DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that 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 numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Figure 15 (among other figures) shows items U1c and U1c’ not found in the written description.
Figure 41 shows item 71g not found in the written description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 position information acquisition unit” in claim 1;
“a position determination processing unit” in claim 1;
“an output control unit” in claim 1.
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.
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 § 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 18 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 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 “storage medium” covers 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 phrase “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” is suggested.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi (JP H07-264700 A)(see IDS dated 05/24/24 plus translation from WIPO website, plus image translation from google image translate pulled 6/19/26), in view of Maeno et al. (US 20190230435 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hitachi discloses an information processing device comprising:
a position information acquisition unit (at least 3, 9, and 13 of figure 1) that acquires position information of a first target object (listener 17 of figure 2) in a first space (see figure 1 site C, also see figures 2 and 3, paragraph [0008]) in which a speaker array (5 and 6) is arranged and position information of a second target object in a second space (site A for example, see paragraph [0008]);
a position determination processing unit (7, 8, and 10 of figure 1) that determines a virtual position of the second target object (37 of figure 2, 22 or 23 of figure 3) in a first fusion space obtained by virtually fusing the second space to the first space (see figure 2 or figure 3); and
an output control unit (at least part 7 and 8 of figure 1) that performs output control of the speaker array filter to a signal obtained by collecting a sound emitted from the second target object (via microphone 2 of figure 1) such that a sound image is localized at the virtual position (see 37 of figure 2 and 22/23 of figure 3, paragraphs [0009], [0016], [0010]).
Hitachi does not expressly disclose use of wavefront synthesis.
Maeno discloses an output control unit (23 and 24 of figure 1) that performs output control of a speaker array (see figures 1, 3, and 7) by applying a wavefront synthesis filter to a signal (paragraphs [0035], [0051], and [0168]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the wavefront synthesis of Maeno in the system of Hitachi for the benefit of delivering the sound with greater accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Maeno with Hitachi, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected in an analogous manner to claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected in an analogous manner to claim 1 given the embodiments of paragraphs [0022] and [0039] of Hitachi.
Regarding claim 2, Hitachi discloses wherein the speaker array is in the first space (see figure 2).
Maeno discloses wherein a first upper speaker array (top part of 26) and a first lower speaker array (bottom part of 26, speakers cover surface some omitted to show axis) are arranged as the speaker array.
Regarding claim 6, Maeno discloses wherein the output control unit selects a characteristic of the wavefront synthesis filter according to the virtual position (see steps S12 to S14 of figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, Maeno discloses wherein the output control unit selects a
characteristic of the wavefront synthesis filter according to position information of each of a plurality of the first target objects in a case where there is the plurality of the first target objects (see steps S12 to S14 of figure 6, see paragraphs [0003], [0004] and [0131] for multiple sources).
Regarding claim 11, Maeno discloses wherein the output control unit selects a characteristic of the wavefront synthesis filter such that the number of the first target objects included in a sound image localization service area increases (see steps S12 to S14 of figure 6, see paragraphs [0003], [0004] and [0131] for multiple sources, control points go up as listeners go up, see figure 2 and 7).
Regarding claim 12, Hitachi discloses wherein in a case where there is a plurality of the second target objects (see figure 1 and 3), the position determination processing unit determines the virtual position for each of the plurality of the second target object (via 3 and 13).
Maeno discloses wherein the output control unit selects a characteristic of the wavefront synthesis filter for each of a plurality of the virtual positions/sources (see steps S12 to S14 of figure 6, see paragraphs [0003], [0004] and [0131] for multiple sources).
Regarding claim 13, Hitachi discloses wherein the first target object is a head of a person (see figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, Hitachi discloses wherein the position information acquisition unit obtains position information of the first target object on a basis of an output from a camera (paragraphs [0023], [0039] to [0040]).
Although Hitachi is silent to the type of camera used, the examiner takes official notice that the use of stereo cameras was well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a stereo camera in the system of Hitachi for the benefit of retrieving depth information thereby assisting location services.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 pm.
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.
/DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights