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 14 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 14, “the user” recited on line 7 lacks clear antecedent basis.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 7, 9-11,13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tajik (US 20230020792 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tajik discloses an acoustic reproduction method comprising:
obtaining a first sound signal associated with first positional information indicating a first position in a three-dimensional sound field (objects in virtual environment resemble the equivalent in real environment which is 3D, e.g., [0003]-[0004], [0018], [0027], [0053], Figs. 1B and 1C; e.g., 504a in Fig. 5), a second sound signal (representing another object in the same environment; e.g., 504b in Fig. 5, [0054]) associated with second positional information indicating a second position different from the first position (e.g., Fig. 5), and a movement speed of a head of a user (“For instance, the sound source origin can be defined as … or functions of the change or accumulation of the head position or orientation over time (e.g., functions of integrals or derivatives of the head position or orientation)”, “For instance, a velocity of a user's head movement can be determined (e.g., as the derivative of the head movement, determined by one or more sensors of a wearable head device as described above), and a sound can be presented as if the sound origin is traveling at that same velocity (or a different velocity based on the head's velocity).” in [0057]); and
generating, when the movement speed obtained is greater than a first threshold, an added sounds signal in which the first sound signal and the second sound signal are added (a speaker for left ear would generate added first sound signal and second sound signal for the left ear, a speaker for right ear would generate added first sound signal and second sound signal for the right ear; “composite of sounds” in [0020], e.g.; left speaker 2134 and right speaker 2136 shown in Fig. 2A; see also Fig. 4, [0047], [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Tajik discloses the turning speed ([0063], [0064], claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Tajik discloses a detector moving together with the head of the user (404B, 444, 406, 409; [0044], [0034]); wherein any speed, including turning speed, is based on per unit time.
Regarding claim 10, Tajik discloses a displacement speed (from position 1 at time t1 to position 2 at time t2; [0057], [0073]); wherein any speed, including displacement speed, is based on per unit time.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed feature reads on a scenario where the locations of the first sound and the second sound are very close to each other (e.g., around 12 o’clock position relative to the user’s face), when the user’s head movement speed is greater than a threshold (such as quick movement), the composite sound would appear to be arriving from a same position (reads on the same general direction following user’s head motion).
Regarding claim 13, Tajik discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium ([0075], claim 15).
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 1 discussed above.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajik in view of Nakai (US 20230421981 A1; hereafter Nakai).
Regarding claim 2, Tajik discloses that in the generating, when the movement speed obtained is less than or equal to the first threshold, an output sound signal that
causes the user to perceive the first sound arriving from the first position and the second sound arriving from the second position is generated by (i) a first head-related transfer function for localizing a sound at the first position with the first sound signal and (ii) a second head-related transfer function for localizing a sound at the second position with the second sound signal (this reads on the normal sound generation based on corresponding HRTF for each object as shown in Fig. 5 when the user movement speed is zero, see also [0059] discussed HRTF and virtual sound generation relative to user location), but fails to explicitly show by convolving with respectively HRTF. Nakai is cited here to show the common knowledge in the art of convolving HRTF with the audio signal for simulating the virtual sound source at the specific location relative to the user ([0099], Fig. 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tajik by including a well known convolution unit, such as the one as taught in Nakai, in order to simulating the virtual sound source location as realistically as possible.
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 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12075232 (hereafter patent ‘232). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patent ‘232 recites each and every claimed feature claims 1-3 and 5-13 explicitly or implicitly.
Regarding claim 14, patent ‘232 fails to recite an obtainer that obtains a first sound signal and a second sound signal. The claimed generator would not be able to generate an output sound signal with perceived position without providing input audio signals. Examiner takes Official Notice that obtaining plural sound source signals for further processing is notoriously well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify patent ‘232 by incorporating well known interface for receiving audio source signals in order to generate perceived sound at distinct locations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
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