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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/22/26 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 10 sets forth vector amplitude transcoding which appears to be referring to virtual vector base panning as disclosed. Consistent terminology between the written disclosure and the claims should be used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for having an emitter(s) at vertex locations that correspond to a virtual speaker, the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for wherein “each location” corresponds to a virtual speaker position as set forth. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Note that the claim sets forth there in a mono input (MI) emitter position at one or more locations and that each location corresponds to a virtual speaker. As disclosed it appears that there can be one or more locations in which an emitter is positioned. These locations appear to be anywhere within a modeling vector space. However, only the vertices of a modeling vector space correspond to a virtual speaker position. See for example paragraph [0035] of applicants’ disclosure. There isn’t a virtual speaker located within the modeling vector space. The limitations of claims 2-15 inherit this language of claim 1.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2016/0080883 A1).
Re claim 1: Yamamoto et al. teaches a method for providing a spatial audio signal representative of physical sound to a listener, the method comprising:
receiving position information associated with each input signal input from a mono input (MI) emitter positioned at one or more locations in a modeling vector space, wherein each location corresponds to a virtual speaker position (paragraph [0039], position of VSP1 figure 1, Vsp2 location, paragraph [0048], figure 2; along with figure 11). Also, note for example in figure 4 there is a modeling space defined by virtual speakers (Sp1-SP4) at vertex locations and a input emitter satisfied by VSP3.;
routing each input signal to one or more locations in the modeling vector space based on a proximity of the received position information to each location, the routing being configured into one or more stereo pairs and the gains of the output routing being based on the orientation data of a head of the listener (note the routing is performed by the operation including a VBAP (vector based amplitude panning to adjust gains used by the speakers (for example paragraph [0088] with these calculations based on a users head orientation (i.e. position of a head of a user (paragraphs [0039, 0048,0067 along with figures 5, 6); and
generating one or more output channels based on the routing (routing audio to those speakers being used, for example paragraph [0037]).
Re claim 2: see for example figure 1 in which VSP1 is located on a line segment between SP1 and SP2 wherein at this VSP1 location the position information compared to the line segment would provide a distance of approximately zero since VSP1 is located on the line segment
Re claim 3: note for example in figure 4 a plane can be formed between each of the locations of speakers (SP1-SP4) and when the position of VSP3 is located on this plane the distance between the plane and location of VSP3 would be approximately zero
Re claim 10: the claimed vector amplitude transcoding is deemed taught by the vector based amplitude panning (VBAP) in paragraph [0088]
Re claim 11: the nearest routing of the input signals is satisfied by those speakers (SP3 and SP4) as discussed in paragraph [0088]
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. in view of Lemieux et al. (US 9,197,979 B2).
Re claim 5: the teaching of Yamamoto is discussed above and incorporated herein. In Yamamoto, the modeling space can be in the form of a rectangle (figure 4) but does not teach that this space can be a square. Lemieux et al. teaches in a similar environment that the modeling space can be in the form of a square (column 12, lines 22-32) as alternative modeling space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Lemieux et al. into the arrangement of Yamamoto to predictably provide an alternative modeling shape including a square shape for audio processing. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 6: the teaching of Yamamoto is discussed above and incorporated herein. In Yamamoto, the modeling space can be in the form of a rectangle (figure 4) but does not teach that this space can be a cube. Lemieux et al. teaches in a similar environment that the modeling space can be any shape (column 12, lines 22-32) which would include a cube shape, as alternative modeling space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Lemieux et al. into the arrangement of Yamamoto to predictably provide an alternative modeling shape including a cube shape for audio processing. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. in view of Gore et al. (US 2017/0281069 A1).
Re claim 12: The teaching of Yamamoto et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Yamamoto et al. does not teach to use an inertial measurement unit (IMU) to measure data related to head orientation. Gore et al. teaches that IMU units are known (see discussion in paragraph [0073] along with figure 9) to detect a uses head position including a head tilt. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such an IMU unit as taught by Gore et al. into the arrangement of Yamamoto et al. to predictably provide additional information related to a user’s head position including a user’s head tilt. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 13: see paragraph [0073] of Gore et al. providing detailed elements of IMU for determining head tilt
Re claim 14: See discussion in paragraph [0073] of Gore et al. teaching that the IMU (932) is mounted on headphones (910)
Re claim 15: the types of orientation as set forth can be satisfied by a teaching of any one of a variety of movements including one movement such as acceleration taught by Gore et al. (paragraph [0073])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable over the art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed method as set forth in claim 1 that further comprises routing each input signal to the locations that define a volume in the modeling vector space for each MI emitter position that is not on a point, line segment, or plane of channel points locations as set forth in claim 4 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed method as set forth in claim 1 that further comprises 12 locations, 14, locations and 38 locations as set forth in claims 7, 8 and 9 respectively is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/22/26, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments made to the claims in the request for continued examination filed 7/22/26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ohashi teaches another arrangement for sound field control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 9/3/26
Prosecution Insights