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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23 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 1, 4-10, 13-15 and 24 are allowed over the prior art of record.
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) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindahl (US 2019/0349662 A1) in view of Fay et al (US2002/0133248).
Claim 16. Lindahl teaches a method (Lindahl, ¶0004, method) comprising: determining, by a processor (Lindahl, Fig.2, ¶0033, processor 218), one or more statistics indicative of a latency (Lindahl, ¶0031 and ¶0033, latency based on a predetermined threshold in milliseconds) associated with audio data received wirelessly (Lindahl, abstract, wireless, audio data; Fig.2, wireless signal, 210, 212) by a head-mounted display (HMD) (Lindahl, Fig.1, Fig.2, abstract, HMD) and stored in a buffer of the HMD (Lindahl, Fig. 2, ¶0028, HMD memory 220 includes a buffer; ¶0033, buffer 412); determining, by the processor, to decrease a size of the buffer based at least in part on the one or more statistics (Lindahl, Fig.5, ¶0038 and ¶0040, reduce size of buffer 4141 of buffer 412 based on the measured latency parameter (time in millisecond)); and output the audio data via one or more speakers of the HMD (Lindahl, Fig.5, ¶0042, operation 512).
Lindahl does not teach adding, by the processor, a synthetic audio data segment to the audio data without deleting or replacing segments of the audio data to obtain modified audio data in the buffer; and causing, by the processor, audio content to be output via one or more speakers of the HMD based at least in part on the modified audio data.
However, Fay teaches adding, by the processor, a synthetic audio data segment to the audio data without deleting or replacing segments of the audio data to obtain modified audio data in the buffer (fig. 5, para 79, 90 and 118: mix-in audio buffers. Noted that Synthetic audio data can be interpreted as synthesizer components or synthesized audio data); and causing, by the processor, audio content to be output via one or more speakers based at least in part on the modified audio data (audio rendering component 504, fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Fay into the teachings of Lindahl to provide an effective audio buffer configuration.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindahl (US 2019/0349662 A1) in view of Fay et al (US2002/0133248) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Abe et al (US 2005/0187775).
Consider claim 17, Lindahl in view of Fay does not teach the synthetic audio data segment based at least in part on a combination of non-sequential segments of the audio data.
However, Abe teaches the synthetic audio data segment based at least in part on a combination of non-sequential segments of the audio data (Abe, ¶0040, deleted segments (non-sequential)). The motivation to combine Abe with Lindahl is for calculating a correlation function for the audio signal before and after the deleted segment (Abe, ¶0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to implement in where the synthetic audio data segment based at least in part on a combination of non-sequential segments of the audio data as taught by Abe in Lindahl in view of Fay for calculating a correlation function for the audio signal before and after the deleted segment.
Consider claim 18, Lindahl in view of Fay does not teach wherein the creating comprises overlapping the non-sequential segments and cross-fading respective audio signal waveforms of the non-sequential segments.
However, Abe teaches creating comprises overlapping the non-sequential segments and cross-fading respective audio signal waveforms of the non-sequential segments (Abe, Fig.18, ¶0173). The motivation to combine Abe with Lindahl in view of Fay is for smoothly connected without discontinuity in the waveform (Abe, ¶0177).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to implement in where creating comprises overlapping the non-sequential segments and cross-fading respective audio signal waveforms of the non-sequential segments as taught by Abe in Lindahl in view of Fay for smoothly connected without discontinuity in the waveform.
Consider claim 19, the combination of Lindahl, Fay and Abe teaches further comprising: determining, by the processor, based at least in part on the one or more statistics, that the latency is less than a threshold latency, wherein the threshold latency is less than a target latency, wherein the determining to increase the size of the buffer is based at least in part on the latency being less than to the threshold latency (Lindahl, ¶0033).
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 DUC M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7503. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30AM-3:45PM.
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 M. Nguyen can be reached at 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.
DUC M. NGUYEN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691