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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 01/26/2026.
Claims 2-21 have been cancelled. New Claims 22-40 have been added.
Claims 1 and 22-40 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2nd paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determined location of the user” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 22-29 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
AIA Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 25-32, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,756,446 B2 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0264503 A1 to Hall et al. (“Hall”).
Regarding Claim 1, (Currently Amended) Johnson discloses a computer-implemented method
providing, for output by right and left loudspeakers an audio calibration signal,
receiving (i) data representing the audio calibration signal as detected by a left microphone that is worn on a left ear of a user, and (ii) data representing the audio calibration signal as detected by a right microphone that is worn on a right ear of the user 22A is positioned to represent the right ear of the listener 6, the microphone 22B is positioned to represent the left ear of the listener 6… see also claim 9 discloses positioning a first set of microphones in a room, wherein the first set of microphones are positioned to simulate a location of the left ear of a listener; positioning a second set of microphones in the room, wherein the second set of microphones are positioned to simulate a location of the right ear of the listener);
determining a respective location of each of the left microphone and the right microphone right and left loudspeakers based on the received data representing the audio calibration signal as detected by the left microphone and the right microphone (Col. 10:20-22 discloses The crosstalk canceller 16 generates one or more beam pattern matrices for a set of frequencies based on the location of the listener 6 in the room 7 … and uses microphone acoustic responses to develop a transfer function characterizing relationship between loudspeakers and the microphone positions, see Claim 9 “determining a transfer function for the room”); and
adjusting, for each of the right and left loudspeakers, a signal processing filter that is applied to audio signals that are sent to the loudspeakers at least on the determined location of the user
Although Johnson discloses microphones being positioned to simulate a location of the right ear and left ear of the listener, it does not explicitly disclose “worn on”.
In a related invention, Hall discloses the “worn on” element (fig. 2, … ¶ [0017] discloses by position determinator 262 can receive position data 140 from wearable devices such as, a wearable data-capable band 212 or a headset 214, both of which can communicate via a wireless communications path). Hall further discloses that the audio device implementing the crosstalk filter adjuster can be implemented in one or more computing devices (i.e., any mobile computing device, such as a wearable device, an audio device (such as headphones or a headset) or mobile phone, whether worn or carried) that include one or more processors configured to execute one or more algorithms in memory" (Hall, ¶ [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Johnson’s ear-position microphones with microphones integrated into an ear-worn device (such as a headset or earbuds) as taught by Hall. The motivation to do so would have been to allow continuous and dynamic calibration as the listener moves (rather than the one-time calibration of Johnson in which the microphones are then removed), and to provide accurate measurement at the actual position of the user's ears rather than a simulated position. The combination would have yielded predictable results because the function of the microphones — capturing the acoustic signal at the position of each ear — is identical in both arrangements.
Regarding Claim 25, and similarly recited Claim 36, (New) Johnson in view of Hall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein providing, for output by right and left loudspeakers, an audio calibration signal comprises providing, for output by right and left loudspeakers, the audio calibration signal on a periodic basis during use of a video gaming system (Hall, ¶ [0019] discloses update parameter manager 315 is configured to dynamically monitor the position of the listener at a sufficient frame rate, such as at (e.g., 30 fps) if using video, and correspondingly activate filter parameter generator 313 to generate update data configure to change operation of the crosstalk filter as an update" (Hall, ¶ [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Hall's periodic update mechanism to the Johnson-based calibration process to maintain crosstalk cancellation accuracy as the listener moves during use.
Regarding Claim 26, and similarly recited Claim 37, (New) Johnson in view of Hall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 25, wherein providing, for output by right and left loudspeakers, the audio calibration signal comprises:
determining a pause during the use of the video gaming system (Hall, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020]); and
providing, for output by the right and the left loudspeakers, the audio calibration signal during the pause of the video gaming system (Hall, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 27, and similarly recited Claim 38, (New) Johnson in view of Hall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 25, wherein providing, for output by right and left loudspeakers, an audio calibration signal comprises providing, for output by right and left loudspeakers, the audio calibration signal during the use of a video gaming system by in- game audio (Hall, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 28, and similarly recited Claim 39, (New) Johnson in view of Hall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 27, wherein the in-game audio comprises at least one of music, dialogue, sound effects, or other audio played during the use of the video gaming system (Johnson, Col. 9:30-55).
Regarding Claim 29, (New) Johnson in view of Hall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 27, further comprises:
determining a current stage of gameplay during the use of the video gaming system (Hall, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020]);
selecting a portion of the in-game audio to utilize as the audio calibration signal (Hall, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020]);
receiving (i) data representing the portion of the in-game audio as detected by the left microphone that is worn on the left ear of the user and (ii) data representing the portion of the in- game audio as detected by the right microphone that is worn on the right ear of the user (Hall, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020]); and
determining the respective location of each of the left microphone and the right microphone relative to the right and left loudspeakers based on the received data representing the portion of the in-game audio as detected by the left microphone and the right microphone (Hall, ¶¶ [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 30, (New) Johnson in view of Hall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the audio calibration signal comprises an ultrasound signal (¶ [0017] discloses position determinator 262 can detect of an approximate position of listener 208 using ultrasonic energy 205 to scan for occupants in a room, as well as approximate locations thereof). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ultrasonic calibration signals in the Johnson/Hall system in order to perform location calibration without producing audible disturbance to the user.
Regarding Claim 31, (New) Johnson in view of Hall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein adjusting, for each of the right and left loudspeakers, a signal processing filter that is applied to audio signals that are sent to the loudspeakers based at least on the determined location of the user comprises:
determining a crosstalk correction based at least on the determined location of the user (Johnson, see Abstract; Hall, see Abstract, ¶¶ [0014]-[0017]); and
applying the crosstalk correction to the audio signals that are sent to the loudspeakers based at least on the determined location of the user (Johnson, see Abstract; Hall, see Abstract, ¶¶ [0014]-[0017]).
Regarding Claim 32, and similarly recited Claim 40, it recites substantially the same operations of Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. In addition. Johnson also discloses one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations (Hall, ¶¶ [0023]-[0024]).
Claims 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Johnson in view of Hall, as recited in Clam 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0016642 A1 to Walsh et al. (“Walsh”).
Regarding Claim 22, and similarly recited Claim 33, (New) Johnson in view of Hall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the audio calibration signal comprises a wideband audio signal that comprises a range of 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz.
In a related invention, Walsh discloses wherein the audio calibration signal comprises a wideband audio signal that comprises a range of 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz (Walsh discloses the use of wideband test signals such as "a maximum length sequence (MLS), a chirp signal, also known as the logarithmic sine sweep (LSS) signal, or other test tones" for room impulse response measurement (Walsh, ¶ [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wideband (20 Hz – 20,000 Hz) calibration signal in the Johnson/Hall system to ensure accurate impulse response characterization across the entire frequency range of the loudspeaker output, as is conventional in loudspeaker calibration.
Regarding Claim 23, and similarly recited Claim 34, (New) Johnson in view of Hall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining a respective location of each of the left microphone and the right microphone relative to the right and left loudspeakers based on the received data representing the audio calibration signal as detected by the left microphone and the right microphone comprises:
determining a first time of flight measurement between providing the audio calibration signal by the left and right loudspeakers and receiving the data representing the audio calibration signal as detected by the left microphone; and
determining a second time of flight measurement between providing the audio calibration signal by the left and right loudspeakers and receiving the data representing the audio calibration signal as detected by the right microphone.
In a related invention, Walsh discloses wherein determining a respective location of each of the left microphone and the right microphone relative to the right and left loudspeakers based on the received data representing the audio calibration signal as detected by the left microphone and the right microphone comprises:
determining a first time of flight measurement between providing the audio calibration signal by the left and right loudspeakers and receiving the data representing the audio calibration signal as detected by the left microphone (the distance between a loudspeaker and a microphone is estimated by playing a test signal and measuring the time of flight (TOF) between the emitting loudspeaker and the receiving microphone. The time delay of the direct component of a measured impulse response can be used for this purpose (Walsh, ¶ [0048]). Walsh further discloses that "[t]he impulse response between the loudspeaker and a microphone array element can be obtained by playing a test signal through the loudspeaker under analysis" (Walsh, ¶ [0048])); and
determining a second time of flight measurement between providing the audio calibration signal by the left and right loudspeakers and receiving the data representing the audio calibration signal as detected by the right microphone (the distance between a loudspeaker and a microphone is estimated by playing a test signal and measuring the time of flight (TOF) between the emitting loudspeaker and the receiving microphone. The time delay of the direct component of a measured impulse response can be used for this purpose (Walsh, ¶ [0048]). Walsh further discloses that "[t]he impulse response between the loudspeaker and a microphone array element can be obtained by playing a test signal through the loudspeaker under analysis" (Walsh, ¶ [0048])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Walsh's TOF measurement technique in the Johnson/Hall system as the specific mechanism for determining the location of each microphone (i.e., the left and right ear-worn microphones) relative to the left and right loudspeakers. The motivation would have been to use a well-known, accurate, and computationally efficient distance estimation technique.
Regarding Claim 24, and similarly recited Claim 35, (New) Johnson in view of Hall and further in view of Walsh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 23, wherein determining a respective location of each of the left microphone and the right microphone relative to the right and left loudspeakers based on the received data representing the audio calibration signal as detected by the left microphone and the right microphone comprises triangulating the respective location of each of the left microphone and the right microphone relative to the right and left loudspeakers based on the first time of flight measurement and the second time of flight measurement (the distance between a loudspeaker and a microphone is estimated by playing a test signal and measuring the time of flight (TOF) between the emitting loudspeaker and the receiving microphone. The time delay of the direct component of a measured impulse response can be used for this purpose (Walsh, ¶ [0048]). Walsh further discloses that "[t]he impulse response between the loudspeaker and a microphone array element can be obtained by playing a test signal through the loudspeaker under analysis" (Walsh, ¶ [0048])).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the cancellations of claims 2-21 and the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments. Additionally, the arguments do not apply to any of the references used in the current rejection.
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 SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights