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.
Claims 1-5 are 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 1, “the sound” with the phrase “present the sound to the user” recited on lines 14-15 is vague because no “sound” has been recited before. Although “a sound parameter” is recited on lines 9-10, “a first sound controller” is recited on line 13 and “a drive sound source signal” is recited on line 13, none of the terms clearly define “the sound” recited on lines 14-15 is directly related to “a drive sound source”. Claim 4 includes similar ambiguity.
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) 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 20180249273 A1; hereafter Shi) in view of Ohashi (US 20160007117 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Shi discloses a processing method for a control device that controls sound to be presented to a user (120) with a plurality of speakers (106, 108, 110, 112, 104) disposed in a space (shown in Fig. 1A), the processing method comprising:
generating display image data (not explicitly shown, but inherently included to generate image as shown in Fig. 6, [0085]);
displaying a display image on the display surface (600);
receiving a designation of the sound parameter of the target speaker (e.g., the position of speaker 108 is designated by the user as the target speaker to be determined and the corresponding compensation parameter for speaker 108 for compensating sound is determined based on the determined position) from a user (confirmed the position of a target speaker as the designated speaker to be tested, such as speaker 108);
calculating a drive sound source signal to be supplied to each of the plurality of
speakers when the plurality of speakers present the sound to the user (“The position estimation engine 116 can derive compensation parameters for use by a compensation component to modify audio signals for optimal playback based on the determined possible position and/or the determined possible position can be displayed on a graphical user interface on the user device 140.” In [0082]); and controlling output of the plurality of speakers (the final out from each speaker as shown in Fig. 1A after compensation),
wherein output of the target speaker is controlled after applying the sound parameter to the drive sound source signal to be supplied to the target speaker according to the designation (even if speaker 108 in Fig. 1A is not at idea position, a compensation is provided for speaker 108, see [0082]).
Shi teaches/suggests a general user interface (UI) utilized by an user for calibration ([0036]), especially when the speakers are not placed at ideal locations (such as 108 in Fig. 1A, [0031]) and suggests a general graphic UI for displaying possible suggested speaker locations and buttons for receiving user input (660, 662 in Fig. 6) ([0082], [0085]). However, Shi does not show an adjustment image. Similar to Shi, Ohashi teaches a graphic user device (400) that helps user adjusting sound rendering. Ohashi teaches the GUI on the user device (400) with a display surface (402) for displaying image data (10). A receiver causes an adjustment image (icon for a person shown in Fig. 3s) to be superimposed and displayed on the display image (room image with speaker 11, [0054]), the adjustment image configures to receive a designation of a sound parameter (the location of the person determines the sound rendering) of a target location among a plurality of locations, and received the designation of the sound parameter of the target location from a user who has visually recognized the adjustment image.
What Ohashi teaches is a GUI that would help the user intuitively recognizing the designated adjustment and providing confirmation by touching the location of the designated adjustment. Such teaching would have greatly motivated one skilled in the art to modify the GUI in Shi. The GUI in Shi could have a display image showing the room with details, such as the general locations of non-moveable objects, such as TV, couch and soundbar. The user could use an adjustment image (instead of icon of user taught in Ohashi, icon of the speaker for Shi), superimposed the room image, to confirm which single speaker is the designated one being tested and which speaker is the next one to be tested ([0044]), or change the speaker layout ([0087], each new position of a target speaker as designated by user is equivalent as the designation a sound parameter of the target speaker). The user could use his/her finger to easily move the speaker to a new position as he/she visualize the position.
Shi and Ohashi fail to show image data being converted that uses shape information of the display surface. A general image is shown in both Shi and Ohashi. One skilled in the art would have expected that any well known image could be used without generating any unexpected result. Both Shi and Ohashi teach smartphone. Zhang teaches retrieving an image data from a storage and generating display image data by a conversion processing that uses shape information indicating the a shape of the display surface (such as from portrait mode of the image to landscape mode; [0011]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shi in view of Ohashi and Zhang by allowing image conversion of the room image, such as the one stored in the phone, and enabling touch control of an adjustment image in order to provide an intuitive tool for the user while user utilizing the GUI for designating a sound parameter of a target speaker, wherein such tool would have helped user to make adjustment and calibration in an efficient manner.
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi and Ohashi as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Aggrawal (US 20140064521 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 5, Shi fails to show the designation of the sound parameter to a sound output from one or more virtual speakers. In Shi, the user can move the speaker to another location based on suggestion ([0082], [0086]). However, there is a possibility that the speaker cannot be moved. Shi teaches a compensation The compensation of the target speaker is for optimal playback based on the determined possible position. No detail explanation is provided. However, one skilled in the art would have recognized that the ideal sound image, such as the image intended in the movie or TV show, is based on at least that the speakers are placed on the recommended positions (such as shown in Fig. 1A of Shi). Aggrawal is cited here to show that when a speaker is deviated from the corresponding ideal location (such as 504 is deviated from 102 in Fig. 5, [0033]), a compensation (gain and delay in Fig. 9, [0044]) is provided based on the location of the virtual speaker (102) which is located at the ideal position and the actual position of the speaker (504). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Shi, in view of Aggrawal, teaches the designation of the sound parameter to a sound output from one of more virtual speakers based on an operation of the user.
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 1-5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12126983 (hereafter Patent ‘983) in view of Shi or Aggrawal.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Patent ‘983 recites each and every claimed feature with the exception of the wherein clause. Shi or Aggrawal teaches that when the speaker is not at the idea location, a compensation parameter is applied to the sound source signal in order to provide optimized sound imaging. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Patent ‘983 in view of Shi or Aggrawal by determining the compensation based on the sound parameter which is related to the current speaker location in order to calculate the compensation (gain and/or delay) to be applied to the source signal driving each speaker in the layout (Fig. 1A in Shi or Fig. 5 in Aggrawal).
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
Prosecution Insights