, Gupta in view of Thompson discloses wherein the environmental recording comprises one or more images (Gupta, ¶0013 and ¶0040, Fig. 1. “the media stream includes, but is not limited to, an image stream.”).
As to claim 5, Gupta in view of Thompson discloses wherein the environmental recording comprises metadata associated with the target environment (Gupta, ¶0047 and Figs. 1 and 5. Real time environmental parameters, such as temperature, wind velocity, humidity, light intensity, illumination details, encoded with the real time media.).
As to claim 6, Gupta in view of Thompson discloses extracting metadata from the environmental recording (Gupta, ¶0034, ¶0040 and ¶0066, Figs. 1 and 2. “The media decoder 202 decodes the encoded media stream to extract raw media data.” The content analyzer 204 extracts environmental parameters such as temperature, ambient light, humidity, wind velocity, thunders (such as ice, snow, fore, thunder, wind etc.) etc. from the raw media stream.”);
parsing the metadata into sound components and visual components (Gupta, ¶0034, ¶0040 and ¶0066, Figs. 1 and 2. “the environmental parameters are embedded at different granular levels of the color layout, structure, shape, region, texture, location, face, motion etc. of image/video stream and/or pitch, harmony, tempo, rhythm, loudness, lyrics analyzer for audio/speech stream and all of the above for audio video stream.”); and
transmitting the sound components and visual components to a plurality of media devices, wherein the plurality of media devices presents the sound components and visual components to replicate the target environment (Gupta, ¶0038 and ¶0070, Fig. 1. “The media and environmental parameter splitter 112 splits the media output from the environmental effects. The media output is provided to audio/visual equipment for rendering the stream. In an embodiment of the present invention, environmental effects from the media and environmental parameter splitter 112 is provided to the environmental effect playback system 114. Output from the environmental effects playback system 114 is presented to one or more output devices that control environmental conditions.”).
As to claim 7, Gupta in view of Thompson discloses causing lighting associated with the at least one home entertainment system to be displayed based on the soundscape recording (Gupta, ¶0034 and ¶0038. “The content analyzer 104 extracts environmental parameters such as… ambient light.” “The centralized system may activate lighting system to simulate white light that may signify moonlight.”).
Claims 8 and 15 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same motivation as claim 1 above.
Claims 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under claims 8 and 15 using the same motivation as claims 4-7 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695