DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 1/23/2026:
Claims 1-13 and 19-25 are pending
Claims 14-18 are cancelled
35 USC 112b rejection is withdrawn
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 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argue that Prins fail to teach “a first spatial audio confirmation…a second spatial audio configuration…a combined spatial audio scene….” (remarks, pgs. 8-10).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It would appear that the Applicant is drawing upon Fig. 2A of the drawings to support their argument. However, Prins is still seen as teaching the supposed lacking configurations as argued. Fig. 4 of Prins shows an example system wherein a user/room tracker is deployed when determining the playback audio for the user as processed by the audio transformer module. Prins’ teachings are aimed at providing optimal audio to the user at the user’s current location and orientation (¶5). As previously presented and acknowledge by the Applicant, Prins’s teachings enables a user to move about different rooms while still receiving optimal audio playback. However, the Examiner would like to argue that Prins’ system enables optimal audio to be provided even within the same room (¶79). That is, the audio output (sound field) is adjusted with respect to the user’s position and orientation (in real time) so that even if the user is moving about the same room, audio needs to be modified in accordance with the user’s new position and orientation such that optimal audio is still being presented to the user (¶47). Therefore, Prins is still as teaching the determining a first spatial audio configuration and a second spatial audio configuration (technically, an infinite number of configurations are determined in accordance with a user’s position and orientation). Prins is also seen as teaching the “combined spatial audio scene” since the scene is being updated (in real time) as the user moves about and an updated optimal audio output needs to be processed and provided.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, 19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prins et al (US20170188170, hereinafter “Prins”).
Regarding claim 1, Prins teaches an apparatus (¶2, system), comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 3, processor); and
at least one memory storing instructions (¶82, storage medium) that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
determine a first spatial audio configuration for at least a first space comprising a first acoustic rendering arrangement and determine a second spatial audio configuration for at least a second space comprising a second acoustic rendering arrangement (¶42-43, Fig. 1A, each space has their acoustic rendering arrangement); and
determine a combined spatial audio scene for a combined space comprising at least the first space and the second space wherein the combined spatial audio scene is based on the first spatial audio configuration and the second spatial audio configuration (Fig. 1B, ¶64, a third soundfield generated by at least a portion of the first and second room speaker configurations) and wherein the combined spatial audio scene is configured to maintain spatial audio continuity in response to a user position changing from the first space to the second space (¶66, a dynamic soundfield that moves along with the user as they move between spaces).
Regarding claim 2, Prins teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to enable playback of spatial audio signals using the combined spatial audio scene in at least the first space and the second space (¶64-66, a dynamic soundfield is generated by panning and/or spatial filtering to maintain spatial continuity).
Regarding claim 3, Prins teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the spatial audio to maintain continuity with at least one of:
reducing differences in a main orientation for spatial audio between the first space and the second space (¶66, the dynamic soundfield is generated with respect to the user’s orientation and aims to gradually shift between one room to another by reducing sudden changes in the soundfield);
maintaining spatial audio source direction accuracy (¶21, a user’s orientation is taken into account to maintain an accurate reproduction of the soundfield); or
maintaining spatial audio energy balance between directions (¶66, dynamic soundfield is slowly changed as the user moves between spaces (i.e. speaker output gradually changes/panning is performed)).
Regarding claim 4, Prins teaches wherein the spatial audio configurations comprise a main orientation for a user listening to spatial audio in the corresponding space (¶4, traditional audio systems produce soundfield at/around a certain position (e.g. middle of the room); ¶21, a user’s orientation is taken into account to determine the dynamic soundfield).
Regarding claim 5, Prins teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, determine the combined spatial audio scene based on one or more orientation measures, wherein the orientation measures provide an indication of spatial audio quality at different orientations for a user within the different spaces (¶21, a user’s orientation is taken into account to determine the dynamic soundfield for optimal playback).
Regarding claim 7, Prins teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, determine the combined spatial audio scene based on tracking data relating to one or more users (¶27, 76, a user is tracked in the audio environment).
Regarding claim 9, Prins teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, determine spatial audio configurations for a plurality of different spaces comprising different acoustic rendering arrangements and determining the combined spatial audio scene for the combined space comprising the plurality of spaces, wherein the combined spatial audio scene is based on the spatial audio configurations for the plurality of different spaces (Fig. 1A, 1B, at least a first and second audio listening environment comprising their own audio configuration and acoustic rendering arrangements).
Regarding claim 10, Prins teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, determine the combined spatial audio scene with applying different weightings to different spaces (¶21, a constant sound level between listening spaces is desired; ¶66, the dynamic soundfield can adjust a sound level as the user moves between listening spaces).
Regarding claim 11, Prins teaches wherein the different spaces comprise different rooms (¶55, different rooms).
Regarding claims 12-13, they are rejected similarly as claims 1 and 3, respectively. The method can be found in Prins (¶2, method).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, they are rejected similarly as claims 4 and 7, respectively. The method can be found in Prins (¶2, method).
Regarding claims 22-24, they are rejected similarly as claims 9-11, respectively. The method can be found in Prins (¶2, method).
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) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prins et al (US20170188170, hereinafter “Prins”) in view of Lyren et al (US20210360364, hereinafter “Lyren”).
Regarding claim 6, Prins fails to explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, determine the combined spatial audio scene based on one or more deviation values that provide an indication of an allowed difference in spatial audio scenes between the first space and the second space.
Lyren teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, determine the combined spatial audio scene based on one or more deviation values that provide an indication of an allowed difference in spatial audio scenes between the first space and the second space (¶29, a threshold error can be applied prior to audio processing; if the determined error is within an acceptable range, no action can be taken as a choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of applying a threshold value or compare against a threshold value (as taught by Lyren) to the audio apparatus (as taught by Prins). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of determining whether or not to conduct an audio processing technique based on the results from a threshold comparison (Lyren, ¶29).
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected similarly as a combination of claims 5-6. The method can be found in Prins (¶2, method).
Claim(s) 8 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prins et al (US20170188170, hereinafter “Prins”) in view of Eronen et al (US20200252739, hereinafter “Eronen”).
Regarding claim 8, Prins fails to explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, determine the combined spatial audio scene based on data indicating a type of content being provided.
Eronen teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, determine the combined spatial audio scene based on data indicating a type of content being provided (¶154, 173, an audio output trajectory (to creating an audio scene) can be altered based on the audio content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the audio rendering apparatus (as taught by Prins) with the cost analysis algorithm (as taught by Eronen). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of optimizing overall experience of the playback while reducing the cost of rendering of one or more audio content items (Eronen, ¶197).
Regarding claim 25, it is rejected similarly as claim 8. The method can be found in Prins (¶2, method).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
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 QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691