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 1-11 and 13-33 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 1-28 of copending Application No. 18/655897 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are an obvious wording variant 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 18/658221
Copending Application 18/658071
Copending Application 18/655897
Claim 1
See Claim: 1
See Claim: 1 + 2
Claim 2
See Claim: 2
See Claim: 1
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: 14
Claim 9
See Claim: 12
See Claim: 8
Claim 10
See Claim: 9
Claim 11
See Claim: 10
Claim 12
Claim 13
See Claim: 15
See Claim: 11
Claim 14
See Claim: 16
Claim 15
See Claim: 1
See Claim: 6
Claim 16
See Claim: 5
See Claim: 13
Claim 17
See Claim: 6
See Claim: 14
Claim 18
See Claim: 7
See Claim: 15
Claim 19
See Claim: 17
See Claim: 1
Claim 20
See Claim: 18
See Claim: 17
Claim 21
See Claim: 19
See Claim: 18
Claim 22
See Claim: 20
See Claim: 19
Claim 23
See Claim: 21
See Claim: 20
Claim 24
See Claim: 22
See Claim: 21
Claim 25
See Claim: 23
See Claim: 22
Claim 26
See Claim: 24
See Claim: 23
Claim 27
See Claim: 25
See Claim: 24
Claim 28
See Claim: 26
See Claim: 25
Claim 29
See Claim: 27
See Claim: 26
Claim 30
See Claim: 28
See Claim: 2 + 27
Claim 31
See Claim: 29
See Claim: 1 + 2 + 27
Claim 32
See Claim: 30
See Claim: 1 + 2 + 28
Claim 33
See Claim: 31
See Claim: 1 + 2 + 28
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 28 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 “bitstream” 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 “bitstream” 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.
Claim 29 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.
The phrasing “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor” is suggested.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-27 and 30-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 19 disclose: “Apparatus for…”. The claims should read as: “An apparatus for …”.
Claims 2-18 and 20-27 disclose: “Apparatus of claim...”. The claims should read as: “The apparatus of claim…”
Claims 30-31 disclose: “Method for…”. The claims should read as: “A method for…”
Claim 14 discloses “a azimuthal rotation”. The claim should read as “an azimuthal rotation”.
Line 6 of claim 16 contains the term “second set of early reflection”. The term should read as: “second set of early reflection positions”.
Line 1 of claim 17 discloses “first set of early reflections”. The term should read as: “the first set of early reflections”.
Claim 18 contains the terms “polar coordinates as”. It appears the term “as” should be deleted.
Claim 19 discloses: “the apparatus comprising an apparatus for determining the early reflection pattern according to claim 1”. The claim should read as “the apparatus comprising the apparatus for determining the early reflection pattern according to claim 1”.
Claim 22, the term “generating” should read as “generate”.
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 3, 4, 9-13, 18, 23-26, and 31-33 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the late reverberation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the late reverberation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the late reverberation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the late reverberation" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, 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 12, the present claim language discloses in part, “configured to determine the early reflection positions so that connection lines between same and the listener position do mutually not overlap”. From the present claim language it is not clear what is meant by “the same”. It is not clear where the connection lines are in relation to the early reflection positions and the listener positions. Due to the lack of clarity the claim is regarded as indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, the present claim language discloses in part, “configured to determine the early reflection positions so that same lie in a horizontal plane along with the listener position”. From the present claim language it is not clear what is meant by “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 18, the functions ß1 and ß2 have not been clearly defined by the claim. It is not clear if these are the claimed spiral functions or which spiral function they are referring to in the claim. Due to the lack of clarity the claim is regarded as indefinite.
Claims 23,24 and 25 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 26 discloses “in a manner spectrally shaped according to one ore 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 31 recites the limitation "the method for determining the early reflection pattern for sound rendition" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the method for determining an early reflection pattern for sound rendition" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the method for sound rendering" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the method for determining the early reflection pattern for sound rendition" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 discloses in lines 11-12, “the method comprising the method for determining the early reflection pattern for sound rendition”. From the present claim language it is not clear which method comprises the method for determining the early reflection pattern for sound rendition because the claim is directed towards “A non-transitory digital storage medium”, not a method. Due to the lack of clarity the claim is regarded as indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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, claim objection and rejections under 35 USC 101, and upon filing a Terminal Disclaimer.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The general concept of an apparatus and method for sound rendering, comprising receiving first information on a listener position (fig.8 #824) and a sound source position (fig.8 #822); rendering an audio signal of the sound source using a room impulse response (fig.8 #816) whose early reflection portion is determined by an early reflection pattern (fig.5 #452,454,456,458) 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 which are invariant with respect to changes in listener head orientation (see fig.5), and determining the early reflection pattern for sound rendition, comprising receiving at least one room acoustical parameter (fig.8 #814) which is representative of an acoustical characteristic of an acoustic environment; determining an early reflection pattern which is indicative of a constellation of early reflection positions (see: fig.5)(Par.[0042-0046][0066-0095]), was known in the art at the time of the invention as evidenced by Raghuvanshi et al (US 20210266693 A1).
The general concept of an apparatus and method for determining an early reflection pattern, wherein a different number of reflection positions may be used in the determination of the reflection pattern (see figs.4-10; Par.[0159]), was known in the art at the time of the invention as evidenced by Currell (US 20030007648 A1).
However, the Examiner has not found prior art that teaches or suggests the modification of Raghuvanshi or Currell in order to provide wherein the determination of the early reflection pattern is performed “in a manner so that a number of the early reflection positions depend on the at least one room acoustical parameter”, in a manner as claimed by the independent claims 1 and 30-33.
Other prior art has been cited herein regarding generation of early reflection patterns, however the other prior art of record also fails to teach or provide suggestion to arrive the combination of the elements and steps presented in the independent claims, again when said elements or steps are collectively considered in regards to each claim. For at least the reasons listed above, the dependent claims are also allowed in view of their respective dependencies upon the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
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