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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on April 9, 2026 and March 19, 2026 have been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application. Claims 1-12 are currently amended. No claims have been canceled. No new claims are currently added.
Response to Arguments
With regard to Applicant’s remarks dated March 19, 2026:
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered and are sufficient. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue that “while the process disclosed in Yamashita may be used to authenticate a user, it is not used to characterize a user as a human user who is suitable for accessing the service rather than a machine based on the relationship between the virtual sound source position and the perceived sound source position, as required in the claimed embodiments.” Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made in view of the newly discovered references.
As to any arguments not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 2015/0304790 A1) in view of Jain et al. (US 2019/0172468 A1).
As to claim 1, Yamashita teaches a method for providing a service to a user [unlocking the HMD to validate a function such as content viewing] (Fig. 14, par. [0009]-[0010]), the method being implemented by a processor of a service provision device and comprising:
exchanging data with a communication terminal of a user [reproducing sound data toward user] (step S209, par. [0161]);
comparing first data, associated with a first sound object spatialized at a first location of an audio scene spatialized by a user interface of the communication terminal [comparing a first position of the virtual sound source set, step S113] (par. [0128]), with second data received following a reproduction of the spatialized first sound object [with second position indicated by the reply acquired in step S111] (par. [0128]), the first data being distinct from the first sound object (par. [0054]-[0055], [0125]), the second data being based on a spatialized second sound object perceived at a second location of the spatialized audio scene (par. [0127]);
in response a positive result of the comparing, triggering a characterization of an interaction source of the service as an [authorized] user who is suitable for accessing the service [when it is determined in step S113 that the position indicated by the reply matches the position of the virtual sound source, the determination unit determines “unlocking success” and validates the function] (par. [0129]); and
when the interaction source is characterized as an [authorized] user who is suitable for accessing the service, providing the service to the communication terminal of the [authorized] user [starting up the function] (par. [0177]-[0178]).
Yamashita fails to teach that the characterization of the interaction source of the service as the authorized user includes characterization of the interaction source as a human user rather than a machine.
Jain is directed to a conversational challenge-response system for enhanced security in voice only devices (abstract). In particular, Jain teaches in response to a positive result of comparing received sound data, triggering a characterization of an interaction source as a human user who is suitable for accessing the service rather than a machine [perform an action associated with the user command if it is determined that at least one of the user voice answer inputs correspond to an answer associated with one of the audible queries. Such a method may appropriately distinguish between human input and machine input provided to a voice-only device lacking a display] (par. [0017]-[0018], [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Yamashita by triggering a characterization of an interaction source as a human user who is suitable for accessing the service rather than a machine, in order to augment the process of authenticating the user by the process of distinguishing the authenticated used from a machine as disclosed by Jain such that to make sure that the head mount display HMD is operated by an authorized human and not manipulated by a machine or other undesired entity (par. [0001] in Jain).
As to claim 2, Yamashita teaches that the first data and the second data belong to one of the following data types: a location parameter of a spatialized sound object; a category of sound object generating source; an answer to a question voiced in a sound object [position of the sound source in the three-dimensional acoustic space R (par. [0055]-[0056]).
As to claim 3, Yamashita teaches reproducing an interaction request at the first spatialized sound object, the interaction request being intended for the interaction source, and the second data are data received following the reproduction of said interaction request [reproducing a sound giving multiple options to respond to and receiving a response from the user] (par. [0191]).
As to claim 4, Yamashita teaches that the interaction request comprises a type of the second data expected during an interaction with the user interface [sounds data for “adult”, “child”, “male” and “female” attributes] (par. [0191]-[0192]).
As to claim 5, Yamashita teaches that the interaction request further comprises the second location of the second spatialized sound object, the second location corresponding to the first location [setting one of nine positions in the 3D acoustic space V corresponding to the nine options as the position of the virtual sound source] (par. [0102]).
As to claim 6, Yamashita teaches characterizing of at least one of the following elements: the service implemented by the service provision device; and a device from among the following devices: the communication terminal; a local or network processing device; a service provision device; and a communication network equipment to which a communication terminal of the user is connected [the system characterizes the user as someone who is validated to use a function such as content viewing by unlocking the HMD] (par. [0108]).
As to claim 7, Yamashita teaches that the method comprises a check implemented by the user interface, the check checking the user interface by using a command for spatialized reproduction comprising the first sound object and the first location [direction/menu buttons for inputting user’s reply] (par. [0114]-[0115], Fig. 9).
As to claim 8, Yamashita teaches that the check triggers an activation of a capture of data by the user interface, the captured data comprising the second data received (par. [0114]-[0115], Fig. 9).
As to claim 12, Yamashita teaches that the comparison result is positive when the first data and the second data are based on a same location, the first location of the first spatialized sound object associated with the first data being identical to the second location of the second spatialized sound object associated with the second data (par. [0128]).
As to claim 9, Yamashita teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a program stored thereon comprising program code instructions for executing a method for providing a service to a user when said program is executed by a processor of a service provisioning device (par. [0235]), wherein the method comprises steps, as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claim 10, Yamashita teaches a service provision device for providing a service to a user (par. [0221]), the service provision device comprising: a processor (par. [0224]); and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon (par. [0235]) which when executed by the processor configure the service provision device to perform the method steps, as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claim 11, Yamashita teaches a service provision device (par. [0221]), the service provision device comprising: a processor (par. [0224]) capable of implementing at least one service [processor is inherently capable of implementing a service if programmed accordingly];
an exchange interface for exchanges with a communication terminal of a user (par. [0106], [0107]); and
a device for characterizing a user of the service, comprising a comparator of first data [determination unit 119] (par. [0108]) that performs functionality as discussed per claim 1 above, and commanding the processor to implement the service [validate a function such as content viewing (par. [0108]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights