DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states “wherein the wearable audio device is configured to determine an absolute position and head orientation of the wearable audio device based solely on the measured angles of incidence and a known distance between the light beacons”. There is no mention in the original disclosure of determining anything “based solely on” the measured angles and a known distance between the light beacons. This includes determining the claimed absolute position and head orientation of the wearable audio device.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected in an analogous manner.
Claims 2-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected as inheriting the problems as above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With respect to the independent claims 1, 6, and 17, regarding Wands factors:
(A) The breadth of the claims and (B) The nature of the invention:
The independent claims are fairly focused on a location/orientation determination method for a wearable device using a pair of light beacons set a fixed distance apart and subsequently rendering spatial audio based on the angles of incidence;
(C) The state of the prior art and (D) The level of one of ordinary skill:
Various algorithms for location/orientation determination are widely well known. Light angle sensors and light beacons are widely known. One of ordinary skill would have been able to implement location/orientation determination algorithms given light sensors and beacons as tools;
(E) The level of predictability in the art:
One of ordinary skill would have been able to predictably implement a proper algorithm and/or implementation plan;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor and (G) The existence of working examples:
The specification states “The absolute position (distance) can be determined using triangulation” (paragraph [0067]). Other than that no explicit direction is given on how to make the location or orientation determinations. See the “Response to Arguments” section as to why triangulation does not work with the claim language as interpreted by the examiner. There is no proof of working examples of that include the “based solely on” limitation as found in the independent claims; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
A great amount of experimentation would be required to make or use the invention of the independent claims. In fact the examiner argues it is not possible to make the determinations of the independent claims, as explained below in the “Response to Arguments” section below.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could not make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
Claims 2-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected as being dependent on the above independent claims and have not overcome the deficiency which they inherit from their base claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous drawing and claim objections.
In general applicant argues that the amendments to the previous claims are not found in prior art (see applicant’s arguments dated May 1st, 2026, starting page 6). A new ground of rejection has been established as above.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “wherein the wearable audio device is configured to determine an absolute position and head orientation of the wearable audio device based solely on the measured angles of incidence and a known distance between the light beacons”. The specification refers to “absolute position (distance) and head orientation (pan angle)” in paragraph [0031].
The examiner is interpreting the “absolute position” broadly as any distance measure between the wearable device and a beacon or the beacon source device since this distance is not well defined. There is no true “absolute position” because even if GPS is used, the earth is spinning and rotating the sun, the solar system has an ever moving place in the galaxy and so on. The examiner is interpreting the ‘head orientation” as an angle of the wearable device with respect to the line segment made between both light beacons. For example, in applicant’s figure 3B device 106a of user 300 is at an orientation of about 0 degrees while 106a’ of user 300’ is at about 45 degrees.
The examiner is interpreting claim 1 as being a single wearable device using a single light angle sensor and exactly two (a pair) light beacons. Using multiple wearable devices or light sensors would require a known distance between them in order to make any useful calculations, and therefore would not meet the “solely” criteria of claim 1.
It is the examiner’s position that triangulation cannot be used, given the known and measured data, to find the stated distance or orientation. See the examiner’s figure below. The pair of light beacons are located at points A and B which are a distance D apart. The measured angles of incidents are X and Y at the light sensor at point O (or some form of X and Y rotated/shifted by an integer multiple of 90 degrees). Angle Z is calculable as Z = 180 – X – Y degrees. Meaning only two pieces of information (length D and angle Z) are known about triangle ABO, wherein three pieces of information are needed for triangulation (given length D, one of: 1) two angles, 2) two other side lengths, or 3) one angle and one other side length).
Looking at the diagram, one can see for any given length D and any angles of incidence X and Y, keeping D, X, Y, and Z constant, one could change angle W to any angle, and find points on vectors OA’ and OB’ to fit points A and B. For example a slight increase of angle W would raise up point B and lower point A slightly, but length D and angles X, Y, Z do not change. Meaning for any given length D and any angles of incidence X and Y there are multiple distance/orientation pairs that correspond. Therefore one cannot “determine an absolute position and head orientation of the wearable audio device based solely on the measured angles of incidence and a known distance between the light beacons”.
PNG
media_image1.png
809
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant states independent claims 6 and 17 are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1, and the dependent claims are allowable because they depend from allowable independent claims (see applicant’s arguments dated May 1st, 2026, page 8). The examiner’s remarks with respect to independent claim 1 applies to the other independent claims, and the dependent claims are not blanketly allowable as being dependent on allowable claims. The examiner has handled each dependent claim as found in the above rejections above.
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 DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 pm.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights