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.
Claim 12 is 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 12, the limitation “a first reverberator circuit” specified on line 7 is confusing. Claim 12, defining the structure of the renderer circuit, depends on claim 1. Claim 1 specifies a first reverberator circuit and a renderer circuit. Thus, it is unclear whether applicant intends to specify that they are the same. Lines 9-10, “the first reverberator circuit” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this is being referred to the one specified in claim 1 or the one specified on line 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 ,6, 7, 11, 14-17, 21, 22, 26 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chemistruck et al. (US 009942687 B1; hereafter Chemistruck).
Regarding claim 1, Chemistruck discloses an audio apparatus comprising:
a first receiver circuit, wherein the first receiver circuit is arranged to receive
audio data for audio sources of a scene (col. 5, lines 51-53), wherein the scene comprises multiple rooms;
a position circuit (207 and 216B in Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 49 and 63; col. 6, lines 38-40), wherein the position circuit is arranged to determine a listening position in the scene;
a determiner circuit (by 216A), wherein the determiner circuit is arranged to determine a first room and a second room (Fig. 1 shows 2 rooms; Fig. 3A shows multiple rooms; e.g.), wherein the first room comprises the listening position (represented by user 102), wherein the second room is a neighbor room of the first room;
a second receiver circuit,
wherein the second receiver circuit is arranged to receive spatial acoustic transmission data for the first room and the second room (when user present at first and second rooms; col. 6, lines 41-45, 60-67),
wherein the spatial acoustic transmission data describes a plurality of transmission boundary regions for the first room (“imaging data of the 3D environment” in col. 6, lines 44-45, col. 9, lines 22-24; e.g.),
wherein each transmission boundary region of the plurality of transmission boundary regions has an acoustic transmission level for sound from the second room to the first room exceeding a threshold (the amount of occlusion discussed in col. 11, line 7-8 and 20, e.g.);
a first reverberator circuit (part of 210),
wherein the first reverberator circuit (reads on (a) occlusion filter discussed on col. 11, lines 11-12, (b) the combination of reverberation time filter and occlusion filter discussed on col. 11, lines 18-20, or (c) low-pass filter discussed on lines 15, lines 15-20; embodiments (a), (b) and (c) are intended for the user at the first room, “when the user is on the other side of the wall from an application” discussed on col. 11, lines 21-22 and col. 14, lines 58-62) is arranged to determine a second room reverberation audio signal for the second room from at least one audio source in the second room ((a) or (c) reads on the claimed reverberation audio because by definition of the reverberation, it is diffuse audio, the sound after occlusion filter would be diffuse sound for the user at the first room; (b) includes a reverberation time filter) and a property selected from the group consisting of a geometric property of the second room and an acoustic property of the second room (col. 11, lines 12-16);
a sound source circuit,
wherein the sound source circuit is arranged to determine a sound source position in the second room for rendering the second reverberation audio signal (“…the environmentally-based spatial analysis engine 210 may further create a reverberation time filter based on the distance between the user's location and the application in addition to …but also the more remote the user's location is, the less volume of the sound the user may hear.” on col. 11, lines 16-26; the distance is based on a sound source position; also reads on the wall that the sound from the second room will transmitted to the first room, e.g., wall 310 in Fig. 3A has a specific property, see col. 14, lines 62-67),
wherein the sound source position is dependent on a position of first transmission boundary region of the plurality of transmission boundary regions (as discussed on col. 11, lines 24-26, the volume heard by the user at the first room depends on the position of the sound source in the second room relative to the user, wherein the claimed first transmission boundary region reads on the wall separating the first room and the second room, e.g., wall 310 not wall opposite of wall 310; also broadly reads on the location of the specific wall relative the user’s direction, e.g., for APP 5 located in the second room as shown in Fig. 3A, it is expected that the user would hear the occlusion sound and/or reverberation sound from the direction of the wall 310 which is the “position of first transmission boundary region” of the plurality of transmission boundary regions),
wherein the sound source position (the position of the occlusion sound and/or reverberation heard by the first user) is independent of a position of the at least one audio source in the second room (the spatial analysis engine 210 does not includes position of the at least one sound source in the second room when determining the occlusion effect; col. 11, lines 13-15); and
a renderer circuit (204), wherein the renderer circuit is arranged to render an audio signal (from 202, APP 5 in the second room, e.g.) for the listening position (user at position B as shown in Fig. 3A) so as to comprise a first audio component generated by rendering the second room reverberation audio signal from the sound source position.
Regarding claim 2, Chemistruck shows that the rendering of the audio signal is dependent on a property selected from the group consisting of at least one of a geometric property of the first transmission boundary region and an acoustic property of the first transmission boundary region (rendering by mixing engine 204 depending on reverberation filter 220 which depends on acoustic property, col. 9, lines 24-33; col. 11, liens 13-15).
Regarding claim 6, Chemistruck discloses an acoustic path passing through the first transmission boundary (path 320 in Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 7, Chemistruck discloses generating a second audio component (reads on the rendered reverberation as perceived by the user discussed on col. 11, line 18).
Regarding claim 11, the claimed spatially extended sound source reads on the inherent effect of longer distance with less volume, and shorter distance with higher volume as discussed on col. 11, lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 14, Chemistruck discloses a first room reverberation signal (e.g., parameter defined by the user; col. 9, lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 15, Chemistruck discloses a position of the fist transmission boundary region (wall 310, not the wall opposite to wall 310 or the wall perpendicular to wall 310).
Claims 16, 17, 21, 22, 26, 29 and 30 correspond to claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 14 and 15 discussed above.
Regarding claim 31, Chemistruck discloses a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium and a processor (col. 17, lines 34-38 and lines 58-65).
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(s) 3-5, 8-10, 18-20 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chemistruck.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 18-20, Chemistruck fails to show that the sound source position is determined based on an “if” condition. As illustrated in Fig. 3A, the sound source at the adjacent could be located very close, or very far from the user located in the first room. As one skilled in the art would have expected that the sound generated by the sound source at the second room, perceived by the user at the first room, would be different depending on how far the sound source is located to the boundary closest to the user (e.g., the wall that separates the two rooms). The claimed features define how the sound source location would affect the reverberation filter parameter, such as those for 220s in Fig. 2 of Chemistruck. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chemistruck by determining the filter parameter of the reverberation filters based on the determined sound source position relative to the closest boundary to the user at the first room in order to take sound source distance to the boundary into consideration when generating the reverberation parameter.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 23-25, Chemistruck fails to show adapting a level of the first audio component and a level of the second audio component. However, one skilled in the art would have expected that the sound level of a direct sound component (reads on the claimed first audio component) and the sound level of the reverberation (reads on the claimed second audio component) affect the perception of the sound source in 3D environment. When the user is at the first room while the sound source is in the second room, the user would hear higher level of the sound source if the sound source is not occluded, such as by wall or door, that is, the user can perceive the sound source at the second room in a direct path. On the other hand, the reverberation component would be relatively weaker in such condition, especially the distance from the sound source increased. Furthermore, the size of a room would also affect the amount of reverberation. For example, the reverberation for a church is expected to be larger than a reverberation of a regular room at a normal house. The claimed features are characteristics of sound property in a real environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chemistruck by adapting the sound level of the first audio component relative to the second audio component in order to enhance the realistic sound effect of a sound source in an virtual environment.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12, 13, 23-25, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chemistruck in view of Jot et al. (US 007099482 B1; hereafter Jot).
Regarding claims 12, 8-10, 27 and 23-25, Chemistruck discloses that the renderer circuit including a path renderer circuit (222 and part of 204; col. 6, lines 1-5) and a plurality reverberator circuits (each for accepting parameters from 220B; col. 7, line 62), but fails to show the details of a coupling circuit, a combination circuit and an adapter circuit. One skilled in the art would have expected that any well known renderer circuit could be used without generating any unexpected result. In the same field of endeavor, Jot teaches how to generate a sound for an user (Fig. 9) at a first room while a sound source is located at a second room. Jot teaches a renderer circuit (simplified block is shown in Figs. 5 and 6, col. 5, lines 55-59, col. 6, lines 6-12, e.g.) comprises a path renderer circuit (“patch” in Fig. 5), a plurality reverberator circuits (within 42 and 44 in Fig. 6, reverberation signals for the first room and second room, see Fig. 9), a coupling circuit (24 and 26 in Fig. 5), a combination circuit (see 92 in Fig. 10, e.g.) and an adapter circuit (the adjustable gain as represented by triangles in Figs. 5 and 10; col. 5, lines 56-57). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chemistruck by incorporating the details of the well known renderer circuit, such as the one as taught in Jot, in order to provide a realistic sound effect of a sound source located in an adjacent room to the user.
Regarding claims 13 and 28, Jot teaches that the geometric property (col. 10, lines 60-62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p. 14, applicant argued that Chemistruck does not disclose determining a sound source position in the second room for rendering a second reverberation audio signal in the second room, wherein the sound source location is dependent on a transmission boundary region between a first room and a second room wherein the sound source position is independent of a position of the audio source in the second room. The office disagrees. Chemistruck discloses that the listener in the first room can hear the reverberation from the second room (APP 5, e.g.) which is determined dependent on a transmission boundary region (wall 310) between the first room and the second room, wherein the sound source position is independent of a position of the audio source (APP 5) in the second room (the occlusion effect parameter is independent of the position of APP 5, the parameter is based on the property of the wall, col. 11, 14-15), not by the position of the audio source APP 5 in the second room.
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 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
