The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank et al. (US 7,630,501) considered with Kadri (US 9,794,720).
Blank discloses a computer-implemented method (see fig. 5; and col. 4, line 32, through col. 6, line 28, regarding the method being computer-implemented), the method comprising: sending, by a first device (e.g., calibration computing component/module 31/200) to a second device (e.g., speaker 50a) and a third device (e.g., speaker 50b), first data corresponding to an instruction for (i) the second device 50a to generate a first sound during a first time range (see fig. 5, steps B02-B04, regarding, for example, instructing speaker 50a to generate a first test signal during a first time range) and (ii) the third device 50b to generate a second sound during a second time range (see fig. 5, steps B02-B04, regarding, for example, instructing speaker 50b to generate a second test signal during a second time range), wherein the first device 31/200 is at a first location (see col. 3, lines 56-58, regarding “the calibration module could optionally be located in the Media Center PC 18 or other location”); receiving, by the first device 31/200 from the third device 50b, second data (e.g., time of arrival data of test signal from speaker 50a) representing a first direction relative to the third device 50b, the first direction associated with the first sound (see fig. 5, step B08, and col. 7, lines 29-31, regarding “the speakers use the microphone to feed the test signal and reception time back to the input processing tools 202 of the calibration module 200”; see also, fig. 5, step B14, and col. 7, lines 45-51, regarding “the calibration module makes distance and optionally angle calculations and determines the coordinates of each component of the system. …The distance and angles can be calculated by using the time it takes for each generated test signal to reach each speaker”); receiving, by the first device 31/200 from the second device 50a, third data (e.g., time of arrival data of test signal from speaker 50b) representing a second direction relative to the second device 50a, the second direction associated with the second sound (see fig. 5, steps B08, B14, and col. 8, lines 53-56, regarding “the system measures both the distance (and possibly the angle in embodiments in which two microphones are present) from each listening speaker to the source speaker”); and generating, using the second data and the third data, map data (e.g., coordinate data 210; see fig. 4) indicating a second location associated with the second device 50a and a third location associated with the third device 50b (see fig. 5, step B14, regrading “the calibration module … determines the coordinates of each component of the system”; see also, col. 9, lines 40-42, regarding “using the distance and angle information, the relative x and y positioning of each speaker in this system can be determined and stored as coordinate data 210”).
Blank discloses the invention as claimed, including that “numerous test signals can be used for the calibration steps including: simple monotone frequencies, white noise, band-width limited noise, and others” (col. 7, lines 60-62), but fails to specifically teach that the first sound and the second sound (e.g., test signals respectively output by the second device 50a and the third device 50b in the process of fig. 5) are outside a human hearing range. Kadri discloses a method of determining the location (e.g., distance, angle) of a speaker device (e.g., left front speaker 702) relative to a microphone equipped device 712 by causing the speaker device 702 to emit a test sound which is received by the device 712, wherein the test sound “may be in the … inaudible frequency range” or a “test tone (e.g., ultrasonic tone)” (see col. 19, lines 1-4, and lines 20-23), in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of generating test signals/tones which has the advantage of being inaudible, and therefore not distracting, to nearby humans.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Blank, in view of Kadri, such that the first sound and the second sound (e.g., test signals respectively output by the second device 50a and the third device 50b in the process of fig. 5) are outside a human hearing range. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of generating test signals (e.g., first sound and second sound) which have the advantage of being inaudible, and therefore not distracting, to nearby humans.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the first sound and the second sound, as modified above, can be ultrasonic sound, for example, which is outside a frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
Regarding claim 4, the second data (e.g., time of arrival data of test signal from speaker 50a) represents a first angle of arrival associated with the first sound, the first angle of arrival corresponding to the first direction relative to the third device 50b. See Blank, col. 9, lines 20-21, regarding “the optional angle information is computed by comparing the relative arrival time on a speaker’s two microphones”.
Regarding claim 5, the third data (e.g., time of arrival data of test signal from speaker 50b) represents a second angle of arrival associated with the second sound, the second angle of arrival corresponding to the second direction relative to the second device 50a. See Blank, col. 9, lines 20-21, regarding “the optional angle information is computed by comparing the relative arrival time on a speaker’s two microphones”.
Regarding claim 12, the method further comprises: generating, using the map data, (i) first coefficient values corresponding to the second device 50a and (ii) second coefficient values corresponding to the third device 50b; and causing, by the first device 31/200, (i) the second device 50a to generate first audio using the first coefficient values and (ii) the third device 50b to generate second audio using the second coefficient values. See Blank, col. 10, lines 5-10, regarding “given the distances calculated by the calibration computed by the calibration computing device 31, the delays and optionally gain in each speaker can be adjusted in order to cause the sound generated from each speaker to reach the preferred listening position simultaneously with the same acoustic level”.
Claims 6-11 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.
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Applicant's arguments filed October 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “as Blank discloses that the calibration module 200 separately repeats steps B02-B12 for each of the loudspeaker 50a-50e, Blank does not disclose generating or sending ‘first data corresponding to an instruction for (i) the second device to generate a first sound during a first time range and (ii) the third device to generate a second sound during a second time range,’ as recited in independent claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As taught in reference to fig. 5, and as explained in the rejection above, Blank discloses sending, by a first device (e.g., calibration computing component/module 31/200) to a second device (e.g., speaker 50a) and a third device (e.g., speaker 50b), first data corresponding to an instruction for (i) the second device 50a to generate a first sound during a first time range (see fig. 5, steps B02-B04, regarding, for example, instructing speaker 50a to generate a first test signal during a first time range) and (ii) the third device 50b to generate a second sound during a second time range (see fig. 5, steps B02-B04, regarding, for example, instructing speaker 50b to generate a second test signal during a second time range). Thus, Blank discloses the invention as claimed.
The applicant further argues that “Blank does not disclose generating first data instructing multiple different loudspeakers 50 to generate respective test signals at specific time ranges”. The examiner respectfully disagrees in that the claims recite that first data is generated instructing multiple different loudspeakers to generate respective test signals at a first time range and a second time range, respectively, and Blank discloses the invention as claimed. In fig. 5, step B02-B04, after selecting a first speaker, Blank teaches instructing the first speaker to generate a test signal during a first time range (e.g., the test signal is output by the first speaker for a first length of time), and then during steps B02-B04 again, Blank teaches instructing a selected second speaker to generate another test signal during a second time range (e.g., the another test signal is output by the second speaker for a second length of time following the first length of time). Thus, Blank discloses the invention as claimed.
The applicant further argues that “Blank does not disclose sending a single instruction to generate multiple test signals to multiple loudspeakers 50 at a single time”. The examiner respectfully disagrees in that there is no claim limitation specifically claiming that a single instruction is sent to generate multiple test signals to multiple loudspeakers at a single time. Rather, the claims recite ‘sending, by a first device to a second device and a third device, first data corresponding to an instruction for (i) the second device to generate a first sound during a first time range and (ii) the third device to generate a second sound during a second time range”. Blank discloses the invention as claimed. Specifically, Blank discloses sending, by a first device (e.g., calibration computing component/module 31/200) to a second device (e.g., speaker 50a) and a third device (e.g., speaker 50b), first data corresponding to an instruction for (i) the second device 50a to generate a first sound during a first time range (see fig. 5, steps B02-B04, regarding, for example, instructing speaker 50a to generate a first test signal during a first time range) and (ii) the third device 50b to generate a second sound during a second time range (see fig. 5, steps B02-B04, regarding, for example, instructing speaker 50b to generate a second test signal during a second time range), as claimed.
Accordingly, the rejections are deemed correct and are maintained.
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 PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
December 23, 2025