Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Priority
The Office received a certified copy of the GB2315204.4 Application on 17 July 2026.
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5–8, 10, 12, 14–17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2025/0063317 (effectively filed 11 January 2022) (“Koppens”); US Patent Application Publication 2022/0377485 (published 24 November 2022) (“Raghuvanshi”) and Macprovideo.com, Convolution vs. Algorithmic Reverbs: The Lowdown, https://web.archive.org/web/20221026005340/https://www.macprovideo.com/article/audio-software/convolution-algorithmic-reverbs-lowdown (archived 26 October 2022) (last accessed 23 September 2026) (“MPV”).
Claims 21, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koppens, Raghuvanshi, MPV and US Patent Application Publication 2014/0355766 (published 04 December 2014) (“Morrell”).
Claims 22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koppens, Raghuvanshi, MPV and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0339504 (published 23 November 2017) (“Bharitkar”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a computer-implemented method for virtual environment audio signal simulation.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method and the Koppens reference.
Claim 1
The Koppens Reference
“1. A computer-implemented method
The Koppens reference similarly describes a method for simulating a virtual scene, or environment, containing multiple rooms. Koppens at ¶¶ 1, 30–32.1 Koppens’s method simulates the transmission of audio generated in one room to a listening position in another neighboring room, while simulating the effects between the rooms. Id.
“simulating, as a simulated audio signal, propagation of an audio signal in a first room of a virtual environment, wherein the first room comprises an audio source;
Koppens describes simulating the manner in which audio produced by a source in a first room propagates through the room. Id. at ¶¶ 123–130, FIG.5. For example, Koppens simulates the position of the sound source and room effects, like reverb. Id. Koppens also simulates other propagation characteristics, such as a transmission boundary that propagates sound from a room containing a source to a neighboring room while applying some amount of attenuation. Id. at 107–113. For example, two rooms may be defined as neighboring and may include a doorway between them. Id. Audio of a sufficient volume that reaches the doorway will be transmitted according to the transmission boundary threshold associated with the door and the acoustic transparency of the doorway. Id.
“outputting the simulated audio signal to a third room of the virtual environment, wherein the third room is between the first room and a second room of the virtual environment;
Koppens provides an example virtual scene including three rooms, in which audio generated in a first room may be output to either of the two neighboring rooms. Id. at ¶ 97, FIG.4.
While Koppens describes a scene that includes non-adjacent rooms, the three rooms described in detail, however, are not described as being interconnected with a third room being arranged between a first room and a second room. Id. at ¶ 102. However, as will be shown below in detail, this is an obvious design choice based on the desired scene architecture.
“modifying the simulated audio signal by a predetermined function to generate a modified audio signal,
Koppens describes modifying a simulated audio by applying gains corresponding to the acoustic transparency of a transmission boundary that joins two neighboring rooms. Id. at ¶¶ 179–193.
“wherein the predetermined function is based on an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal capturing reflections and reverberations within the third room, and
“wherein modifying the simulated audio signal comprises convolving the simulated audio signal with the pre-calculated acoustic response signal; and
Koppens also describes modifying a simulated audio signal by applying a reverb function according to any known type of reverb technique, such as a Jot parametric reverb function. Id. at ¶ 126.
Jot reverb, however, is a parametric form of reverb based on feedback delay lines. Id. at ¶¶ 18, 36, 167. It does not involve convolution of a simulated audio signal with a pre-calculated acoustic response signal that is an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal capturing reflections and reverberations within a room.
“outputting the modified audio signal to the second room, wherein the second room comprises an audio receiver.”
Koppens describes outputting the audio from a first room to a second room after applying a gain to simulate the transmission of the sound from the first room to the second room through a transmission boundary, or room leak, like a door. Id. at ¶¶ 107–111, 179–193.
Table
The table above shows that the Koppens reference describes a method that corresponds closely to the claimed method. Koppens does not anticipate the claimed three-room arrangement with a third room being located between a first room and a second room. Koppens also does not describe the modification of audio by convolving a simulated audio signal with an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal that captures reflections and reverberations.
Three-Room Arrangement
Koppens describes a system for simulating the transmission of audio from a source located in a first room to a listener position located in a neighboring second room. While Koppens describes a system capable of defining a scene with three or more neighboring rooms, Koppens does not describe a scene where a third room exists between a first room and a second room.
One of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood that the Koppens reference describes a system that allows a scene designer to produce any desired type of scene with any desired number of rooms in any desired configuration. See Koppens at ¶ 102 (noting that a scene may include a number of rooms that are typically, but not necessarily, adjacent). The ultimate design of a scene would be the result of numerous design choices geared towards representing a particular type of scene, such as a typical house with a hallway (i.e., a third room) and with rooms on either side of the hallway where each room includes a door to the hallway. See Raghuvanshi at FIGs.4, 5 (depicting acoustic scenes where sound from a first space is transmitted to a second space via a third space). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design a scene with three distinct rooms as claimed, with each room being laid out adjacently, or in a line, such that the third room is located between the first room and the second room.
Further, based on Koppens’s ability to model sound from adjacent, and non-adjacent rooms, and to model all attenuations between a source and a listening position and using Koppens’s metadata for defining the way rooms acoustically interact through transmission boundaries, it would have been obvious to configure Koppens’s system to simulate the propagation of sound from the first room to the second room via the third room. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that this would cause the virtual scene to accurately simulate the manner in which sound would transmit through the virtual scene as if it were a real scene. See Koppens at ¶¶ 10, 99, 131, 152, 154, 155, 178, 195.
Convolutional Reverb
The MPV reference teaches that there are two main types of digital reverb: algorithmic and convolutional. MPV at p. 1. Algorithmic reverb applies an algorithm to synthesize reverb. Id. at pp. 1–2. The Koppens reference describes an example of this type of reverb—namely, Jot parametric reverb based on feedback delay lines. Koppens at ¶¶ 18, 36, 167.
Convolutional reverb convolves an input audio signal with an impulse response of a room. MPV at pp. 3–4. The room’s impulse response (RIR) is generated offline and in advance to its actual use (i.e., it is pre-calculated) by recording the response of a room to a test signal (e.g., a click) in a room. See id. Because the RIR involves recording the response of the room to a test signal, the RIR will capture the acoustic reverberations and reflections in a room. See id. Koppens also describes an example of convolutional reverb by describing the use of BRIR as an alternative to Jot reverb. Koppens at ¶¶ 11, 12, 17, 161.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Koppens to apply reverb using BRIR by convolving an audio signal with a particular room’s BRIR that is pre-calculated offline and that captures the reflections and reverberations in a room. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results: applying the MPV reference’s teachings about offline pre-calculation of a room’s BRIR in advance based on a test signal and the application of reverb to an audio signal by convolving the audio signal with the BRIR to Koppens’s reverb generator in order to predictably produce reverb). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the third room is a substantially acoustically stationary room.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, the hallway would be substantially acoustically stationary, serving simply as a connection between the two bedrooms. See Raghuvanshi at FIG.4. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein each of the first room, the second room, and the third room rooms is distinct from each other.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, each three room would be distinct as claimed. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first room, the second room, and the third room are linearly arranged.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, the rooms would be linearly arranged as claimed. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first room is adjacent to the third room and the second room is adjacent to the third room.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, the three rooms would be adjacent as claimed. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the virtual environment further comprises first acoustic portal between the first room and the third room, and a second acoustic portal between the third room and the second room, such that the simulated audio signal propagates from the first room into the third room via the first acoustic portal, and the modified audio signal outputs into the second room via the second acoustic portal
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, Koppens would suggest modeling transmission boundaries, or room leaks, such as doors, between the bedrooms and the hallway, such that sound from a first room may reach a second room through a third, intervening room/hallway and the respective portals between each room. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 21 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein convolving the simulated audio signal with the offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal comprises multiplying a frequency spectrum of the simulated audio signal with a frequency spectrum of the offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal to accentuate shared frequencies and attenuate non-shared frequencies.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of modifying Koppens to use convolutional reverb of a BRIR with an audio signal in place of algorithmic reverb. One known manner of applying a BRIR is the use of frequency-band convolution that multiply a frequency response with an input audio signal. See Morrell at ¶¶ 120, 142. This would have reasonably suggested applying BRIR in Koppens by multiplying a frequency-domain BRIR (i.e., frequency spectrum) with a frequency spectrum of an input audio signal. Because this frequency-domain convolution uses the multiplication operator, shared frequencies will be accentuated while non-shared frequencies will be attenuated. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi, the MPV and the Morrell references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“further comprising generating the offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal by introducing an initial sound impulse from a simulated audio source into the third room, capturing a resulting sound recording representing the third room's ambient acoustics, and removing the initial sound impulse from the captured sound recording to generate the third room's static acoustic response profile.”
The MPV reference describes generating an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal by playing a test signal in a room and capturing the resulting sound. MPV at p. 3. MPV, however, does not describe removing the initial sound impulse from the captured sound recording when generating the room’s impulse response (RIR) or binaural RIR (BRIR). The Bharitkar reference teaches that when generating a BRIR, test signals are played and recorded and then subjected to deconvolution to separate the BRIR from the test signal. Bharitkar at ¶¶ 8, 62–64. This teaching would have reasonably suggested modifying the combination of Koppens and MPV to include the claimed step of removing an initial sound impulse (i.e., test signal, or click) by subjecting a recorded room response to deconvolution. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi, the MPV and the Bharitkar references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 is drawn to “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform one or more operations for virtual scene audio signal simulation.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed medium and the Koppens reference.
Claim 10
The Koppens Reference
“10. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform one or more operations for virtual environment audio signal simulation, comprising:
The Koppens reference similarly describes a non-transitory medium that stores a computer program executed by a processor to implement a method for simulating a virtual scene, or environment, containing multiple rooms. Koppens at ¶¶ 1, 30–32, claim 31.2 Koppens’s method simulates the transmission of audio generated in one room to a listening position in another neighboring room, while simulating the effects between the rooms. Id.
“simulating, as a simulated audio signal, propagation of an audio signal in a first room of a virtual environment, wherein the first room comprises an audio source;
Koppens describes simulating the manner in which audio produced by a source in a first room propagates through the room. Id. at ¶¶ 123–130, FIG.5. For example, Koppens simulates the position of the sound source and room effects, like reverb. Id. Koppens also simulates other propagation characteristics, such as a transmission boundary that propagates sound from a room containing a source to a neighboring room while applying some amount of attenuation. Id. at 107–113. For example, two rooms may be defined as neighboring and may include a doorway between them. Id. Audio of a sufficient volume that reaches the doorway will be transmitted according to the transmission boundary threshold associated with the door and the acoustic transparency of the doorway. Id.
“outputting the simulated audio signal to a third room of the virtual environment, wherein the third room is between the first room and a second room of the virtual environment;
Koppens provides an example virtual scene including three rooms, in which audio generated in a first room may be output to either of the two neighboring rooms. Id. at ¶ 97, FIG.4.
While Koppens describes a scene that includes non-adjacent rooms, the three rooms described in detail, however, are not described as being interconnected with a third room being arranged between a first room and a second room. Id. at ¶ 102. However, as will be shown below in detail, this is an obvious design choice based on the desired scene architecture.
“modifying the simulated audio signal by a predetermined function to generate a modified audio signal,
Koppens describes modifying a simulated audio by applying gains corresponding to the acoustic transparency of a transmission boundary that joins two neighboring rooms. Id. at ¶¶ 179–193.
“wherein the predetermined function is based on an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal capturing reflections and reverberations within the third room, and
“wherein modifying the simulated audio signal comprises convolving the simulated audio signal with the pre-calculated acoustic response signal; and
Koppens also describes modifying a simulated audio signal by applying a reverb function according to any known type of reverb technique, such as a Jot parametric reverb function. Id. at ¶ 126.
Jot reverb, however, is a parametric form of reverb based on feedback delay lines. Id. at ¶¶ 18, 36, 167. It does not involve convolution of a simulated audio signal with a pre-calculated acoustic response signal that is an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal capturing reflections and reverberations within a room.
“outputting the modified audio signal to the second room, wherein the second room comprises an audio receiver.”
Koppens describes outputting the audio from a first room to a second room after applying a gain to simulate the transmission of the sound from the first room to the second room through a transmission boundary, or room leak, like a door. Id. at ¶¶ 107–111, 179–193.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Koppens reference describes a medium that corresponds closely to the claimed medium. Koppens does not anticipate the claimed three-room arrangement with a third room being located between a first room and a second room. Koppens also does not describe the modification of audio by convolving a simulated audio signal with an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal that captures reflections and reverberations.
Three-Room Arrangement
Koppens describes a system for simulating the transmission of audio from a source located in a first room to a listener position located in a neighboring second room. While Koppens describes a system capable of defining a scene with three or more neighboring rooms, Koppens does not describe a scene where a third room exists between a first room and a second room.
One of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood that the Koppens reference describes a system that allows a scene designer to produce any desired type of scene with any desired number of rooms in any desired configuration. See Koppens at ¶ 102 (noting that a scene may include a number of rooms that are typically, but not necessarily, adjacent). The ultimate design of a scene would be the result of numerous design choices geared towards representing a particular type of scene, such as a typical house with a hallway (i.e., a third room) and with rooms on either side of the hallway where each room includes a door to the hallway. See Raghuvanshi at FIGs.4, 5 (depicting acoustic scenes where sound from a first space is transmitted to a second space via a third space). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design a scene with three distinct rooms as claimed, with each room being laid out adjacently, or in a line, such that the third room is located between the first room and the second room.
Further, based on Koppens’s ability to model sound from adjacent, and non-adjacent rooms, and to model all attenuations between a source and a listening position and using Koppens’s metadata for defining the way rooms acoustically interact through transmission boundaries, it would have been obvious to configure Koppens’s system to simulate the propagation of sound from the first room to the second room via the third room. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that this would cause the virtual scene to accurately simulate the manner in which sound would transmit through the virtual scene as if it were a real scene. See Koppens at ¶¶ 10, 99, 131, 152, 154, 155, 178, 195.
Convolutional Reverb
The MPV reference teaches that there are two main types of digital reverb: algorithmic and convolutional. MPV at p. 1. Algorithmic reverb applies an algorithm to synthesize reverb. Id. at pp. 1–2. The Koppens reference describes an example of this type of reverb—namely, Jot parametric reverb based on feedback delay lines. Koppens at ¶¶ 18, 36, 167.
Convolutional reverb convolves an input audio signal with an impulse response of a room. MPV at pp. 3–4. The room’s impulse response (RIR) is generated offline and in advance to its actual use (i.e., it is pre-calculated) by recording the response of a room to a test signal (e.g., a click) in a room. See id. Because the RIR involves recording the response of the room to a test signal, the RIR will capture the acoustic reverberations and reflections in a room. See id. Koppens also describes an example of convolutional reverb by describing the use of BRIR as an alternative to Jot reverb. Koppens at ¶¶ 11, 12, 17, 161.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Koppens to apply reverb using BRIR by convolving an audio signal with a particular room’s BRIR that is pre-calculated offline and that captures the reflections and reverberations in a room. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results: applying the MPV reference’s teachings about offline pre-calculation of a room’s BRIR in advance based on a test signal and the application of reverb to an audio signal by convolving the audio signal with the BRIR to Koppens’s reverb generator in order to predictably produce reverb). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the predetermined function corresponds to an acoustic response of the third room.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. Further, Koppens teaches and suggests applying a gain based on all forms of attenuation between a source and a listener, including the attenuation provided by the hallway. Koppens at ¶ 191–193. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the third room is a substantially acoustically stationary room.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, the hallway would be substantially acoustically stationary, serving simply as a connection between the two bedrooms. See Raghuvanshi at FIG.4. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein modifying the simulated audio signal comprises convolving the simulated audio signal with a response signal, wherein the response signal corresponds to an acoustic response of the third room.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that case, it would have been obvious to use convolution to simulate the frequency/impulse response of the third room when reproducing an audio source located in a first room to a listener position in a second room. Koppens at ¶¶ 125, 161. Note, that application of an impulse response inherently requires the use of convolution or its frequency-domain equivalent for application of a frequency response. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein each of the first room, the second room, and the third room is distinct from each other.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, each three room would be distinct as claimed. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first room, the second room, and the third room are linearly arranged.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, the rooms would be linearly arranged as claimed. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first room is adjacent to the third room and the second room is adjacent to the third room.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, the three rooms would be adjacent as claimed. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the virtual environment further comprises first acoustic portal between the first room and the third room, and a second acoustic portal between the third room and the second room, such that the simulated audio signal propagates from the first room into the third room via the first acoustic portal, and the modified audio signal outputs into the second room via the second acoustic portal
The obviousness rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, Koppens would suggest modeling transmission boundaries, or room leaks, such as doors, between the bedrooms and the hallway, such that sound from a first room may reach a second room through a third, intervening room/hallway and the respective portals between each room. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein there is a portal between the third room and the second room through which audio signals can propagate.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of designing a scene having three adjoining rooms, such as a first bedroom having a source, a second bedroom having a listener and a hallway that links the two bedrooms. In that obvious design example, Koppens would suggest modeling transmission boundaries, or room leaks, such as doors, between the bedrooms and the hallway. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 23 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein convolving the simulated audio signal with the offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal comprises multiplying a frequency spectrum of the simulated audio signal with a frequency spectrum of the offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal to accentuate shared frequencies and attenuate non-shared frequencies.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of modifying Koppens to use convolutional reverb of a BRIR with an audio signal in place of algorithmic reverb. One known manner of applying a BRIR is the use of frequency-band convolution that multiply a frequency response with an input audio signal. See Morrell at ¶¶ 120, 142. This would have reasonably suggested applying BRIR in Koppens by multiplying a frequency-domain BRIR (i.e., frequency spectrum) with a frequency spectrum of an input audio signal. Because this frequency-domain convolution uses the multiplication operator, shared frequencies will be accentuated while non-shared frequencies will be attenuated. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi, the MPV and the Morrell references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 24 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more operations further comprise generating the offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal by introducing an initial sound impulse from a simulated audio source into the third room, capturing a resulting sound recording representing the third room's ambient acoustics, and removing the initial sound impulse from the captured sound recording to generate the third room's static acoustic response profile.”
The MPV reference describes generating an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal by playing a test signal in a room and capturing the resulting sound. MPV at p. 3. MPV, however, does not describe removing the initial sound impulse from the captured sound recording when generating the room’s impulse response (RIR) or binaural RIR (BRIR). The Bharitkar reference teaches that when generating a BRIR, test signals are played and recorded and then subjected to deconvolution to separate the BRIR from the test signal. Bharitkar at ¶¶ 8, 62–64. This teaching would have reasonably suggested modifying the combination of Koppens and MPV to include the claimed step of removing an initial sound impulse (i.e., test signal, or click) by subjecting a recorded room response to deconvolution. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi, the MPV and the Bharitkar references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 is drawn to “a computer-implemented system for virtual environment audio signal simulation.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Koppens reference.
Claim 19
The Koppens Reference
“19. A computer-implemented system for virtual environment audio signal simulation, comprising:
“one or more computers; and
“one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations, comprising:
The Koppens reference similarly describes a system that includes a computer processor that executes instructions stored on a non-transitory media to implement a method for simulating a virtual scene, or environment, containing multiple rooms. Koppens at ¶¶ 1, 30–32, claim 31.3 Koppens’s method simulates the transmission of audio generated in one room to a listening position in another neighboring room, while simulating the effects between the rooms. Id.
“simulating, as a simulated audio signal, propagation of an audio signal in a first room of a virtual environment, wherein the first room comprises an audio source;
Koppens describes simulating the manner in which audio produced by a source in a first room propagates through the room. Id. at ¶¶ 123–130, FIG.5. For example, Koppens simulates the position of the sound source and room effects, like reverb. Id. Koppens also simulates other propagation characteristics, such as a transmission boundary that propagates sound from a room containing a source to a neighboring room while applying some amount of attenuation. Id. at 107–113. For example, two rooms may be defined as neighboring and may include a doorway between them. Id. Audio of a sufficient volume that reaches the doorway will be transmitted according to the transmission boundary threshold associated with the door and the acoustic transparency of the doorway. Id.
“outputting the simulated audio signal to a third room of the virtual environment, wherein the third room is between the first room and a second room of the virtual environment;
Koppens provides an example virtual scene including three rooms, in which audio generated in a first room may be output to either of the two neighboring rooms. Id. at ¶ 97, FIG.4.
While Koppens describes a scene that includes non-adjacent rooms, the three rooms described in detail, however, are not described as being interconnected with a third room being arranged between a first room and a second room. Id. at ¶ 102. However, as will be shown below in detail, this is an obvious design choice based on the desired scene architecture.
“modifying the simulated audio signal by a predetermined function to generate a modified audio signal,
Koppens describes modifying a simulated audio by applying gains corresponding to the acoustic transparency of a transmission boundary that joins two neighboring rooms. Id. at ¶¶ 179–193.
“wherein the predetermined function is based on an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal capturing reflections and reverberations within the third room, and
“wherein modifying the simulated audio signal comprises convolving the simulated audio signal with the pre-calculated acoustic response signal; and
Koppens also describes modifying a simulated audio signal by applying a reverb function according to any known type of reverb technique, such as a Jot parametric reverb function. Id. at ¶ 126.
Jot reverb, however, is a parametric form of reverb based on feedback delay lines. Id. at ¶¶ 18, 36, 167. It does not involve convolution of a simulated audio signal with a pre-calculated acoustic response signal that is an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal capturing reflections and reverberations within a room.
“outputting the modified audio signal to the second room, wherein the second room comprises an audio receiver.”
Koppens describes outputting the audio from a first room to a second room after applying a gain to simulate the transmission of the sound from the first room to the second room through a transmission boundary, or room leak, like a door. Id. at ¶¶ 107–111, 179–193.
Table 2
The table above shows that the Koppens reference describes a system that corresponds closely to the claimed system. Koppens does not anticipate the claimed three-room arrangement with a third room being located between a first room and a second room. Koppens also does not describe the modification of audio by convolving a simulated audio signal with an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal that captures reflections and reverberations.
Three-Room Arrangement
Koppens describes a system for simulating the transmission of audio from a source located in a first room to a listener position located in a neighboring second room. While Koppens describes a system capable of defining a scene with three or more neighboring rooms, Koppens does not describe a scene where a third room exists between a first room and a second room.
One of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood that the Koppens reference describes a system that allows a scene designer to produce any desired type of scene with any desired number of rooms in any desired configuration. See Koppens at ¶ 102 (noting that a scene may include a number of rooms that are typically, but not necessarily, adjacent). The ultimate design of a scene would be the result of numerous design choices geared towards representing a particular type of scene, such as a typical house with a hallway (i.e., a third room) and with rooms on either side of the hallway where each room includes a door to the hallway. See Raghuvanshi at FIGs.4, 5 (depicting acoustic scenes where sound from a first space is transmitted to a second space via a third space). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design a scene with three distinct rooms as claimed, with each room being laid out adjacently, or in a line, such that the third room is located between the first room and the second room.
Further, based on Koppens’s ability to model sound from adjacent, and non-adjacent rooms, and to model all attenuations between a source and a listening position and using Koppens’s metadata for defining the way rooms acoustically interact through transmission boundaries, it would have been obvious to configure Koppens’s system to simulate the propagation of sound from the first room to the second room via the third room. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that this would cause the virtual scene to accurately simulate the manner in which sound would transmit through the virtual scene as if it were a real scene. See Koppens at ¶¶ 10, 99, 131, 152, 154, 155, 178, 195.
Convolutional Reverb
The MPV reference teaches that there are two main types of digital reverb: algorithmic and convolutional. MPV at p. 1. Algorithmic reverb applies an algorithm to synthesize reverb. Id. at pp. 1–2. The Koppens reference describes an example of this type of reverb—namely, Jot parametric reverb based on feedback delay lines. Koppens at ¶¶ 18, 36, 167.
Convolutional reverb convolves an input audio signal with an impulse response of a room. MPV at pp. 3–4. The room’s impulse response (RIR) is generated offline and in advance to its actual use (i.e., it is pre-calculated) by recording the response of a room to a test signal (e.g., a click) in a room. See id. Because the RIR involves recording the response of the room to a test signal, the RIR will capture the acoustic reverberations and reflections in a room. See id. Koppens also describes an example of convolutional reverb by describing the use of BRIR as an alternative to Jot reverb. Koppens at ¶¶ 11, 12, 17, 161.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Koppens to apply reverb using BRIR by convolving an audio signal with a particular room’s BRIR that is pre-calculated offline and that captures the reflections and reverberations in a room. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results: applying the MPV reference’s teachings about offline pre-calculation of a room’s BRIR in advance based on a test signal and the application of reverb to an audio signal by convolving the audio signal with the BRIR to Koppens’s reverb generator in order to predictably produce reverb). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi and the MPV references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 25 depends on claim 19, and further requires the following:
“wherein convolving the simulated audio signal with the offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal comprises multiplying a frequency spectrum of the simulated audio signal with a frequency spectrum of the offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal to accentuate shared frequencies and attenuate non-shared frequencies.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 19, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of modifying Koppens to use convolutional reverb of a BRIR with an audio signal in place of algorithmic reverb. One known manner of applying a BRIR is the use of frequency-band convolution that multiply a frequency response with an input audio signal. See Morrell at ¶¶ 120, 142. This would have reasonably suggested applying BRIR in Koppens by multiplying a frequency-domain BRIR (i.e., frequency spectrum) with a frequency spectrum of an input audio signal. Because this frequency-domain convolution uses the multiplication operator, shared frequencies will be accentuated while non-shared frequencies will be attenuated. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi, the MPV and the Morrell references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 26 depends on claim 19, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more operations further comprise generating the offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal by introducing an initial sound impulse from a simulated audio source into the third room, capturing a resulting sound recording representing the third room's ambient acoustics, and removing the initial sound impulse from the captured sound recording to generate the third room's static acoustic response profile.”
The MPV reference describes generating an offline, pre-calculated acoustic response signal by playing a test signal in a room and capturing the resulting sound. MPV at p. 3. MPV, however, does not describe removing the initial sound impulse from the captured sound recording when generating the room’s impulse response (RIR) or binaural RIR (BRIR). The Bharitkar reference teaches that when generating a BRIR, test signals are played and recorded and then subjected to deconvolution to separate the BRIR from the test signal. Bharitkar at ¶¶ 8, 62–64. This teaching would have reasonably suggested modifying the combination of Koppens and MPV to include the claimed step of removing an initial sound impulse (i.e., test signal, or click) by subjecting a recorded room response to deconvolution. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens, the Raghuvanshi, the MPV and the Bharitkar references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–20 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
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.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (16 July 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 7 includes comments pertaining to the rejections included in the previous Non-Final Office action (21 April 2026). Those comments have been considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
9/24/2026
1 N.b., this Application and the Koppens reference use slightly different terminology to refer to the same things. Koppens uses the term environment to refer to a room while using the term scene to refer to an environment.
2 N.b., this Application and the Koppens reference use slightly different terminology to refer to the same things. Koppens uses the term environment to refer to a room while using the term scene to refer to an environment.
3 N.b., this Application and the Koppens reference use slightly different terminology to refer to the same things. Koppens uses the term environment to refer to a room while using the term scene to refer to an environment.
