DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting this application.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements filed on 04 November 2024 and 17 August 2025 have been considered and placed in the application file.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: see Display Control Unit 101, Fig. 11.
5. Figures 7, 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see Specification page 4). See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a harmonic signal generation unit, a combining unit, and display control unit in claims 1-3, 8-10, and 12.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed subject matter “A program” is directed toward a software program per se. Since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention recited in 35 USC § 101: process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-6 and 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farina et al. "Non-linear convolution: A new approach for the auralization of distorting systems" Audio Engineering Society Convention 110th, 12-15 May 2001, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4 pages (hereinafter, “Farina’ 2001”).
Regarding claim 1, Farina’ 2001 teaches an information processing device (For
making the task easier, a special plugin for CoolEditPro [17] was developed: it takes the current waveform, and processes it by convolution with the set of impulse responses (page 3, right column, first paragraph, see Farina’ 2001); the computation is very fast (real-time on modern computers), (page 3, right column, third paragraph, see Farina’ 2001)) comprising:
a harmonic signal generation unit (this limitation invokes 112(f), harmonic signal generation unit 43 includes multiplication units 51-1 to 51-4 and convolution units 52-1 to 52-4., see Fig. 9, Specification page 17; see equation (2) in page 2, left column, see Farina’ 2001) configured to generate a first signal (see “first-order (linear) kernel” in page 2, left column; The rightmost impulse response is the linear one, see page 2, right column, next-to-last paragraph, see Farina’ 2001) by convolving, to an input signal (see h----1*x, linear/non-harmonic distortion path), transfer characteristics of harmonic distortion (The result of this measurement procedure is a set of impulse responses, the first being the traditional linear response, and the other the responses at several harmonic orders, Here it is proposed to employ this set of impulse responses in a multiple convolution process, capable of reconstructing the complete modification that happens to a signal passing through the complex system (page 2, left column, first and second paragraphs, see Farina’ 2001); see equation (2) in which for n ≥ 2 corresponds to a ”first signal” generated by convolving the harmonic-order transfer characteristic h_n with the input signal raised to n-th power (see equation (2) in page 2, left column, see Farina’ 2001)) in an acoustic space (First, a small, low quality loudspeaker was measured with the above described technique, when driven with a signal of amplitude exceeding its linear limits. On the same loudspeaker, four music pieces were also played and the emitted sound was simultaneously recorded, imposing that the RMS amplitude of each music piece was the same as the test sound (i.e., acoustic space is the measured acoustic space under test) (page 3, right column, fifth paragraph, see Farina’ 2001)); and
a combining unit (this limitation invokes 112(f), addition unit 45 functions as a combining unit, see Fig. 9, Specification page 19; see summing signs in equation (2) in page 2, left column, see Farina’ 2001) configured to combine together the first signal (i.e., n ≥ 2) and a second signal (n=1), in which sound transmission characteristics excluding the harmonic distortion (by summing output of higher-order harmonic n ≥ 2 with the linear term (n=1) where linear term is “second signal” corresponds to sound transmission characteristics excluding the harmonic distortion) in the acoustic space (First, a small, low quality loudspeaker was measured with the above described technique, when driven with a signal of amplitude exceeding its linear limits. On the same loudspeaker, four music pieces were also played and the emitted sound was simultaneously recorded, imposing that the RMS amplitude of each music piece was the same as the test sound (page 3, right column, fifth paragraph, see Farina’ 2001) is convolved to the input signal (see h----1*x, linear/non-harmonic distortion path in equation (2) in page 2, left column, see Farina’ 2001). In other words, Farina’ 2001 teaches generating a first signal by convolving transfer characteristics of harmonic to an input signal (The result of this measurement procedure is a set of impulse responses, the first being the traditional linear response, and the other the responses at several harmonic orders, Here it is proposed to employ this set of impulse responses in a multiple convolution process, capable of reconstructing the complete modification that happens to a signal passing through the complex system (page 2, left column, first and second paragraphs, see Farina’ 2001), then combining this first signal with a second signal, which is generated by linearly convolving the original input signal with linear impulse response of the system (h----1*x) (In principle, eqn (2) can be easily implemented as the sum (or mix)
of many “usual” convolutions, page 3, left column, last-paragraph, see Farina’ 2001) (i.e., sum of linear convolution and higher-order harmonic responses).
Farina’ 2001 thus teaches all the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Farina’ 2001 teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the harmonic signal generation unit (this limitation invokes 112(f), harmonic signal generation unit 43 includes multiplication units 51-1 to 51-4 and convolution units 52-1 to 52-4., see Fig. 9, Specification page 17; see equation (2) in page 2, left column, see Farina’ 2001) convolves, to the input signal respectively processed corresponding to the order of the harmonic distortion (for orders higher than 1, the Volterra kernels h2 , h3 ,… instead of being large multidimensional matrices reduce only to the terms on the diagonal, and thus can be represented by simple linear vectors having the same size as the first-order (linear) kernel , see equation (2), each h_n convolved with x^n (i.e., respectively processed) in page 2, left column, see Farina’ 2001), the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion for each order (This is the solution for the first 5 orders, see equation (10) in which kernels h_n separately for each order, see equation (10), page 3 left column, see Farina’ 2001).
Regarding claim 3, Farina’ 2001 teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein
the harmonic signal generation unit (this limitation invokes 112(f), harmonic signal generation unit 43 includes multiplication units 51-1 to 51-4 and convolution units 52-1 to 52-4., see Fig. 9, Specification page 17; see equation (2) in page 2, left column, see Farina’ 2001) convolves, to the input signal multiplied by the same number as the order of the harmonic distortion, the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion (in equation (2) each summing for order n is a convolution of h_n (harmonic-order transfer characteristics) with x^n (the input multiplied by itself n times corresponds to multiplied by the same number as the order of the harmonic distortion) see equation (2) in page 2, left column, see Farina’ 2001), see also “the input block of data is preliminarily subjected to a power elevation before being transformed and convolved with each impulse response block”, see page 3, left column, last-two lines to right column first line, see Farina’ 2001)).
Regarding claim 4, Farina’ 2001 teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the harmonic distortion is caused by a speaker characteristic in the acoustic space (The following picture describes the flow diagram of a system
obtained by a distorting transducer (memory-less distortion) driving a
subsequent linear system with memory, see block “Non-linear system K[x(t)]”, Fig. 1, (page 2, left column, fifth paragraph, see Farina’ 2001); (First, a small, low quality loudspeaker was measured with the above described technique, when driven with a signal of amplitude exceeding its linear limits (i.e., distortion). On the same loudspeaker, four music pieces were also played and the emitted sound was simultaneously recorded, imposing that the RMS amplitude of each music piece was the same as the test sound (i.e., acoustic space is the measured acoustic space under test) (page 3, right column, fifth paragraph, see Farina’ 2001)).
Regarding claim 5, Farina’ 2001 teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the harmonic distortion is caused by reverberation in the acoustic space (The following picture describes the flow diagram of a system obtained by a distorting transducer (memory-less distortion) driving a subsequent linear system with memory, see block “Non-linear system K[x(t)]”, Fig. 1, (page 2, left column, fifth paragraph, see Farina’ 2001); see Fig. 1 model including “linear system w(t)h(t) is the reverberant acoustic environment whose impulse response includes reverberation (see also the method is usually employed for adding to dry music or speech recordings a set of information related to an acoustic space (and optionally to the sound system installed in it) such as reverberation and frequency response; large room, small room, see Introduction, page 1, left column, see Farina’ 2001).
Regarding claim 6, Farina’ 2001 teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the harmonic signal generation unit (this limitation invokes 112(f), harmonic signal generation unit 43 includes multiplication units 51-1 to 51-4 and convolution units 52-1 to 52-4., see Fig. 9, Specification page 17; see equation (2) in page 2, left column, see Farina’ 2001) convolves, to the input signal, the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion measured in the acoustic space (Recently the authors developed a novel measurement method [15], which allows for the complete characterization of the linear and not linear behavior of a complex system with a single measurement. The result of this measurement procedure is a set of impulse responses,
the first being the traditional linear response, and the other the responses at several harmonic orders. From these measurement results, all the traditional metrics for describing the distortion of a reproduction system can be derived easily, in page 2, left column, first paragraph, see Farina’ 2001; It is possible to deconvolve the impulse response by applying to this response, by convolution, a proper inverse filter, which is simply the
time-reversal of the excitation signal (3), (i.e., measuring impulse response inside acoustic space), page 2, right column, fourth paragraph, see Farina’ 2001).
Regarding claim 13, this claim merely reflects the method to the apparatus claim of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, this claim merely reflects the method to the apparatus claim of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 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.
13. 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 of this title, 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.
14. 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.
15. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farina’ 2001 et al. "Non-linear convolution: A new approach for the auralization of distorting systems" Audio Engineering Society Convention 110th, 12-15 May 2001, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4 pages (hereinafter, “Farina’ 2001”) in view of Moriya et al. "Study of harmonic distortion on impulse response measurement with logarithmic time stretched pulse" Acoust. Sci. & Tech. 26, 5 (2005), pages 462-464 (hereinafter, “Moriya”)
Regarding claim 7, Farina’ 2001 teaches the information processing device according to claim 6. However, Farina’ 2001 does not explicitly disclose wherein the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion is measured using a Log-TSP signal.
Moriya teaches impulse response measurement method and device (see Title) in which wherein the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion is measured using a Log-TSP signal (This limitation can be overcome using a logarithmic time stretched pulse (Log-TSP [2,3]), which reduces the influence of the nonlinear behavior. In this paper, we study experimentally measurement error reduction by the
elimination of harmonic distortion using Log-TSP (page 462, left column, first paragraph, see Moriya). It is experimentally confirmed that the measurement error of impulse response caused by harmonic distortion can be reduced by approximately 10 dB with Log-TSP, page 464, left column, last paragraph, see Moriya).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the impulse response measurement method and device taught by Moriya with the information processing device of Farina’ 2001 such that to obtain wherein the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion is measured using a Log-TSP signal in order to makes it possible to eliminate the harmonic distortion by ignoring the part before the principal response, as suggested by Moriya in page 462, left column, last paragraph.
16. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farina et al. "Non-linear convolution: A new approach for the auralization of distorting systems" Audio Engineering Society Convention 110th, 12-15 May 2001, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4 pages (hereinafter, “Farina’ 2001”) in view of Fujita et al U.S. Patent 9986352 (hereinafter, “Fujita”).
Regarding claim 8, Farina’ 2001 teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Farina’ 2001 does not explicitly disclose wherein the harmonic signal generation unit convolves, to the input signal, the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion in accordance with a sound pressure of a reproduced sound based on a reproduction signal in which the first signal and the second signal are combined together.
Fujita teaches acoustic processing device, acoustic processing method, and acoustic processing program (see Title) in which as shown in FIG. 1, the acoustic processing device 1 includes a speaker distortion characteristic calculating unit 114 and a resonant band detecting unit 116. The speaker distortion characteristic calculating unit 114 calculates the speaker distortion characteristic at each input level using the reference sweep signal and the measured sweep signal stored in the measured signal storing unit 110. Specifically, the speaker distortion characteristic calculating unit 114 subtracts the reference sweep signal from the measured sweep signal for each input level. As a result, components other than the sin wave (harmonic distortion and noise) can be obtained, and the speaker distortion characteristic at each input level can be obtained. The speaker distortion characteristic means a ratio (unit: %) indicating how much undesirable components (harmonic distortion and noise) are contained with respect to the component of the reference wave (the measured sweep signal) (Fig. 1, column 6, lines 27-43, see Fujita).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the acoustic processing device, acoustic processing method, and acoustic processing program taught by Fujita with the information processing device of Farina’ 2001 such that to obtain wherein the harmonic signal generation unit convolves, to the input signal, the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion in accordance with a sound pressure of a reproduced sound based on a reproduction signal in which the first signal and the second signal are combined together in order to enhance sound quality and articulation of sound even in a listening environment of a vehicle compartment, as suggested by Fujita in column 12, lines 50-52.
Regarding claim 9, Farina’ 2001 in view of Fujita teaches the information processing device according to claim 8. Farina’ 2001 in view of Fujita, as modified teaches wherein the harmonic signal generation unit acquires, with reference to a file in which the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion is recorded for each sound pressure, the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion in accordance with the sound pressure (The speaker distortion characteristic calculating unit 114 calculates the speaker distortion characteristic at each input level using the reference sweep signal and the measured sweep signal stored in the measured signal storing unit 110. Specifically, the speaker distortion characteristic calculating unit 114 subtracts the reference sweep signal from the measured sweep signal for each input level. As a result, components other than the sin wave (harmonic distortion and noise) can be obtained, and the speaker distortion characteristic at each input level can be obtained (Fig. 1, column 6, lines 29-39, see Fujita). FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating the speaker distortion characteristic at each input level (levels at intervals of 2 dB within the range of 0 dB to −20 dB). In FIG. 3, the vertical axis represents the speaker distortion (Distortion Rate (unit %)), and the lateral axis represents the frequency (unit: Hz) (Fig. 3, column 6, lines 43-48, see Fujita)). The motivation is in order to enhance sound quality and articulation of sound even in a listening environment of a vehicle compartment, as suggested by Fujita in column 12, lines 50-52.
Regarding claim 10, Farina’ 2001 in view of Fujita teaches the information processing device according to claim 8. Farina’ 2001 in view of Fujita, as modified teaches further comprising
a display control unit (this limitation invokes 112(f), display control unit 101, see Fig. 11) configured to perform display for receiving an input of user's operation The following picture shows the user interface of the Multiconvolve plugin (2) in page 3, right column, second paragraph, see Farina’ 2001). The listening was made through a high quality reproduction system (24 bits sound board, high quality bi-amplified studio monitors, anechoic listening room, in page 3, right column, next-to-last paragraph, see Farina’ 2001). The reference level setting unit 118A sets, as the reference input level an input level of which the speaker distortion rate is smaller than or equal to the second threshold, within the resonant band detected by the resonant band detecting unit 116, based on the speaker distortion characteristic calculated by the speaker distortion characteristic calculating unit 114. The second threshold has a value smaller than or equal to the first threshold, and a user is allowed to desirably set the value of the second threshold (1.5% in this embodiment) through a user operation (col. 7, lines 14-24, see Fujita) to set the sound pressure (The acoustic processing device according to the embodiment performs response control of the speaker in accordance with an input level of an audio signal using the generated control parameters. As a result, it becomes possible to suitably suppress the resonant sound produced in a vehicle compartment being a listening environment without decreasing sound pressure (col. 5, lines 1-7, see Fujita)). The motivation is in order to enhance sound quality and articulation of sound even in a listening environment of a vehicle compartment, as suggested by Fujita in column 12, lines 50-52.
17. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farina et al. "Non-linear convolution: A new approach for the auralization of distorting systems" Audio Engineering Society Convention 110th, 12-15 May 2001, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4 pages (hereinafter, “Farina’ 2001”) in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent 11006235 (hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 11, Farina’ 2001 teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Farina’ 2001 does not explicitly disclose wherein the transfer characteristics of a sound, excluding the harmonic distortion personalized to a user, is convolved to the input signal.
Lee teaches method for generating customized spatial audio with head tracking (see Title) in which a binaural room impulse response pair corresponding to a reference position of the listener's head, the binaural audio impulse response pair personalized for the listener; a second memory portion having a plurality of rotation filters; and a processor responsive to a head tracking signal for the listener's head and further configured for determining a rotation filter from the second memory portion corresponding to the head tracking signal and combining it with the binaural room impulse response pair and an input audio signal for generation of the binaural audio (see claim 8 of Lee). In other words, the binaural room impulse response pair is linear (non-harmonic distortion) transferred characteristics, personalized to the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method for generating customized spatial audio with head tracking taught by Lee with the information processing device of Farina’ 2001 such that to obtain wherein the transfer characteristics of a sound, excluding the harmonic distortion personalized to a user, is convolved to the input signal in order to provide improvements in the accuracy of the spatial perception of the audio, as suggested by Lee in column 8, lines 33-35.
18. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farina et al. "Non-linear convolution: A new approach for the auralization of distorting systems" Audio Engineering Society Convention 110th, 12-15 May 2001, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4 pages (hereinafter, “Farina’ 2001”) in view of Lyons et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220167105 (hereinafter, “Lyons”).
Regarding claim 12, Farina’ 2001 teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Farina’ 2001 further teaches after computing the values of the kernels from the measured multiple impulse response, the non-linear convolution can be efficiently implemented following eq. 2 (page 3, left column, next-to-last paragraph, see Farina’ 2001).
However, Farina’ 2001 does not explicitly disclose information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the harmonic signal generation unit (this limitation invokes 112(f), harmonic signal generation unit 43 includes multiplication units 51-1 to 51-4 and convolution units 52-1 to 52-4., see Fig. 9, Specification page 17; see equation (2) in page 2, left column, see Farina’ 2001) convolves, to the input signal, the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion personalized to the user.
Lyons teaches personalized three-dimensional audio (see Title) in which transmits the stimulus signal towards a first ear of the user, and wherein the response signal is captured at the first ear of the user in response to the stimulus signal; generating a target HRTF based on the response data, wherein the target HRTF characterizes at least one physical attribute of the user; generating an inverse filter based on the response data and based on a headphone transfer function (HPTF) associated with the headphone system; and generating the personalized HRTF for the user based on the inverse filter and the target HRTF (claim 11, see Lyons); wherein the stimulus signal comprises a sine wave sweep across a range of frequencies and a range of amplitudes (claim 13, see Lyons). In other words, the capture including both linear and non-linear.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the personalized three-dimensional audio taught by Lyons with the information processing device of Farina’ 2001 such that to obtain information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the harmonic signal generation unit convolves, to the input signal, the transfer characteristics of the harmonic distortion personalized to the user for purpose of increasing the quality of 3D audio implementations, as suggested by Lyons in paragraph [0020].
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farina et al. "Simultaneous Measurement of Impulse Response and Distortion with a Swept-sine Technique" Audio Engineering Society Convention 108th, 12-19 February 2000, Paris, France, 25 pages. ( A more complex system, in which a not-linear, memoryless device drives a subsequent linear, reverberating system, see Fig. 2, page 14).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CON P TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7532. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (08:30 AM- 05:00 PM) ET.
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 C. 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.
/C.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights