DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1.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.
2. Claim(s) 1 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Guindi et al (10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933).
Regarding claim 1. Guindi teaches a method comprising: obtaining a microphone signal
produced by a microphone of a head-worn device (100, fig, 2); determining that a playback
device, a distance away from a user wearing the head-worn device, is outputting audio content
from one or more speakers of the playback device (fig. 2-3, col. 5, lines 22-34); determining that
the microphone signal includes the audio content that is output by the one or more speakers of
the playback device (fig. 2-3, col. 5, lines 22-34), wherein the one or more audio channels include additional audio content that is different from the audio content, the additional audio content selected based on identification of the audio content (Col.3 lines 27-59, Col.6 lines 25-34 and Col.7 lines 30-45: Guindi discloses how the system select a sound processing program configured to optimize the music content (i.e. additional audio content) even if the non-music content is more dominant within the audio signal; and how an audio detection device configured to detect an audio signal which include, audio content such as music, speech, etc. presented to a user of hearing device).
Guindi does not explicitly teach applying one or more filters to one or more audio
channels based on a location of the playback device resulting in spatialized audio that is used to
drive speakers of the head-worn device.
Ma teaches applying one or more filters to one or more audio channels based on a
location (e.g., The hybrid beamforming signal 109 is useful for enhancing certain information
carried by the target sound source 460 and for the hearing aid user's situational awareness such
as awareness of room acoustics and interfering/off-axis sound sources 461, col 21, lines 50-65)
of the playback device resulting in spatialized audio that is used to drive speakers of the head-
worn device (fig. 2-3, fig. 6-7, col. 18, line 61 to col. 19, line 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ma into the teachings of Guindi in order
to provide a flexible way to achieve speech intelligibility improvement by strong beamforming,
i.e. applying a high directivity index, in a noisy listening environment and mitigate "tunnel
hearing" "sensation in less adverse listening environments via a controllable level of off-axis
acoustic signal sources placed outside the target direction or target range such as to the sides of
and behind the user.
Regarding claim 19. Guindi teaches a head-worn device having; one or more
microphones that produce one or more microphone signals, speakers, and a processor (see the
abstract), configured to perform the following: determining that a playback device, a distance
away from a user wearing the head-worn device, is outputting audio content from one or more
speakers of the playback device (fig. 2-3, col. 5, lines 22-34); determining that the one or more
microphone signals includes the audio content that is output by the one or more speakers of
the playback device (fig. 2-3, col. 5, lines 22-34), wherein the one or more audio channels include additional audio content that is different from the audio content, the additional audio content selected based on identification of the audio content (Col.3 lines 27-59, Col.6 lines 25-34 and Col.7 lines 30-45: Guindi discloses how the system select a sound processing program configured to optimize the music content (i.e. additional audio content) even if the non-music content is more dominant within the audio signal; and how an audio detection device configured to detect an audio signal which include, audio content such as music, speech, etc. presented to a user of hearing device).
Guindi does not explicitly teach applying one or more filters to one or more audio
channels based on a location of the playback device resulting in spatialized audio that is used to
drive speakers of the head-worn device.
Ma teaches applying one or more filters to one or more audio channels based on a
location (e.g., The hybrid beamforming signal 109 is useful for enhancing certain information
carried by the target sound source 460 and for the hearing aid user's situational awareness such
as awareness of room acoustics and interfering/off-axis sound sources 461, col 21, lines 50-65)
of the playback device resulting in spatialized audio that is used to drive speakers of the head-
worn device (fig. 2-3, fig. 6-7, col. 18, line 61 to col. 19, line 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ma into the teachings of Guindi in order
to provide a flexible way to achieve speech intelligibility improvement by strong beamforming,
i.e. applying a high directivity index, in a noisy listening environment and mitigate "tunnel
hearing" "sensation in less adverse listening environments via a controllable level of off-axis
acoustic signal sources placed outside the target direction or target range such as to the sides of
and behind the user.
3. Claim(s) 2-3, 11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Guindi et al (10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933) as applied to claims 1, 19 above, and
further in view of Robinson et al (US 2022/0322023).
Consider claim 2. Guidin in view of Ma does not teach applying the one or more filters to
the one or more audio channels gives the spatialized audio a virtual location that appears to
originate from the location of the playback device.
Robinson further teaches applying the one or more filters to the one or more audio
channels gives the spatialized audio a virtual location that appears to originate from the location
of the playback device (The binaural signal generated by the audio system is such that each
sound source appears to the user to originate from the respective virtual position, para 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Robinson into the teachings of Guidin in
view of Ma in order to provide binaural signal being such that each sound source appears to the
user to originate from the respective virtual position.
Consider claim 3. Robinson further teaches wherein the one or more filters are applied to
the one or more audio channels such that the spatialized audio has a plurality of virtual locations
that appears to have a plurality of fixed positions surrounding a wearer of the head-worn device
(The audio system may update the first spatial filters (e.g., the first pair of HRTFs) based on a
movement of a head of the user so that each sound source appears to originate from the
respective virtual position that is fixed within the sound scene, para 0074-0075).
Consider claim 11. Robinson further teaches adjusting the one or more filters based on a
tracked head position that is determined based on one or more sensors of the head-worn device
(The audio controller 150 may generate a binaural signal that originates from more than two
sound sources such that the binaural signal appears to the user of the audio system to originate
from respective virtual positions of sound sources within a sound scene around the headset 100,
para 0028), to compensate for the tracked head position of a user (The position
sensor 190 generates one or more measurement signals in response to motion of the headset 100,
para 0033; para 0074-0075).
Consider claim 20. Robinson further teaches wherein the one or more filters are applied
to the one or more audio channels such that the spatialized audio has a virtual location that is
perceived by a wearer of the head-worn device to originate from a location of the playback
device (see para 0003).
4. Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Guindi et al (10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
of McPherson et al (EP 3,232,690).
Consider claim 4. Guindi in view of Ma does not explicitly teach determining that the
playback device is outputting audio content includes obtaining information from the playback
device or a separate media device that identifies the audio content that is output by the playback
device.
McPherson teaches determining that the playback device is outputting audio content
includes obtaining information from the playback device or a separate media device that
identifies the audio content that is output by the playback device (audio content, para 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of McPherson into the teachings of Guindi
in view of Ma, so that to improve a listening experience in the room.
Consider claim 5. McPherson further teaches wherein the one or more filters are applied
to the one or more audio channels in response to determining that the microphone signal includes
the audio content (At 804, an indication of the audio content may be detected, steps 802-810, fig.
8).
5. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable El Guindi et al (10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Hassager et al (US2021/0099826).
Consider claim 6. Guindi in view of Ma does not teach determining that the head-worn
device is oriented towards the playback device based on an inertial measurement unit (IMU) or
one or more images produced by a camera, wherein the one or more filters are applied to the one
or more audio channels in response to determining that the head-worn device is oriented towards
the playback device.
Hassager teaches determining that the head-worn device is oriented towards the playback
device based on an inertial measurement unit (IMU) or one or more images produced by a
camera, wherein the one or more filters are applied to the one or more audio channels in response
to determining that the head-worn device is oriented towards the playback device (the position
sensor integrated into a headset device may determine the head orientation of a user wearing the
headset device, para 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Hassager into the teachings of Guindi in
view of Ma, so that the dynamically updated HRTF model is utilized by the audio system for
presentation of spatialized audio content to the user.
6. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Guindi et al
(10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Tajik et al (US2021/0084357).
Consider claim 7. Guindi in view of Ma does not teach the one or more filters are
applied to the one or more audio channels in response to determining that one or more speakers
of the playback device are blocked, positioned incorrectly, or outputting the audio content
incorrectly.
Tajik teaches the one or more filters are applied to the one or more audio channels in
response to determining that one or more speakers of the playback device are blocked, positioned
incorrectly, or outputting the audio content incorrectly (Stage 690 can incorporate any suitable
mixing techniques to generate these audio signals. In some examples, the system 112 can include
non-occluding speakers which will naturally present real sounds from the environment in
addition to the reflected audio signal output. However, in some examples, the system 112 can
include occluding speakers (e.g., over-the-ear headphones, noise-canceling headphones, or
earbuds with silicone seals) that occlude real sounds from the environment, para 0091, fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Tajik into the teachings of Guindi and
Ma, so that to present audio signals to a user of a mixed reality environment.
7. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Guindi et al
(10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Hoffmann et al (10,721,580).
Consider claim 8. Guindi in view of Ma does not explicitly teach synchronizing the
spatialized audio with the audio content that is present in the microphone signal, based on a time
of flight of the audio content from the playback device to the head-worn device.
Hoffmann teaches synchronizing the spatialized audio with the audio content that is
present in the microphone signal, based on a time of flight (e.g., delay) of the audio content from
the playback device to the head-worn device (col. 3, line 56 to col. 4, line 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Hoffmann into the teachings of Guindi
in view of Ma in order to provide techniques and system architectures allow for an audio
system that can provide neutral audio reproduction and may operate independently of the
audio source material and the amount of background noise.
8. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable El Guindi et al
(10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
of Mohapatra et al (US2021/0127223).
Consider claim 9. Guindi in view of Ma does not teach presenting a prompt to a display
of the head-worn device and receiving an input indicating to play the spatialized audio through
the speakers of the head-worn device.
Mohapatra teaches presenting a prompt to a display of the head-worn device and
receiving an input indicating to play the spatialized audio through the speakers of the head-worn
device (FIG. 8 illustrates a further UI 800. A prompt 802 may be presented for the user
to select from a list 804 a desired speaker setup (and, hence, a generic HRTF), para 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Mohapatra into the teachings of Guindi
and Ma in order to provide a personalized HRTF for a person making the indication (para 0004
of Mohapatra).
9. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Guindi et al (10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
of Fischer et al (US2008/0205659).
Consider claim 10. Guindi in view of Ma does not teach adjusting a loudness of an
output of the speakers of the head-worn device based on a loudness of the audio content that is
output by the playback device or sensed by the microphone.
Fischer teaches adjusting a loudness of an output of the speakers based on a loudness of
the audio content that is output by the playback device or sensed by the microphone (a desired
spatial perception can be achieved in a simple manner depending on the loudness, para 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Fischer into the teachings of Guindi and
Ma in order to provide a method and a corresponding hearing apparatus by means of which
improved spatial perception is possible.
10. Claim(s) 12-13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El
Guindi et al (10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933) as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of Solum et al (US2018/0124526).
Consider claim 12. Guindi in view of Ma does not teach determining whether the one or
more audio channels are available to play for the audio content, wherein in response to the one or
more audio channels being present, the one or more filters are applied to the one or more audio
channels resulting in spatialized audio that is used to drive the speakers of the head-worn
device.
Solum teaches determining whether the one or more audio channels are available to play
for the audio content, wherein in response to the one or more audio channels being present, the
one or more filters are applied to the one or more audio channels resulting in spatialized audio
that is used to drive speakers (e.g., the SAP or Second Audio program, para 0039; different
languages, 0061; HRTF, 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Solum into the teachings of Guindi and
Ma, so that to enhance the hearing experience of the user.
Consider claim 13. Solum further teaches one or more audio channels includes a
language that is different from a language of the audio content (e.g., the SAP or Second Audio
program, para 0039; different languages, 0061; HRTF, 0063).
Consider claim 18. Solum further teaches wherein in response to the playback device not
outputting unsupported audio channels of the audio content (the SAP or Second Audio program,
para 0039), the unsupported audio channels are included in the one or more audio channels such
that, in playback of the spatialized audio, the unsupported audio channels have one or more
corresponding virtual locations in a listening area (HRTF, 0063).
11. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Guindi et al (10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
of Hameed et al (7,752,050).
Consider claim 14. Guindi in view of Ma does not teach wherein the audio content is
output by the playback device without dialogue, and each of a plurality of head-worn devices
separately select respective one or more audio channels for presenting to a respective user.
Hameed teaches wherein the audio content is output by the playback device without
dialogue, and each of a plurality of head-worn devices separately select respective one or more
audio channels for presenting to a respective user (fig. 5-6, step 601, 606-607: channel A < Ta,
channel B > Tb, select channel B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Hameed into the teachings of Guindi and
Ma, so that the selector selectively determines whether recognized speech associated with the
first channel or recognized speech associated with the second channel is used to control the
device, by applying a selection priority to the first and second channels.
12. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Guindi et
al (10,728,676) in view of Ma et al (10,715,933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
of Sim et al (US2021/0219089).
Consider claim 17. Guindi in view of Ma does not teach the one or more audio channels
includes dialogue and a loudness of the dialogue is increased in the spatialized audio when used
to drive the speakers of the head-worn device.
Sim teaches wherein the one or more audio channels includes dialogue and a loudness of
the dialogue is increased in the spatialized audio when used to drive the speakers of the head-
worn device (accomplished preferably by processing the music audio stream with new HRTFs or
BRTFs increases the volume of the music in relation to the voice communication signal. The
voice signal may simultaneously in some embodiments be increased in distance from the listener
head 105, again either from the selection of captured HRTF/BRTF values or interpolated, para
0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Sim into the teachings of Guindi and Ma
in order to provide personalized spatial audio transfer functions to create more realistic audio
rendering over headphones.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argued, the prior arts of the record fail to discloses “to drive additional audio content that is different from, let alone selected based on identification of, audio content in the environment”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants’ own specification discloses how an additional audio content can be “dialogue, factoids, music, or other audio content” (applicant specification Paragraph: 0007). The prior arts of the record also disclose how the system select a sound processing program configured to optimize the music content (i.e. additional audio content) even if the non-music content is more dominant within the audio signal; and how an audio detection device configured to detect an audio signal (i.e. based on identification of, audio content) which include, audio content such as music, speech, etc. presented to a user of hearing device (Guindi : Col.3 lines 27-59 and Col.7 lines 30-45). Therefore, the prior arts of the record disclose the argued claims limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5149. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30 M-F.
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.
/YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
02/09/2026