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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 18/658071 and claims 1-33 of copending Application No. 18/658221 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are broader version with obvious wording variation of the copending claim language, as mapped in the table below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application 18/655897
Copending Application 18/658071
Copending Application 18/658221
Claim 1
See Claim: 1,2,17
See Claim: 1,2,19
Claim 2
See Claim: 1,12
See Claim: 2
Claim 3
See Claim: 3
See Claim: 3
Claim 4
See Claim: 4
See Claim: 4
Claim 5
See Claim: 5
Claim 6
See Claim: 1
See Claim: 6
Claim 7
See Claim: 11
See Claim: 7
Claim 8
See Claim: 12
See Claim: 9
Claim 9
See Claim: 10
Claim 10
See Claim: 11
Claim 11
See Claim: 15
See Claim: 13
Claim 12
See Claim: 1
See Claim: 15
Claim 13
See Claim: 5
See Claim: 16
Claim 14
See Claim: 6
See Claim: 17
Claim 15
See Claim: 7
See Claim: 18
Claim 16
See Claim: 11
See Claim: 26
Claim 17
See Claim: 18
See Claim: 20
Claim 18
See Claim: 19
See Claim: 21
Claim 19
See Claim: 20
See Claim: 22
Claim 20
See Claim: 21
See Claim: 23
Claim 21
See Claim: 22
See Claim: 24
Claim 22
See Claim: 23
See Claim: 25
Claim 23
See Claim: 24
See Claim: 26
Claim 24
See Claim: 25
See Claim: 27
Claim 25
See Claim: 26
See Claim: 28
Claim 26
See Claim: 27
See Claim: 29
Claim 27
See Claim: 29
See Claim: 31
Claim 28
See Claim: 30
See Claim: 33
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is not to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In the state of the art, “bitstream” is a binary data sequence which does not have any physical form and is not tangible. Data per se does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matters.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is not to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In the state of the art, transitory signals, such a “digital storage medium” are commonplace as a medium for transmitting computer instructions and thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of a “digital storage medium” covers a transitory medium such as a signal per se. A transitory signal does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matters.
If claim 26 is amended to read “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream configured to be subjected to sound rendering by the apparatus according to claim 1”, it may overcome the 101 issue.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-24 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 discloses: “Apparatus for…”. The claim should read as: “An apparatus for …”.
Claims 2-24 disclose: “Apparatus of claim...”. The claims should read as: “The apparatus of claim…”
Line 1 of claim 14 discloses “for each of first set of early reflections”. The term should read as: “for each of the first set of early reflections”.
Claim 22 contains the misspelled term “positon” in line 6.
Claim 27 discloses: “Method for…”. The claim should read as: “A method for…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-28 are 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.
Claims 1, 27 and 28 recite the limitation "the sound source" in lines 3 and 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the present claim language discloses in part, “configured to determine the early reflection positions so that same are in a substantially uniform manner angularly distributed around the listener position”. From the present claim language it is not clear what is meant by “early reflection positions so that same”. It is not clear if the claim is referring to a single position or multiple positions that are the same in some form of metric. Due to the lack of clarity the claim is regarded as indefinite.
Regarding claim 21, the present claim language discloses in part, “offset a level at which the audio signal of the sound source is rendered from the respective early reflection position, using a level offset, or amplify same with a level factor, which offset or factor is common for all early reflection positions”. From the present claim language it is not clear what is meant by “or amplify same”. It is not clear what is being amplified or by how much something is being amplified. Due to the lack of clarity the claim is regarded as indefinite.
Claims 20-22 disclose "in a manner level adjusted according to a distance". From the present claim language it is not clear what function the claim is performing. It is not clear if the audio signal is being level adjusted and/or how the audio signal is being level adjusted. Due to the lack of clarity the claim is regarded as indefinite.
Claim 23 discloses "in a manner spectrally shaped according to one or more frequency response parameters". From the present claim language it is not clear what function the claim is performing. It is not clear if the audio signal is being spectrally shaped and/or how the audio signal is being spectrally shaped. Due to the lack of clarity the claim is regarded as indefinite.
Claim 24 contains the acronym “HRTFs”. An acronym must be provided with a definition of the term in each claim set. Due to a lack of a definition of the term, it is not clear what the term is referring to within the claim and is therefore considered indefinite.
Claims 2-9, 11-19 and 25-26 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11 and 17-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raghuvanshi et al (US 20210266693 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Raghuvanshi discloses an apparatus for sound rendering (fig.8 #800), configured to:
receive information on a listener position and a sound source position (Par.[0067-0068] Stage One: includes “Simulation” #808 which may generate impulse responses #816 that includes information relating to the position of a sound source and a position of a listener);
render an audio signal of the sound source using a room impulse response (fig.8 #816) whose early reflection portion is exclusively determined by an early reflection pattern which is indicative of a constellation of early reflection positions, and which is positioned at the listener position in a manner so that the early reflection positions are located around the listener position and at angular directions from the listener position (Par.[0042-0047] As shown in figure 5, early reflection parameter sets 452,454,456 and 458 are represented as a “constellation” or pattern of positions around the position of the listener at different angles from the listener, wherein the pattern of reflection positions is used in rendering the audio signal via impulse responses #816) which are invariant with respect to changes in a listener head orientation (Par.[0037] sound paths taken by reflections do not vary based on orientation of the listener, therefor the encoding/rendering is performed in Stage Two “Perceptual Encoding” #810) is invariant with respect to changes in a listener head orientation. Information regarding the orientation of the listener is not taken in regard until Stage Three: Rendering #812; therefor the rendering of an audio signal using the room impulse response provided by Stages One and Two are invariant of the listener’s orientation).
With respect to claim 10, Raghuvanshi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, configured to determine the early reflection positions so that same are in a substantially uniform manner angularly distributed around the listener position (Par.[0042-0047] As shown in figure 5, the reflection positions are distributed in a uniform manner designated by North, East, South, West positions around the listener).
With respect to claim 11, Raghuvanshi discloses an apparatus of claim 1, wherein the early reflection positions lie in a horizontal plane along with the listener position (Par.[0042-0047]; figure 5 East-West is a horizontal plane).
With respect to claim 17, Raghuvanshi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further configured to generate a diffuse late reverberation portion of the room impulse response (Par.[0076] “directional late reverberations”).
With respect to claim 18, Raghuvanshi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further configured to in rendering the audio signal, generate a set of loudspeaker signals by forming a summation over direct sound contribution loudspeaker signals relating to a direct sound source portion of the room impulse response and early reflection contribution loudspeaker signals relating to the early reflection portion of the room impulse response (Par.[0126-0129] fig.9 Rendering Circuitry #900 provides a summation of the “initial” or direct sound component with the reflected sound component for the generation of output audio signals (i.e. loudspeaker signals)).
With respect to claim 19, Raghuvanshi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further configured to generating early reflection contribution loudspeaker signals relating to the early reflection portion of the room impulse response by performing a rendition of the audio signal of the sound source from the early reflection positions (Par.[0177] an input sound and perceptual parameters are implemented to render the initial direction sound and sound reflections).
With respect to claim 20, Raghuvanshi discloses the apparatus of claim 19, further configured to in generating the early reflection contribution loudspeaker signals relating to the early reflection portion of the room impulse response by performing a rendition of the audio signal of the sound source from the early reflection positions, render the audio signal of the sound source from each early reflection position in a manner level adjusted according to a distance of the respective early reflection position to the listener position (Par.[0044-0045] each reflection parameter set 452,454,456 and 458 of figure 5 can be decomposed into directional loudness components, such as w(S,S), related to a loudness resultant from a distance of the reflection to the listener).
With respect to claim 21, Raghuvanshi discloses the apparatus of claim 20, further configured to, in rendering the audio signal of the sound source from each early reflection position in a manner level adjusted according to a distance of the respective early reflection position to the listener position, offset a level at which the audio signal of the sound source is rendered from the respective early reflection position, using a level offset, or amplify same with a level factor, which offset or factor is common for all early reflection positions, and set the level offset or level factor according to an amplitude correction factor (Par.[0044-0045] each reflection parameter set 452,454,456 and 458 of figure 5 can be decomposed into directional loudness components, such as w(S,S), wherein the loudness components are level factors related to the reflection position).
With respect to claim 22, Raghuvanshi discloses the apparatus of claim 20, further configured to, in rendering the audio signal of the sound source from each early reflection position in a manner level adjusted according to the distance of the respective early reflection position to the listener position, modify the level adjustment according to the distance of the respective early reflection position to the listener position relative to a level adjustment used by the apparatus for rendering of the audio signal from the sound source position according to a distance attenuation exponent (Par.[0122-0123] monopole distance attenuation is representing by an attenuation exponent 1/r).
With respect to claim 23, Raghuvanshi discloses the apparatus of claim 19, further configured to, in generating the early reflection contribution loudspeaker signals relating to the early reflection portion of the room impulse response by performing a rendition of the audio signal of the sound source from the early reflection positions, render the audio signal of the sound source from each early reflection position in a manner spectrally shaped according to one or more frequency response parameters (Par.[0124] “averaging over perceptual frequency bands”).
With respect to claim 24, Raghuvanshi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further configured to, in performing the rendition of an audio signal of the sound source from the early reflection positions, use HRTFs specific for a listener head orientation (Par.[0080] Stage Three: “Rendering” #812 may use HRTF data #824 specific to a user’s head orientation for rendering of audio signals).
With respect to claim 25, Raghuvanshi discloses a bitstream for being subject to sound rendition according to claim 1 (Par.[0079] sound source data #822 may include an input sound signal).
With respect to claim 26, Raghuvanshi discloses a digital storage medium storing a bitstream for being subject to sound rendition according to claim 25 (Par.[0166]).
With respect to claim 27, Raghuvanshi discloses a method for sound rendering, comprising:
receiving information on a listener position and a sound source position (Par.[0067-0068] Stage One: includes “Simulation” #808 which may generate impulse responses #816 that includes information relating to the position of a sound source and a position of a listener);
rendering an audio signal of the sound source using a room impulse response (fig.8 #816) whose early reflection portion is exclusively determined by an early reflection pattern which is indicative of a constellation of early reflection positions, and which is positioned at the listener position in a manner so that the early reflection positions are located around the listener position and at angular directions from the listener position (Par.[0042-0047] As shown in figure 5, early reflection parameter sets 452,454,456 and 458 are represented as a “constellation” or pattern of positions around the position of the listener, wherein the pattern of reflection positions is used in rendering the audio signal via impulse responses #816) which are invariant with respect to changes in a listener head orientation (Par.[0037] sound paths taken by reflections do not vary based on orientation of the listener, therefor encoding/rendering is performed in Stage Two “Perceptual Encoding” #810) is invariant with respect to changes in a listener head orientation. Information regarding the orientation of the listener is not taken in regard until Stage Three: Rendering #812; therefor the rendering of an audio signal using the room impulse response provided by Stages One and Two are invariant of the listener’s orientation).
With respect to claim 28, Raghuvanshi discloses a non-transitory digital storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform the method for sound rendering, the method comprising:
receiving information on a listener position and a sound source position (Par.[0067-0068] Stage One: includes “Simulation” #808 which may generate impulse responses #816 that includes information relating to the position of a sound source and a position of a listener);
rendering an audio signal of the sound source using a room impulse response (fig.8 #816) whose early reflection portion is exclusively determined by an early reflection pattern which is indicative of a constellation of early reflection positions, and which is positioned at the listener position in a manner so that the early reflection positions are located around the listener position and at angular directions from the listener position (Par.[0042-0047] As shown in figure 5, early reflection parameter sets 452,454,456 and 458 are represented as a “constellation” or pattern of positions around the position of the listener, wherein the pattern of reflection positions is used in rendering the audio signal via impulse responses #816) which are invariant with respect to changes in a listener head orientation, when said computer program is run by a computer (Par.[0037] sound paths taken by reflections do not vary based on orientation of the listener, therefor encoding/rendering is performed in Stage Two “Perceptual Encoding” #810) is invariant with respect to changes in a listener head orientation. Information regarding the orientation of the listener is not taken in regard until Stage Three: Rendering #812; therefor the rendering of an audio signal using the room impulse response provided by Stages One and Two are invariant of the listener’s orientation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 12-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and upon the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sandgren et al (US 20080273708 A1) discloses an early reflection method for enhanced externalization.
Johnson et al (US 20210398545 A1) discloses a binaural room impulse response for spatial audio reproduction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R KURR whose telephone number is (571)270-5981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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.
JASON R. KURR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/JASON R KURR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights