CTNF 18/904,636 CTNF 79993 Detailed Action 07-03-01-aia AIA 07-03-01-r-aia 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 Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on the GB2315204.4 Application filed in Great Britain on 04 October 2023. Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB2315204.4 Application as required by 37 CFR § 1.55. An automated attempt to retrieve a copy was made, but was unsuccessful. (PD Retrieval Failure (04 March 2025)). Art Rejections Obviousness 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1–20 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”) and US Patent Application Publication 2022/0377485 (published 24 November 2022) (“Raghuvanshi”) . 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 for virtual environment audio signal simulation, comprising: 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; and 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. “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 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. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens and the Raghuvanshi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following: “ wherein the predetermined function corresponds to an acoustic response of 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. 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 and the Raghuvanshi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, 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 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 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 the third room and the second room is adjacent 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 and the Raghuvanshi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following: “wherein there is a portal between the first room and the third room through which audio signals can propagate.” 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. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens and the Raghuvanshi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, 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 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. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens and the Raghuvanshi 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; and 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. “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 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. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens and the Raghuvanshi 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 the third room and the second room is adjacent 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 and the Raghuvanshi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim. Claim 17 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following: “wherein there is a portal between the first room and the third 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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; and 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. “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 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. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Koppens and the Raghuvanshi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim. Claim 20 depends on claim 19, and further requires the following: “wherein the predetermined function corresponds to an acoustic response of the third room.” The obviousness rejection of claim 20, 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 and the Raghuvanshi 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 . 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. Additional Citations The following table lists additional references that were identified during a search of the subject matter contained in this Application. While this Office action does not rely on these references, they are considered relevant to the subject matter disclosed and claimed. Applicant is advised to consider these references while preparing any responses to this Office action. Citation Relevance US 2023/0388736 Simulating a room's many properties. Table 3 Conclusion 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 4/16/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/904,636 Page 2 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/904,636 Page 3 Art Unit: 2692 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.
Prosecution Insights