DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 8/18/2025:
Claims 21-40 are pending
Claims 1-20 are cancelled
Double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of accepted TD filed 1/8/2026
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicants remarks and amendments made towards claims 21-30 and 35-40 are persuasive and therefore the rejections are withdrawn. However, it would appear that similar amendments were left off for claims 31-34 and therefore claims 31-34 remain rejected.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al (US20220312143, hereinafter “Nakagawa”) in view of Karkkainen et al (US20190357000, hereinafter “Karkkainen”).
Regarding claim 31, Nakagawa teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (¶61, processing in conjunction with memory storing instructions to execute the method of acoustic processing (¶1)) storing instructions, for modifying an audio content, that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to:
obtain the audio content (Fig. 1, user receives audio content to be played);
determining, by one or more processors, acoustic properties of a local area of a receiving client device (¶77-78, acoustic properties of the local area of the user is determined);
transform, by the one or more processors the audio content, based at least in part on the acoustic properties of the local area of the receiving client device (¶82, audio content is modified in accordance with the determined acoustic properties of the local area), wherein the transforming comprises:
modifying the audio content by applying one or more transfer functions to the audio content based on the acoustic properties of the local area (¶46, using transfer functions to modified the acoustic parameters); and
playing the modified audio content with a playback system of the receiving client device (¶82, modified audio content played back to the user).
Nakagawa fails to explicitly teach determining a predicted position of the receiving client device in the local area of the receiving client device; and
modifying the audio content by applying one or more transfer functions to the audio content based on the predicted position.
Karkkainen teaches determining a predicted position of the receiving client device in the local area of the receiving client device (¶42, tracking the user wearing the head-mounted device in the local environment to determine modifications for the audio to be played); and
modifying the audio content by applying one or more transfer functions to the audio content based on the predicted position (¶43, audio is modified according to the predicted position of the user wearing the head-mounted device using well-known HRTFs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of user head-tracking (as taught by Karkkainen) to the audio processing device (as taught by Nakagawa). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of improving the listening experience of the user by not only modifying the audio content based on the listening environment but also a user’s position within said environment (Karkkainen, ¶32).
Regarding claim 32, Nakagawa in view of Karkkainen teaches wherein modifying the audio content further comprises determining a degree of arrival of portions of the obtained audio to the predicted position of the receiving client device (Karkkainen, ¶32, 43, captured audio is modified with a target direction of the output audio by using HRTFs such that the modified content, heard by the user, includes a directional component to let the user know from which direction is the sound coming from in the user’s environment).
Regarding claim 33, Nakagawa in view of Karkkainen teaches wherein the audio content is transmitted by a sending client device (Nakagawa, Fig. 1, content received by the user can be sent from a server or user’s mobile device).
Regarding claim 34, Nakagawa in view of Karkkainen teaches wherein the sending client device comprises a headset for displaying artificial reality content, and the audio content is captured by speakers disposed on the headset (Nakagawa, Fig. 1, user hears audio content output by a head-mounted device capable of displaying artificial reality content).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-30 and 35-40 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691