DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 7 is/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 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 1,4-5,8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooks US PG-Pub 2015/0208190 in view of Lehnert US PG-Pub 2021/0067892.
Regarding claim 1, Hooks teaches receiving, by an audio system of a vehicle, surround sound signals that also include a height dimension, the surround sound signals including first channels configured according to standardized speaker locations, wherein speaker positions of the audio system do not correspond to the standardized speaker locations (Fig. 4A & [0039] & [0042] & [0063] & [0118]: an adaptive audio system for having audio content for a specific purpose (i.e. Cinema) and then having to output the audio content for consumer use for small places like a living room or cars in stereo or surround sound; which the vehicle will not have the standard loudspeaker location of a Cinema; the adaptive audio system does not need to know the location of the loudspeaker, as it will calculate the location of the loudspeakers to determine audio signals modification based on the number of loudspeaker and their location which will be non-standard relative to the Cinema; in addition having sources that come from above the user).
Hooks failed to teach sum and difference signal processing on respective pairs of the first channels around the vehicle, the sum and difference signal processing based on the speaker positions of the audio system; and rendering, using the audio system, audio in the speakers of the vehicle based on the sum and difference signal processing of the surround-sound signals.
However, Lehnert teaches sum and difference signal processing on respective pairs of the first channels around the vehicle, the sum and difference signal processing based on the speaker positions of the audio system; and rendering, using the audio system, audio in the speakers of the vehicle based on the sum and difference signal processing of the surround-sound signals ([0018] & [0027] & [0083]: using sum and difference signal processing instead of other methods, on vehicle audio for rendering as they have less risk of undesirable interference).
Hooks and Lehnert are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. Therefore, 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, because using sum and difference provides an improved audible experience for the listener than any other method.
Regarding claim 4, while the combination failed to explicitly teach sum and difference signal processing at least in part comprises bringing at least one of the first channels more around to a side of the vehicle. However, Lehnert teaches sum and difference signal processing, which is known to widen sound image. Meaning, that any channel can be move to the side by widening. Therefore, 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.
Regarding claim 5, while the combination failed to explicitly teach wherein the sum and difference signal processing at least in part comprises moving rear sound forward in the vehicle. However, Lehnert teaches sum and difference signal processing, which is known to be able to move sound around. Meaning, that any channel can be moved to the side, center, front and back. Therefore, 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.
Regarding claim 8, while the combination failed to explicitly teach the pairs comprises one of the first channels and a next channel of the first channels going rearward in the vehicle. However, Hooks is teaching having multiple channels (Fig. 1 & Fig. 5 & Fig. 9A & Fig. 9B: all these have multiple channels; [0118]: system can be adapted for small places like cars). Therefore, 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, because having pairs of channels in a small vehicle to be a first channel and a rearward channel is an inventor choice and no unexpected result will arise.
Regarding claim 9, Hooks teaches not changing a delay of any of the speakers but changing a delay of a signal going to the speaker ([0106]: delaying the audio to compensate for the distance).
Hooks failed to explicitly teach sum and difference signal processing.
However, Lehnert teaches sum and difference signal processing ([0019]: using sum and difference signal processing instead of other methods).
Hooks and Lehnert are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. Therefore, 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, because using sum and difference provides an improved audible experience for the listener than any other method.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooks US PG-Pub 2015/0208190 in combination with Lehnert US PG-Pub 2021/0067892 in view of Yuen US PG-Pub 2002/0129151.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches sum and difference signal processing (Lehnert, ([0018] & [0027] & [0083]: using sum and difference signal processing).
The combination failed to teach wherein the sum and difference signal processing at least in part comprises widening a sound image in a front of the vehicle.
However, Yuen teaches wherein the sum and difference signal processing at least in part comprises widening a sound image in a front of the vehicle ([0091]: using sum and difference to wider sound image which can be done in automobile).
The combination and Yuen are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. Therefore, 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, because using sum and difference to wider sound image is an alternate equivalent way to widen sound images.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooks US PG-Pub 2015/0208190 in combination with Lehnert US PG-Pub 2021/0067892 in view of Noguchi US PG-Pub 2008/0019533.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches sum and difference signal processing (Lehnert, ([0018] & [0027] & [0083]: using sum and difference signal processing).
The combination failed to teach sum and difference signal processing comprises mixing the first channels into an equal number of second channels.
However, Noguchi teaches sum and difference signal processing comprises mixing the first channels into an equal number of second channels (Fig. 1: Lt channel being mix into equal number of second channels L and LS).
The combination and Noguchi are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. Therefore, 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, because it is an inventor choice to select how many mixed output channel to create.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA whose telephone number is (571)270-5519. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-9am and 11am-6pm.
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.
/WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights