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 § 103
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 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(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-17,and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppens (US 20230007426 A1, hereinafter “Koppens”) in view of Koppens (EP4132012A1, hereinafter “Koppens EP”), Gerrard et al. (US 200800693607, hereinafter “Gerrard”) and Thakur et al. (US 20180262860, hereinafter “Thakur”). (Note Gerrard and Thakur are cited in response to applicant’s challenge to the official notice from previous office action.)
Regarding claim 1, Koppens teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: simulating a reflected audio path in a virtual environment between a source and a receiver, comprising: (see [0024], Fig. 4, 5: sound source receiver and "first room" which comprises sound reflective boundaries/walls. The reflected audio path is associated with the reflection at the sound reflective boundaries)
mirroring the source in a sound-reflective boundary, generating, based at least on mirroring the source in the sound- reflective boundary, a mirror image source, and determining the reflected audio path along the line segment between the receiver and the mirror image source; (see [0137]-[0146], [0163], Fig. 6: mirroring source within boundaries, based at least on mirroring the sound reflective boundary, an image source, and path may be attenuated when the path crosses the boundary between mirror rooms)
Koppens is silent to mirroring an obstacle in the sound-reflective boundary; generating, based at least on mirroring the obstacle in the sound-reflective boundary, a mirror image obstacle; performing a line-of-sight check between the receiver and the mirror image source; determining, based at least on performing the line-of-sight check between the receiver and the mirror image source, that at least one of the obstacle or the mirror image obstacle lies along a line segment between the mirror image source and the receiver;
However, Koppens EP teaches mirroring an obstacle in the sound-reflective boundary; (see [0014]: isolated reflections of the audio source on walls or obstacles inside the room/boundary)
Koppens and Koppens EP are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of determining audio paths in a virtual environment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of mirroring an obstacle in the sound-reflective boundary of Koppens EP to Koppens in order to generate a mirror image obstacle then perform a line-of-sight check to determine and obstructions to the sound path in the virtual environment.
Koppens in view of Koppens EP does not teach generating, based at least on mirroring the obstacle in the sound-reflective boundary, a mirror image obstacle; performing a line-of-sight check between the receiver and the mirror image source; determining, based at least on performing the line-of-sight check between the receiver and the mirror image source, that at least one of the obstacle or the mirror image obstacle lies along a line segment between the mirror image source and the receiver;
Gerrard teaches generating a “mirror image obstacle” (see, fig. 3, item 308; forms a virtual reflected image of polygon geometry)
Gerrard teaches performing a “single line-of-sight check between the receiver and the mirror image source” (see figs. 8A and 8B, items 812-816; “a ray is traced between the virtual source and the listener” using the common occlusion subroutine)
Koppens and Gerrard are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of determining audio paths in a virtual environment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of mirror image obstacle and line-of-sight check of Gerrard to Koppens in order for simulating the propagation of an audio signal within a virtual environment in an obstructed and unobstructed scenario.
Thakur teaches determining, based on the check, that the obstacle or mirror image obstacle lies along the segment (see fig. 11, item 142; determine whether any object lies on the source-to-face leg or the face-to-listener leg; face-to-listener leg is part of the receiver/image-source segment and the source-side leg maps onto the remainder in image space).
Koppens is silent to removing the simulated reflected audio path from the virtual environment.
However, Thakur teaches removing the simulated reflected audio path from the virtual environment. (see [0206]-[0207]; an obstructed reflected ray is removed or discarded and ignored in subsequent calculations).
Koppens and Thakur are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of determining audio paths in a virtual environment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of removal of the simulated reflected audio path from the virtual environment of Thakur to Koppens in order for simulating the propagation of an audio signal within a virtual environment in an obstructed and unobstructed scenario.
Regarding claim 2, Koppens is silent to the virtual environment comprises a video gaming environment.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement for the virtual environment to be a video gaming environment based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 3, Koppens is silent to the virtual environment comprises a video game.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement for that the virtual environment comprises a video game based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 5, Koppens teaches comprising adjusting an attenuation factor that is associated with the simulated reflected audio path. (see [0143]-[0157]: adjustment comprises adjusting an attenuation factor associated with the simulated reflected audio path)
Regarding claim 6, Koppens teaches wherein adjusting the attenuation factor comprises adjusting attenuation factor according to a length of the simulated reflected audio path. (see [0146]: each signal path is attenuated by an attenuation factor determined to directly correspond to the path length)
Regarding claim 9, Koppens teaches the virtual environment comprises a plurality of sound-reflective boundaries; (see [0024], Fig. 4, 5: sound source receiver and "first room" which comprises sound reflective boundaries/walls.)
and the method further comprises simulating a plurality of reflected audio paths, each of the plurality of reflected audio paths associated with a reflection at one of the plurality of sound- reflective boundaries. (see [0024], Fig. 4: the reflected audio path is associated with the reflection at the sound reflective boundaries)
Regarding claim 10, Koppens teaches the virtual environment comprises a plurality of virtual objects; (see [0004]: virtual environment including virtual objects)
Koppens is silent to the method further comprises: mirroring the identified obstacle in the sound-reflective boundary, and identifying at least one of the plurality of virtual objects as an obstacle; and generating, based at least on mirroring an identified obstacle in the sound- reflective boundary, a corresponding mirror image obstacle for the identified obstacle.
However, Koppens EP teaches mirroring an identified obstacle in the sound-reflective boundary, and identifying at least one of the plurality of virtual objects as an obstacle; (see [0014]: isolated reflections of the audio source on walls or obstacles inside the room/boundary)
Koppens in view of Koppens EP does not teach generating, based at least on mirroring the identified obstacle in the sound- reflective boundary, a corresponding mirror image obstacle for the identified obstacle.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement for mirroring the identified obstacle in the boundary and generating a mirror image obstacle for the identified obstacle as done with other mirror images based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Koppens and Koppens EP are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of determining audio paths in a virtual environment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of mirroring an obstacle in the sound-reflective boundary of Koppens EP to Koppens in order to generate a mirror image obstacle then perform a line-of-sight check to determine and obstructions to the sound path in the virtual environment.
Regarding claim 11, Koppens teaches each virtual object of the plurality of virtual objects comprises a tag indicating at least one property of the virtual object; and identifying at least one of the plurality of virtual objects as an see [0139]-[0140]: attenuation factor is dependent upon acoustic properties associated (i.e. tagged) with the boundaries. When selecting boundaries to be included for the set of mirror boundaries, the attenuation factor is used. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to apply these teachings to obstacles as well as boundaries.)
Regarding claim 12, Koppens is silent to comprising applying a respective tag to each virtual object of the plurality of virtual objects, comprising: manually tagging the virtual object; or automatically tagging the virtual object based on a property of the virtual object.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement for manually or automatically tagging the virtual object based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 13, Koppens is silent to the property of the virtual object comprises at least one of a size, material, or shape.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement for the property of the virtual object comprises at least one of a size, material, or a shape based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 14, Koppens is silent to wherein automatically tagging the virtual object comprises analyzing using machine vision, the virtual environment whether the virtual object has properties which present an obstruction to the propagating audio signal.
However, official notice is taken that it is well-known in the art that to analyze using machine vision for automatic operations and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have included analyzing using machine vision, the virtual environment whether the virtual object has properties which present an obstruction to the propagating audio signal since it is just one of the many well-known ways that a designer can use to identify a virtual object with audio obstructive properties.
Regarding claim 15, Koppens teaches each of the, and the virtual objects having the priority value above a threshold are identified as obstacles and are used to generate corresponding mirror image obstacles. (see [0143]-[0158]: identify a non-reflective wall (obstacle) by the selection of the boundaries that result in an attenuation factor below a given threshold such that any mirror sequence is stopped when obstacle is reached)
Koppens is silent to a plurality of virtual objects is assigned a respective priority value representing a degree to which the virtual object presents an obstruction to a propagating audio signal
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement to assign a respective priority value to a virtual object representing a degree to which the virtual object presents an obstruction to a propagating audio signal based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 16, Koppens is silent to wherein the source is configured to emit an input audio signal and the receiver is configured to receive an output audio signal, and wherein the output audio signal comprises a version of the input audio signal that is adjusted based at least on to the removed simulated reflected audio path.
However, Koppens EP teaches wherein the source is configured to emit an input audio signal and the receiver is configured to receive an output audio signal, and wherein the output audio signal comprises a version of the input audio that is adjusted based at least on to the adjusted simulated reflected audio path. (see [0073]: audio output signal is generated which comprises the input audio that has been adjusted attenuation corresponding to the reflection components)
Koppens and Koppens EP are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of determining audio paths in a virtual environment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of the output audio signal comprising a version of the input audio that is adjusted of Koppens EP to Koppens in order to generate a simulated reflected audio path.
Regarding claim 17, Koppens teaches further comprising generating the output audio signal. (see [0149]: generate reflected audio signal)
Regarding claim 20-22, the claimed limitations are a claims directly corresponding to the method claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppens (US 20230007426 A1, hereinafter “Koppens”) in view of Koppens (EP4132012A1, hereinafter “Koppens EP”), Gerrard et al. (US 200800693607, hereinafter “Gerrard”), Thakur et al. (US 20180262860, hereinafter “Thakur”) and Sarkar (US 20190373395 A1, hereinafter “Sarkar”). (Note Gerrard and Thakur are cited in response to applicant’s challenge to the official notice from the previous office action.)
Regarding claim 7, Koppens in view of Koppens EP, Gerrard and Thakur is silent to wherein adjusting the attenuation factor comprises adjusting the attenuation factor according to a property of the obstacle.
Sarkar teaches the attenuation factor is adjusted according to a property of the obstacle. (see Fig. 1, [0029]-[0035]: acoustic properties associated with the corresponding object which includes attenuation)
Koppens in view of Koppens EP, Gerrard, Thakur and Sarkar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of determining audio paths in a virtual environment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of adjusting the attenuation factor according to a property of the obstacle of Sarkar to Koppens in view of Koppens EP, Gerrard and Thakur in order to identify any obstruction of the audio path and adjust the attenuation for sound quality.
Regarding claim 8, Koppens in view of Koppens EP, Gerrard and Thakur is silent to wherein adjusting the attenuation factor comprises adjusting the attenuation factor according to a property of the sound-reflective boundary.
Sarkar teaches the attenuation factor is adjusted according to a property of the obstacle. (see Fig. 1, [0029]-[0035], [0042]: acoustic properties including the sound-reflective boundary associated with the corresponding object adjusts attenuation, occlusion associated with audio source)
Koppens in view of Koppens EP, Gerrard, Thakur and Sarkar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of determining audio paths in a virtual environment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of adjusting the attenuation factor according to a property of the obstacle of Sarkar to Koppens in view of Koppens EP, Gerrard and Thakur in order to identify any obstruction of the audio path and adjust the attenuation for sound quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8 of applicant’s remarks, applicant challenges the official notice statement which states the limitation “generating, based at least on mirroring the obstacle in the sound-reflective boundary, a mirror image obstacle; performing a line-of-sight check between the receiver and the mirror image source; determining, based at least on performing the line-of-sight check between the receiver and the mirror image source, that at least one of the obstacle or the mirror image obstacle lies along a line segment between the mirror image source and the receiver” of claim 1 is well-known in the art, and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have included these limitations. The Examiner is providing such a prior art reference as set forth below in response to applicant’s request to show by evidential document:
Gerrard et al. (US Pub. 20080069367) teaches generating a “mirror image obstacle” (see, fig. 3, item 308; forms a virtual reflected image of polygon geometry)
Gerard et al. (US Pub. 20080069367) teaches performing a “single line-of-sight check between the receiver and the mirror image source” (see figs. 8A and 8B, items 812-816; “a ray is traced between the virtual source and the listener” using the common occlusion subroutine)
Thakur et al. (US Pub. 20180262860) teaches determining, based on the check, that the obstacle or mirror image obstacle lies along the segment (see fig. 11, item 142; determine whether any object lies on the source-to-face leg or the face-to-listener leg; face-to-listener leg is part of the receiver/image-source segment and the source-side leg maps onto the remainder in image space).
On page 8 of applicant’s remarks, applicant further argues that the cited references do not disclose or suggest the newly amended feature of “removing the simulated reflected audio path from the virtual environment.”
However, as recited in the above rejection, Thakur teaches removing the simulated reflected audio path from the virtual environment. (see [0206]-[0207]; an obstructed reflected ray is removed or discarded and ignored in subsequent calculations). Thus, applicant’s remarks are moot in view of the rejections set forth above.
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 ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights