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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Fitting Hearing Aids Using Virtual Sound Sources in a Virtual Space.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 is directed to “a program", which includes no explicit recitation of any hardware component, nor do the claims include any component which must be interpreted solely as hardware. According to claim 15, it is directed to a program, which is software. Consequently, when all of the components of the claim are software, applicant’s claims are directed to software per se, which does not fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Software is merely an abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a rendering processing unit that generates stereophonic sound data” and “a signal processing unit that performs data conversion processing” in claims 1-13, “a parameter control unit that adjusts a parameter” in claims 7-9, and “a user interface unit that specifies the direction” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The rendering processing unit, signal processing unit, and parameter control unit can be a computer, as in para 0108, however, no clear algorithm is provided. The user interface unit can be a joystick, touch panel, head mounted display, or the like, as in para 0027.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. When a claim is rejected over 112(b) because the Specification does not provide sufficient corresponding structure for limitations that invoke 112(f), the limitations will also lack written description under 112(a), see MPEP 2181(II)(B).
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.
Referring to claims 1-13, claim limitations “a rendering processing unit”, “a signal processing unit”, and a parameter control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely says the rendering processing unit, signal processing unit, and parameter control unit are a computer, which is a general-purpose computer, and therefore, the corresponding algorithm must be identified (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)). However, the algorithm is not clearly set forth in the disclosure. Discussion of the units is spread out through the Specification without any algorithm being defined. Further, exemplary language, such as “may”, “such as”, “or the like”, “for example”, etc. makes the algorithm even more unclear, as it is impossible to discern what is specifically required by the algorithm. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purposes of applying art, Examiner interprets the claim as reciting “a computer that…” instead of “unit that…”
Referring to claims 10-11, claims 10-11 recite the limitation "each of a plurality of the sound sources". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 11 is further unclear because it is unclear whether there are supposed to be plural characteristics, directions, and/or sound sources, considering there are supposed to be multiple pieces of stereophonic sound data. Examiner interprets as each of a plurality of sound sources, wherein the plurality of sound sources includes the sound source in claim 10 and as the rendering processing unit generates respective stereophonic sound datas on the basis of respective directions of respective sound sources, and the signal processing unit performs data conversion processing on the respective stereophonic sound datas to generate respective output sound datas and generates the output sound data by adding the respective output sound datas.
Referring to claims 8 and 12, claim 8 recites the limitation “the parameter control unit adjusts the parameter so that a direction of a test sound source”. There is nothing to suggest what happens with the direction of the test sound source. It is unclear what is being done here other than merely adjusting the parameter. “A direction of a test sound source” is introduced without relating it to any other elements in the claims. Examiner interprets claim 8 as the parameter control unit receives a direction specified by the user who has heard the output sound data, wherein the direction specified by the user indicates a perceived direction from which the user believes the sound source originated from. Claim 12 depends from claim 8, therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 12 is interpreted as a user interface unit that receives the direction specified by the user.
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) 1-3, 7, 9-11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwards et al. US Publication No. 20090116657 (from IDS).
Referring to claim 1, Edwards et al. teaches an information processing device comprising:
a rendering processing unit that generates stereophonic sound data having sound image localization on a basis of a direction of a sound source arranged in a virtual space (para 0012: “a signal processor for processing left and right stereo signals in order to produce left and right simulated surround sound output signals”; para 0019: “the stereo signals may be generated using signal processing algorithms in order to simulate a complex sound field such as may be produced by one or more sound sources located at different points around the listener”; para 0023: “Whether derived from a surround sound recording or synthesized from stereo signals, surround sound output signals can be further processed using synthesized HRTFs to generate audio that can be directly coupled to the ear (e.g., by headphones) and give the impression to the listener that different sounds are coming from different locations.”; para 0030: “each of the head-related transfer functions is a function of…the azimuthal direction of the sound source to be simulated); and
a signal processing unit that performs data conversion processing corresponding to an auditory characteristic of a user on the stereophonic sound data generated by the rendering processing unit (para 0025: “Hearing aid parameters may be adjusted in a manner that allows the patient to correctly perceive sound sources located at different locations from the simulated surround signals applied to the hearing aids”) and generates output sound data to be heard by the user (para 0012: “a signal processor for processing left and right stereo signals in order to produce left and right simulated surround sound output signals that can be used to drive left and right corrective hearing assistance devices”).
Referring to claim 2, Edwards et al. teaches the rendering processing unit generates the stereophonic sound data by using a head related transfer function corresponding to the direction of the sound source (para 0023: “Whether derived from a surround sound recording or synthesized from stereo signals, surround sound output signals can be further processed using synthesized HRTFs to generate audio that can be directly coupled to the ear (e.g., by headphones) and give the impression to the listener that different sounds are coming from different locations.”).
Referring to claim 3, Edwards et al. teaches the rendering processing unit uses the head related transfer function optimized for the user (para 0029: “Some examples of HRTFs to select include, but are not limited to…those specific to and measured on the patient”).
Referring to claim 7, Edwards et al. teaches a parameter control unit that adjusts a parameter for determining a characteristic of data conversion processing in the signal processing unit (para 0029: “frequency selective amplification of the corrective hearing assistance devices, as well as well other parameters, may be adjusted by means of parameter adjustment inputs 104a and 106a for each of the devices 104 and 106”).
Referring to claim 9, Edwards et al. teaches the parameter control unit adjusts the parameter for each frequency band of the stereophonic sound data (para 0029: “frequency selective amplification of the corrective hearing assistance devices, as well as well other parameters, may be adjusted by means of parameter adjustment inputs 104a and 106a for each of the devices 104 and 106”).
Referring to claim 10, Edwards et al. teaches the signal processing unit performs the data conversion processing on the stereophonic sound data obtained by adding the stereophonic sound data generated by the rendering processing unit for each of a plurality of the sound sources (para 0023: “Multiple surround sound output signals can be similarly filtered with separate HRTFs for each ear and for each direction associated with a particular surround sound output signal. The multiple filtered signals can then be summed together to form simulated surround signals that can be used to drive a pair of headphones”).
Referring to claim 11, Edwards et al. teaches the signal processing unit generates the output sound data by data conversion processing of a characteristic corresponding to the direction of the sound source for each of pieces of the stereophonic sound data generated by the rendering processing unit for each of a plurality of the sound sources, and generates the output sound data to be heard by the user by adding pieces of the output sound data that have been generated (para 0023: “Multiple surround sound output signals can be similarly filtered with separate HRTFs for each ear and for each direction associated with a particular surround sound output signal. The multiple filtered signals can then be summed together to form simulated surround signals that can be used to drive a pair of headphones”).
Referring to claim 13, Edwards et al. teaches the signal processing unit performs data conversion processing corresponding to an auditory characteristic of a person with hearing loss in a case where the user is the person with hearing loss (para 0025).
Referring to claim 14, Edwards et al. teaches an information processing method for an information processing device including a rendering processing unit and a signal processing unit, the information processing method comprising:
by the rendering processing unit, generating stereophonic sound data having sound image localization on a basis of a direction of a sound source arranged in a virtual space (para 0012: “a signal processor for processing left and right stereo signals in order to produce left and right simulated surround sound output signals”; para 0019: “the stereo signals may be generated using signal processing algorithms in order to simulate a complex sound field such as may be produced by one or more sound sources located at different points around the listener”; para 0023: “Whether derived from a surround sound recording or synthesized from stereo signals, surround sound output signals can be further processed using synthesized HRTFs to generate audio that can be directly coupled to the ear (e.g., by headphones) and give the impression to the listener that different sounds are coming from different locations.”; para 0030: “each of the head-related transfer functions is a function of…the azimuthal direction of the sound source to be simulated); and
by the signal processing unit, performing data conversion processing corresponding to an auditory characteristic of a user on the stereophonic sound data generated by the rendering processing unit (para 0025: “Hearing aid parameters may be adjusted in a manner that allows the patient to correctly perceive sound sources located at different locations from the simulated surround signals applied to the hearing aids”) and generating output sound data to be heard by the user (para 0012: “a signal processor for processing left and right stereo signals in order to produce left and right simulated surround sound output signals that can be used to drive left and right corrective hearing assistance devices”).
Referring to claim 15, Edwards et al. teaches a program causing a computer to function as:
a rendering processing unit that generates stereophonic sound data having sound image localization on a basis of a direction of a sound source arranged in a virtual space (para 0012: “a signal processor for processing left and right stereo signals in order to produce left and right simulated surround sound output signals”; para 0019: “the stereo signals may be generated using signal processing algorithms in order to simulate a complex sound field such as may be produced by one or more sound sources located at different points around the listener”; para 0023: “Whether derived from a surround sound recording or synthesized from stereo signals, surround sound output signals can be further processed using synthesized HRTFs to generate audio that can be directly coupled to the ear (e.g., by headphones) and give the impression to the listener that different sounds are coming from different locations.”; para 0030: “each of the head-related transfer functions is a function of…the azimuthal direction of the sound source to be simulated); and
a signal processing unit that performs data conversion processing corresponding to an auditory characteristic of a user on the stereophonic sound data generated by the rendering processing unit (para 0025: “Hearing aid parameters may be adjusted in a manner that allows the patient to correctly perceive sound sources located at different locations from the simulated surround signals applied to the hearing aids”) and generates output sound data to be heard by the user (para 0012: “a signal processor for processing left and right stereo signals in order to produce left and right simulated surround sound output signals that can be used to drive left and right corrective hearing assistance devices”).
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al., as shown in claim 1 above, in view of Zhang et al. US Publication No. 20190149927.
Referring to claim 4, Edwards et al. teaches the signal processing unit generates the output sound data from the stereophonic sound data (para 0025). However, Edwards et al. does not teach a compressor, but Zhang et al. teaches the signal processing unit generates the output sound data by using a compressor having a predetermined input and output characteristic (para 0073). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compressor, as taught in Zhang et al., in the device of Edwards et al. because it allows users to hear both faint and loud sounds more comfortably and clearly.
Referring to claim 5, Zhang et al. teaches the signal processing unit uses the compressor having the input and output characteristic corresponding to the auditory characteristic of the user (para 0073). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 4.
Referring to claim 6, Edwards et al. teaches the stereophonic sound data (para 0025) and Zhang et al. teaches the signal processing unit uses the compressor capable of setting or changing the input and output characteristic for each frequency band of the sound data (para 0073). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 4.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al., as shown in claims 1 and 7 above, in view of Helwani et al. US Patent No. 9848273.
Referring to claim 8, Edwards et al. does not teach a user interface in relation to perceiving direction, but Helwani et al. teaches the parameter control unit adjusts the parameter so that a direction of a test sound source, the direction being specified by the user who has heard the output sound data with respect to the test sound source arranged in the virtual space coincides with a direction of the test sound source in the virtual space (Column 6, Lines 18-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive user input, as taught in Helwani et al., in the device of Edwards et al. because it helps to improve HRTF accuracy in order to provide a more beneficial hearing aid for the user.
Referring to claim 12, Edwards et al. teaches a user interface unit that specifies the direction of the test sound source on a basis of the output sound data heard by the user (Column 6, Lines 18-38). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 8.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Wednesday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571)272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693