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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, and 5-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,117. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The patent claims include all the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Specifically, each of the claimed method of claim 1 in the application including receiving an audio input, generating a low-frequency output, generating a plurality of high frequency outputs, generating a plurality of middle-frequency outputs and transmitting the output to speaker drivers are provided in the limitations of claim 2/1 of US patent 12,035,117. Claim 1 of the patent additionally includes limitations to a first and second geometric model not present in the application claim. Hence the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, “a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim”, In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010. “Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention” and the instant “application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”). The limitations of claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are found in claims 2/1, 4, 5, 1, 7, 8 and 9 of the patent. Each of the claimed steps of claim 11 in the application including receiving an audio input, generating a low-frequency output, generating a plurality of high frequency outputs, generating a plurality of middle-frequency outputs and transmitting the output to speaker drivers are provided in the limitations of claim 12/10 of US patent 12,035,117. Claim 10 of the patent additionally includes limitations to a first and second geometric model not present in the application claim. Hence the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, “a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim”, In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010. “Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention” and the instant “application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”). The limitations of claims 12, 13, 14 and 15 are found in claims 11, 14, 12/10 and 13 of the patent.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 10-12, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipate by Boothe et al. (US 12/317/028 B2).
Re claim 17: Boothe et al. teaches a speaker system (figure 4) comprising: a first speaker comprising a first plurality of speaker drivers (3a-3f); a memory that stores instructions (column 11, line 64-65); and a processor (column 11, line 67) that is coupled to the memory and, when executing the instructions, is configured to: receive an audio input signal (see audio program input to controller (20), figure 2 and a first location that is associated with a location of an audio input signal (predetermined position taught in column 9, lines 25-27); generate a low-frequency output (Low- frequency driver signal), figure 2 based on the audio input signal; generate a plurality of high-frequency outputs based on the audio input signal (High-frequency driver signals), figure 2, the first location, and a plurality of directions (those directions in which the audio is output such as taught in column 10, lines 52-54) at which a plurality of speaker drivers emit audio; generate based on the audio input signal a plurality of middle-frequency outputs that are used to form one or more beam patterns for rendering a sound that is perceived to originate from the first location (see discussion of the renderer in column 9, lines 34-46); and transmit the low-frequency output, the plurality of high-frequency outputs, and the plurality of middle-frequency outputs to the plurality of speaker drivers of the speaker, wherein the plurality of speaker drivers emit audio that corresponds to the low-frequency output, the plurality of high- frequency outputs, and the plurality of middle-frequency outputs (note that the rendered drives each of the speaker drivers (column 9, lines 39-40 and column 11, lines 32-33).
Re claim 1: Boothe et al. teaches a computer-implemented method (including a memory that stores instructions (column 11, line 64-65) and a processor (column 11, line 67) that is coupled to the memory and, when executing the instructions), for generating audio for a speaker comprising: a first speaker (figure 4) comprising a first plurality of speaker drivers (3a-3f); is configured to: receive an audio input signal (see audio program input to controller (20), figure 2 and a first location that is associated with a location of the audio input signal (predetermined position taught in column 9, lines 25-27); generate a low-frequency output (Low- frequency driver signal), figure 2 based on the audio input signal; generate a plurality of high-frequency outputs based on the audio input signal (High-frequency driver signals), figure 2, the first location, and a plurality of directions (those directions in which the audio is output such as taught in column 10, lines 52-54) at which a plurality of speaker drivers emit audio; generate based on the audio input signal, a plurality of middle-frequency outputs that are used to form one or more beam patterns for rendering a sound perceived to originate at the first location (see discussion of the renderer in column 9, lines 34-46); and transmit the low-frequency output, the plurality of high-frequency outputs, and the plurality of middle-frequency outputs to the plurality of speaker drivers of the speaker, wherein the plurality of speaker drivers emit audio that corresponds to the low-frequency output, the plurality of high- frequency outputs, and the plurality of middle-frequency outputs (note that the rendered drives each of the speaker drivers (column 9, lines 39-40 and column 11, lines 32-33).
Re claim 11: Boothe et al. teaches a non-transitory media storing instructions (column 11, line 64-65) and a processor (column 11, line 67) that is coupled to the memory and, when executing the instructions), for generating audio for a speaker comprising: a first speaker (figure 4) comprising a first plurality of speaker drivers (3a-3f); is configured to: receive an audio input signal (see audio program input to controller (20), figure 2 and a first location that is associated with a location of the audio input signal (predetermined position taught in column 9, lines 25-27); generate a low-frequency output (Low- frequency driver signal), figure 2 based on the audio input signal; generate a plurality of high-frequency outputs based on the audio input signal (High-frequency driver signals), figure 2, the first location, and a plurality of directions (those directions in which the audio is output such as taught in column 10, lines 52-54) at which a plurality of speaker drivers emit audio; generating, based on the audio input signal a plurality of middle-frequency outputs that are used to form one or more beam patterns for rendering a sound perceived to originate at the first location (see discussion of the renderer in column 9, lines 34-46); and transmit the low-frequency output, the plurality of high-frequency outputs, and the plurality of middle-frequency outputs to the plurality of speaker drivers of the speaker, wherein the plurality of speaker drivers emit audio that corresponds to the low-frequency output, the plurality of high- frequency outputs, and the plurality of middle-frequency outputs (note that the rendered drives each of the speaker drivers (column 9, lines 39-40 and column 11, lines 32-33).
Re claim 2: note in Booth et al. (figure 2) the plurality of outputs are used to drive speaker drivers
Re claim 18: the directions of emitting sounds by the first through fourth drivers are taught by those directions of the front-firing, back-firing, and side-firing speaker arrangements taught in column 10, lines 52-54
Re claim 5: note in Boothe et al. (column 8, line41-45) at least one audio can be is directly emitted to a listener satisfying the alternative language as set forth.
Re claim 6: note in the discussion in column 8, lines 39-52 there is no delay between providing signals from each driver to the listener, therefor satisfying as set forth concurrently arrive at the listener.
Re claim 10: the directions of emitting sounds by the first through fourth drivers are taught by those directions of the front-firing, back-firing, and side-firing speaker(s) arrangements taught in column 10, lines 52-54
Re claim 12: note in Boothe et al. the audio signal is adjusted by applying filters (column 8, lines 34-35) based on a characteristic of a speaker, for example a speaker that is capable of producing low-frequencies only.
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) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boothe et al. in view of Butler et al. (US 2018/0077491 A1).
Re claim 20: The teaching of Boothe et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Boothe et al. does not teach a second speaker having similar operations as the first speaker. Butler et al. teaches in a similar environment that single speaker can be expanded to include a two-speaker arrangement (paragraph [0025], lines 1-5) which as disclosed to provide a 3D audio in order to be more enveloping and realistic auditory experience for audiences. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of two speaker arrangement as taught by Bultler each having specifics as taught in Boothe et al. to predictably provide a 3D audio in order to be more enveloping and realistic auditory experience for audiences. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 written using method steps correspond to those features discussed with respect to claim 20 and are satisfied by Boothe et al. in view of Butler et al. for similar reasonings.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boothe et al. in view of Crockett (US 10,440,492 B2).
Re claim 13: the teaching of Boothe et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Boothe et al. does not teach that the emitted audio includes both audio that is directly provided to a listener and audio that is reflected off a surface before reaching the listener. Crockett teaches in a similar to provide both direct audio and reflected audio to a listener (see figure 16A) to account for surfaces of a room in order to provide a spatial environment in a home environment that contains these reflecting surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the filing of the invention to incorporate a teaching of Crockett into the arrangement of Boothe et al. to predictably provide both direct audio and reflected audio to a listener to account for surfaces of a room in order to provide a spatial audio in a home environment that contains these reflecting surfaces. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7-9, 14-15 and19 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. Note for any claim having a double patenting rejection, the rejection must be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The claimed speaker system including those features as provided in claim 18/19 which in combination additionally includes a fifth speaker driver and a sixth speaker drive that emit sounds in the directions as set forth in claim 19 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed method including those features of claim 1 used in combination with summing the low-frequency output, a respective middle-frequency output of the plurality of middle-frequency outputs, and a respective high-frequency output of the plurality of high-frequency outputs to generate an audio output signal; and transmitting the audio output signal to a respective one of the plurality of speaker drivers as set forth in claim 3 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. . The claimed method including those features of claim 1 used in combination, wherein generating the plurality of middle-frequency outputs is further based on a second location associated with a region where the emitted audio should not be perceived as originating the sound as set forth in claim 4 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed method including those features of claim 1 used in combination wherein generating the plurality of middle-frequency outputs is further based on a location of each speaker driver included in the plurality of speaker drivers, a model of one or more surfaces in proximity to the plurality of speaker drivers, and a second location associated with a listening position as set forth in claim 7 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 8-9 depend upon those features of claim 7/1. The claimed arrangement including those features of claim 11 used in combination wherein generating the plurality of middle-frequency outputs is further based on a location of each speaker driver included in the plurality of speaker drivers, a model of one or more surfaces in proximity to the plurality of speaker drivers, and a second location associated with a listening position as set forth in claim 14 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 15 depend upon those features of claim 14/11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re the Double Patenting Rejection: Applicants response does not overcome this rejection.
Re claims 1, 11 and 17 based on the primarily used reference to Booth et al.: Applicant argues that Boothe does not teach that the render uses the mid-range bands to render a sound perceived to originate from a location associated with the audio signal. Examiner does not agree, since it is clear from the Boothe that the renderer can include a beamforming operation for processing the audio signals (column 9, lines 34-46), which would include each of high range, low range as well as mid-range frequencies. Although Boothe discloses the use of filters as argued, Boothe also teaches that the renderer can include beamforming operations. Applicant argues that claim 1, 11 and 17 expressly require filters that cause a listener to perceive the sound as originating from a specific location. It is noted that none of claims 1, 11 and 17 set forth limitations directed to filters used in a manner as argued. Applicant also argues that Boothe does not teach to generate middle-frequency outputs that are used to form beam patterns for rendering. Although Boothe teaches the use of filters, these filters are used in conjunction with a renderer for producing beam patterns for each of the frequency ranges, including mid-range frequencies (column 9, lines 34-46) and in which these beam patterns used in providing a sound perceived to originate at the predetermined location
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 ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 6/23/26
Prosecution Insights