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 .
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 13-18 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.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "such as" recited on line 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters et al. (US 20200304935 A1; hereafter Peters).
Regarding claim 1, Peters discloses an encoding side method for spatial audio rendering using metadata, the method comprising:
encoding (by 302) an audio scene component (303), ASC, of a sound program (11) into a bitstream (21); and
providing metadata (305) of the sound program (11), wherein the metadata comprises:
a first data structure (e.g., the rendering metadata identifies enabling or disabling as described in “the source device 12 may obtain rendering metadata indicative of controls for enabling or disabling adaptations, …” in [0063]) that instructs a spatial audio renderer (22) on whether to render the ASC as a virtual sound source (by playback system in Fig. 1A, 1B or 2, e.g.) without compensating for motion of a listener of a playback, when rendering the sound program for the playback (e.g., the metadata identifies no adaptation allowed discussed in [0063] enabling or disabling as described in “the source device 12 may obtain rendering metadata indicative of controls for enabling or disabling adaptations, …” in [0063]), and
a second data structure (metadata that enables specific compensation when the playback is not motionless; e.g., translational rendering metadata discussed in [0068]) that instructs the spatial audio renderer (22), when the listener of the playback is not motionless and the first data structure indicates that the ASC be rendered with compensation for the motion of the listener (the metadata identifies enabling as described in “the source device 12 may obtain rendering metadata indicative of controls for enabling or disabling adaptations, …” in [0063]) as to a reference to use (e.g., the amount of translation with respect to user position and orientation data, see Fig. 3A) when compensating for the motion of the listener (read on the situation when the indication indicating enabling translation adaptation, utilizing user position 17 as the reference, see [0072] and Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 2, Peters shows that the first data structure instructs the spatial audio renderer to not compensate for the motion of the listener during the playback when rendering the ASC as the virtual sound source (the flag value indicating not allowing translation or rotation, e.g., [0070], [0072], [0073], Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 3, Peters that the second data structure indicates one of:
the reference is a head of the listener (rotation is based on the head as the reference; [0058], [0059]), so that if the listener moves as in a translation or rotation of the head of the listener, then the spatial audio renderer re-aligns a front direction of a sound field of the playback as pointing to a current position of the head of the listener;
the reference is a torso of the listener ([0068]), so that if the head of the listener turns or translates then the front direction of the sound field remains locked and points to a front of the torso, and a sound field origin is locked to the torso;
the reference is a screen, so that if the head of the listener turns or rotates then the front direction of the sound field remains locked and points toward the screen, and the sound field origin remains locked to the screen;
the reference is a room or a vehicle cabin, so that if the head of the listener turns or the vehicle turns, the front direction of the sound field remains aligned with the vehicle, and the sound field origin remains locked to the room or the vehicle cabin; or
the reference is world-defined, so that the front direction of the sound field remains aligned with a compass-provided direction such as north, and the sound field origin remains locked to a static location on a ground.
Regarding claim 4, Peters shows that the metadata comprises a third data structure that indicates one of a plurality of capabilities for the spatial audio renderer to compensate for motion of the listener ([0074]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 5, the claimed limitation reads on 3DOF, 3DOFplus and 6DOF e.g., ([0079]).
Regarding claim 6, depending the metadata that allows 3DOF, 3DOFplus and 6DOF compensation, the corresponding translation would be tracked or not tracked.
Most of limitation in claims 7-12 correspond to those recited in claims 1-6. Peters discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium ([0008], [0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Peters discloses an encoding side method (as performed by 12 in Fig. 1A or 1B) for spatial audio rendering using metadata, the method comprising:
encoding an audio scene component, ASC, of a sound program into a bitstream (21); and
providing metadata (305) of the sound program, wherein the metadata comprises:
first data structure that instructs a spatial audio renderer on whether to render the ASC as a virtual sound source while considering propagation delay, Doppler, or both, when the spatial audio renderer is rendering the sound program for playback and the virtual sound source is moving relative to a reference position such as a position of a listener of the playback ([0103], [0106], Fig. 3E).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Zhou et al. (US 20170364752 A1; hereafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 14, Peters teaches a parameter having a value that refers to whether to consider Doppler effect (Fig. 3E, [0103]-[0106]), but fails to show the value that refers to also consider propagation delay. Peters as a whole teaches many parameters (Figs. 3A-3G) with values that refer to some sound effects as user’s position/orientation changed. The claimed “propagation delay” is a well known type of sound effect that would help to create a more realistic acoustic sound imaging of a virtual sound source relative to the user due to the distance between the user and the sound source. Zhou is cited here to show that different virtual sound sources, due to their expected nature, would have different propagation delays reaching the user ([0111]). Doppler effect, on the other hand, would cause frequency shift (Zhou, [0111]). The combination of adjusting propagation delay and/or Doppler effect would provide a more precise and more realistic sound effect as the distance between the user and the sound source, depending on the type of the sound source, varied due to user’s motion. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Peters in view of Zhou by including a parameter as a metedata for enabling/disabling propagation delay in combination with enabling/disabling Doppler effect in order to allow the editor at the encoder side to specific the metadata that allowing/not allowing compensating propagation delay and/or compensating Doppler effect for certain sound source while user moves and enhancing the overall realistic sound effect.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7-12 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-4, 6 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/671744 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/671744 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application recited an article of manufacture with the claimed limitations that could be modified by one skilled in the art, without undue experimentation, to be implemented as an encoding side method for encoding an audio program into a bitstream and providing corresponding metadata of the sound program to be stored in the non-transitory machine-readable medium as recited in the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 13-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-17 of copending Application No. 18/671744 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application recites a decoding side method comprising decoding an audio scene component of a sound program from a bitstream and receiving a metadata of the sound program, while claim 13-18 recites an encoding side method of encoding a sound program into a bitstream and providing corresponding metadata with details recited in the reference application. One skilled in the art would have recognized that the bitstream and the metadata recited in the decoding side method are data being encoded at an encoder side as the word “decoding” means to decode an “encoded” data. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference application by specifying an encoding side method that would encoding a bitstream with an audio scene component and the corresponding metadata to be received by the decoder for implementing the claimed decoding side method.
Claims 13-16 recited the encoding side method with details of metadata that corresponds to metadata recited in claims 13 and 15-17 of the decoding side method recited in the reference application.
Regarding claim 17, reference application fails to recite a second data structure that refers to a speed of sound. Reference application recites propagation delay. One skilled in the art would have expected that a general sound source travels in a speed of sound in air, and the speed might be varied depending on air temperature and humidity. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference application by including a parameter that refers to a speed of sound in order to render a sound source with a more realistic time delay.
Regarding claim 18, reference application fails to recite that the first value is a default value. Using the speed of sound as an example, a default value is 343m/s. This value is sufficient for simulating sound source in a normal condition. Of course, for certain condition (such as in environment with extreme heat), the speed of sound would deviate from the default value. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify reference application by setting a default value for a sound effect parameter in order to simulating the sound effect assuming the user is at a normal environment.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PING LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/PING LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695