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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
1.Claims 3-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 is allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2.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.
3.Claim(s) 1, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Leest et al. (US 20090192638) in view of Sasaki et al. (JP 2005175745) and further in view of Tsingos et al. (US 20140119581).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Van Leest discloses an apparatus for playing back audio content associated with a position (Paragraph: 0045: Van Leest discusses how the audio to be played back with respect to an individual loudspeaker performed based on a position of this loudspeaker in an environment), comprising: wherein the apparatus is configured to play back the audio content using the speaker corresponding to the solution (Paragraphs: 0035, 0045 and 0051: Van Leest discusses how the system measure the impulse responses between loudspeakers, from which the distances can be derived and given these distances, and the positions of the loudspeakers computed using multidimensional scaling; and how the sound sources can be positioned with respect to this reference or solution).
Van Leest discloses the invention set forth above but does not specifically point out “a distance calculator for determining a solution with a smallest distance of distances of the position to speakers”
Sasaki however discloses a distance calculator for determining a solution with a smallest distance of distances of the position to speakers (Paragraphs: 0174, 0368 and 0373: Sasaki discusses calculating the distance difference between the speaker located at the shortest distance and the listener; and also discusses how the distance difference of each speaker device relative to the distance Do between the speaker located at the shortest distance and the listener is calculated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Van Leest, and modify a system wherein a distance calculator for determining a solution with a smallest distance of distances of the position to speakers, as taught by Sasaki, thus the number of the plurality of speaker devices can be automatically calculated, and an identifier can be assigned to each speaker device, as discussed by Sasaki.
Van Leest in view of Sasaki fail to disclose “the apparatus is configured to play back the audio content, if a closest speaker playout flag is enabled”
Yantorno however discloses the apparatus is configured to play back the audio content, if a closest speaker playout flag is enabled (Paragraphs: 0101 and 0128: Yantorno discusses how speaker zones controlled as a group; and a user interface may be provided to dynamically enable or disable all the speakers that correspond to a particular speaker zone or to an area that includes a plurality of speaker zones; and how the system determine to snap the audio object position to a speaker location; and the audio object position will be mapped to a speaker location, generally the one closest to the intended position received for the audio object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Sasaki and Van Leest, and modify a system wherein the apparatus is configured to play back the audio content, if a closest speaker playout flag is enabled, as taught by Yantorno, thus, allowing the audio objects to rendered into the speaker feed signals based on associated metadata; and to feed signal corresponds to the reproduction speakers within a reproduction environment, as discussed by Yantorno.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argued, because claim 2 is indicated as allowable subject matter by the examiner, claims 1, 14 and 15 which now include the limitations of claim 2 are also allowable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants only incorporate the partial limitation of claim 2, which was previously indicated as allowable if it incorporated as a whole into independent claims. The newly found art (Yantorno et al.) also discloses the partially incorporated limitations of claim 2 (See the rejection above). Therefore, the prior arts of the record disclosed the argued claims limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5149. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30 M-F.
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 at (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.
YOSEF K. LAEKEMARIAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2651
/YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights