DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 03/11/2026.
Claims 21-22 are cancelled.
Claims 1-20 and 23-24 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application GB2315484.2 filed on October 10th, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB2315484.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “virtual environment 120” as described in the specification par. [0043] and [0055]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference labels 131, 141 is mentioned in paragraphs [0051] and [0055] but does not appear in Figures 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B. Figure 1B mentions the label 103, but it is not mentioned or defined in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs [0043], reference 120 is used to identify both the virtual environment (“virtual environment 120”) and the user (“The user 120”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of co-pending Application No. 18/910,747 in view of Koppens (EP 4132012 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application (18/909,172)
Co-pending application (18/910,747)
Similarities
Claim 1: (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method comprising:simulating a plurality of audio paths for propagating an audio signal between an audio source and a receiver within a virtual environment, one or more of the simulated plurality of audio paths comprising a reflection from a sound reflective object; one or more of the simulated plurality of audio paths, applying a deviation of an effective simulated position of one or more of the audio source, the receiver, or the sound reflective object within the virtual environment and, determining a path delay associated with the simulated audio path based at least on the effective simulated position.
Claim 1: (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method comprising: simulating one or more reflections of an audio signal within a virtual environment; determining, based at least on simulating the one or more reflections of the audio signal within the virtual environment, a plurality of audio paths between a source and a receiver;determining an input audio signal that is to be propagated between the source and the receiver by the plurality of audio paths;determining that one or more audio paths of the plurality of audio paths have a path delay that causes interference in the input audio signal; and performing an adjustment to the determined one or more audio paths that have the path delay that causes the interference in the input audio signal, the adjustment reducing the interference in the input audio signal.
Both the instant and ‘747 claim 1 are directed to simulating reflected audio propagation paths between a source and a receiver in a virtual environment and modifying those paths to reduce interference artifacts associated with path delays.
Claim 8: the method of claim 1, wherein the path delay is determined at runtime of a videogame during simulation of the propagation of the audio signal during gameplay
Claim 17: the virtual environment comprises a virtual gaming environment within a video game, and the one or more reflections of the audio signal are simulated within the virtual gaming environment during gameplay.
Both the instant claim 8 and ‘747 claim 17 are directed to performing reflected audio path simulation and path delay processing within a virtual gaming environment during gameplay.
Claim 15: the method of claim 11, wherein determining at least one wavelength or at least one frequency of an audio signal to be propagated comprises calculating a spectral centroid of the audio signal
Claim 6: the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein performing audio content analysis on the input audio signal comprises calculating a spectral centroid of the input audio signal.
Both the instant claim 15 and ‘747 claim 6 are directed to calculating a spectral centroid of an audio signal and utilizing the calculated spectral centroid as part of an interference mitigation process.
Claim 23: A system comprising: one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: simulating a plurality of audio paths for propagating an audio signal between an audio source and a receiver within a virtual environment,…applying a deviation of an effective simulated position of one or more of the audio source…determining a path delay associated with the simulated audio path based at least on the effective simulated position.
Claim 21: A system comprising: one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: simulating one or more reflections of an audio signal within a virtual environment; determining,…a plurality of audio paths between a source and a receiver;…determining that one or more audio paths of the plurality of audio paths have a path delay that causes interference…performing an adjustment to the determined one or more audio paths that have the path delay that causes the interference in the input audio signal, the adjustment reducing the interference in the input audio signal.
Both the instant claim 23 and ‘747 claim 21 recite a corresponding system and computer-readable media implementations of simulating reflected audio paths and modifying those paths to reduce interference in a virtual environment.
Claim 24: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: simulating a plurality of audio paths for propagating an audio signal between an audio source and a receiver within a virtual environment,…applying a deviation of an effective simulated position of one or more of the audio source…determining a path delay associated with the simulated audio path based at least on the effective simulated position.
Claim 22: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: simulating one or more reflections of an audio signal within a virtual environment; determining,…a plurality of audio paths between a source and a receiver;…determining that one or more audio paths of the plurality of audio paths have a path delay that causes interference…performing an adjustment to the determined one or more audio paths that have the path delay that causes the interference in the input audio signal, the adjustment reducing the interference in the input audio signal.
Both the instant claim 24 and ‘747 claim 22 recite corresponding system and computer-readable media implementations of simulating reflected audio paths and modifying those paths to reduce interference in a virtual environment.
As shown above, the instant claims (1, 8, 15, 23, and 24) of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 6, 17, 21, and 22 of co-pending Application No. 18/910,747 respectively, because the instant claims recite overlapping subject matter directed to the same inventive concept as recited in claims 1, 6, 17, 21, and 22 of ‘747 application. Although the claims are not identical , the instant claims (1, 8, 15, 23, and 24) and the claims of the co-pending application are of overlapping scope and are not patentably distinct. Specifically, the instant application recites substantially the same claimed invention as recited in claim 1 of the co-pending ‘747 application, both of which are directed to a computer-implemented method of simulating a plurality of audio propagation paths between an audio source and a receiver within a virtual environment, wherein one or more path/s includes a reflection from a sound reflective object, and determining a path delay associated with the simulated audio path for the purpose of reducing interference artifacts in an audio signal propagated between the source and the receiver. The differences in the claims are not patentably distinct because the claims of the instant application are directed to a method that corrects interference causing path delays by applying a deviation to the effective simulated position of one or more of the audio source, receiver, or sound reflective object, whereas the claims of the ‘747 application are directed to a method that corrects interference causing path delays by identifying audio paths whose delays cause destructive interference and performing an adjustments to those paths, such as removing the path or applying a predetermined delay shift. These represent obvious, non-patentably distinct variations of the same inventive concept, correcting problematic path delays in a simulated virtual acoustic environment, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement the path delay correction of ‘747 claim 1 through a positional deviation of the simulated objects, as recited in the instant claims, in view of Koppens (EP 4132012 A1), which teaches that the positional perturbation of mirror image audio sources is a known technique for modifying the effective path delay of a reflected audio path in an image source simulation framework. The Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the claimed invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the instant application. For at least these reasons, claim 1 of the instant application us not patentably distinct from claim 1 of co-pending the ‘747 application.
Regarding claim 8 of the instant application, the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 17 of the co-pending ‘747 application. The claims recite substantially the same subject matter but differs in that the instant claim is directed to determining the path delay at runtime of a videogame during simulation of the audio propagation in a video game, while ‘747 claim 17 recites a virtual gaming environment in which reflections are simulated during gameplay. The claims are functionally equivalent and present no meaningful distinction.
Regarding claim 15 of the instant application, the claim is not patentably distinct from claim 6 of the co-pending ‘747 application. The claims recite substantially the same subject matter but differs in that the instant claim recites determining at least one frequency of the audio signal by calculating a spectral centroid, while ‘747 claim 6 recites calculating a spectral centroid as part of audio content analysis. The claims are functionally equivalent and present no meaningful distinction.
Regarding claim(s) 23-24 of the instant application, the claim is not patentably distinct from claims 21-22 of the co-pending ‘747 application, respectively. The claims recite substantially the same subject matter but differs in that the instant claims correct the interference through deviation of an effective simulated position from which the path delay is determined, whereas claims 21 and 22 of the ‘747 application is directed to correcting interference by adjusting audio paths having an interfering path delay. The claims recite the same limitations as claims 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the ‘747 application. Therefore, the claims are not patentably distinct for the reasons discussed above.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 18, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppens (EP 4132012 A1), hereinafter Koppens in view of Remaggi (“Acoustic Reflector Localisation for Blind Source Separation and Spatial Audio”), hereinafter Remaggi.
In regards to claim(s) 1, Koppens teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: simulating a plurality of audio paths for propagating an audio signal between an audio source and a receiver within a virtual environment (Par. [0001]; “method for determining positions for virtual audio sources representing reflections of an audio source in a room, and in particular, but not exclusively, to virtual audio source for rendering audio in an Augmented/ Virtual Reality application.”)
one or more of the simulated plurality of audio paths comprising a reflection from a sound reflective object; (Par. [0077]; “In a mirror source model, reflections are modelled by separate virtual audio sources where each virtual audio source is a replicate of the original audio source and has a (virtual) position”)
one or more of the simulated plurality of audio paths, applying a deviation of an effective simulated position of one or more of the audio source, the receiver, or the sound reflective object within the virtual environment (Par. [0108]; “relative position offsets are determined and a (direct) mapping to the mirror room is applied with the mirror position being determined based on the mapped offset.”)
Koppens does not teach determining a path delay associated with the simulated audio path based at least on the effective simulated position. However, Remaggi discloses that the determination of path delay is from the image source’s effective position (Remaggi, p. 27; “Specularity was assumed for the reflections, leading to the Green's function defined in Equation 2.45. That Green's function, is also known as RIR (i.e. an approximation of a RIR). In fact, a RIR can be defined as superimposition of several Dirac's deltas, representing the sound arriving at the sensor from the source and the image sources. Therefore, considering each e-th [e refers to the reflection index (see Symbols table in Remaggi); “e-th” represents each reflection, taken one at a time across the enumeration] reflection having a path dependent attenuation”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the image source position offset computation of Koppens with the path delay determination of Remaggi because both references operate within the same field of image source spatial audio rendering for virtual environments. Koppens generates modified mirror source positions for reflected audio paths, while Remaggi discloses the practice of determining path delay from the geometric distance to an image source. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Remaggi’s known calculation to Koppens’ deviated virtual source positions would result in path delays derived from the modified simulated positions.
In regards to claim(s) 2, Koppens teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a different deviation is applied to each of the simulated plurality of audio paths (Par. [0140]; “Thus, for a mirror room resulting from a sequence of mirrorings, each mirroring corresponds to a mapping matrix determined for a boundary of the original room. Accordingly, the overall mapping matrix for the mirror room can be determined as the result of multiplying the individual mapping (sub)matrices corresponding to the individual mirrorings.”).
In regards to claim(s) 4, Koppens teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sound reflective object comprises a reflective surface from which the audio signal is reflected between the source and the receiver (Par. [0031]; “A boundary may be an acoustically reflective element”).
In regards to claim(s) 5, Koppens teaches the method of claim 4, comprising: generating a mirror image audio source by reflecting the audio source in the reflective surface (Par. [0098]; “the processing circuit 203 proceeds to generate a set of mirror rooms where each mirror room results from mirroring of either the original room or of a previous mirror room. The mirroring to generate a mirror room is by a mirroring around a boundary of the previous mirror room (which specifically may be the original room). The process will start with the original room being the previous mirror room.”); and
applying a deviation in an effective simulated position of a mirror image audio source (Par. [0108]; “In the approach, the determination of the mirror position is not based on (iterated) mirror operations being applied to the audio source positions in the different rooms. Rather, relative position offsets are determined and a (direct) mapping to the mirror room is applied with the mirror position being determined based on the mapped offset.”).
In regards to claim(s) 6, Koppens teaches the method according to claim 5, comprising: generating a plurality of mirror image audio sources by reflecting the audio source in each of a plurality of reflective surfaces of the virtual environment; and applying a different deviation to the effective simulated position of each mirror image audio source (Par. [0157]; “For a typical application, i ranges over a large set of I rooms (e.g. 62 for 3rd order, 128 for 4th order and 230 for 5th order). Since ( p onew - p o ref ) is the same for all i, it only needs to be calculated once. Thus, despite the large number of mirror rooms (and thus the high order of reflections being modelled), the approach may accordingly allow computationally very efficient operation.”).
In regards to claim(s) 8, Koppens teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the path delay is determined at runtime of a videogame during simulation of the propagation of the audio signal during gameplay (Par. [0087]; “Further the complexity and computational resource requirements for determining mirror positions tend to be high and thus the complexity issue is exacerbated for applications where audio source positions may change. Such changes are likely in many current practical applications, such as AR, VR, gaming or other immersive experiences.”)
In regards to claim(s) 18, Koppens teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: propagating an input audio signal over the audio paths following an adjustment based on the applied deviation to simulate an output audio signal comprising a perception of an audio signal at the receiver; and outputting the audio signal (Par. [0074]; “a room response function is generated for the original room where this includes a reflection component that represents audio from the audio source as positioned at the mirror position. For example, the room response may include a contribution that represents an acoustic transfer function for a direct path (e.g. time-of-flight delay, distance attenuation and Head-Related Impulse Response) from the mirror position to the listening position modified to include the reflection properties for the walls involved in the reflection being modelled.”).
In regards to claim(s) 23-24 the claims recite the same limitations as claim 1. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recite the same functional operations disclosed by Koppens (Par. [0165]; “a plurality of means, elements, circuits or method steps may be implemented by e.g. a single circuit, unit or processor.”) and is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 1.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 11-13, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppens (EP 4132012 A1), in view of Remaggi (“Acoustic Reflector Localisation for Blind Source Separation and Spatial Audio”), and further in view of Kobayashi (US 6801627 B1), hereinafter Kobayashi.
In regards to claim(s) 3, Koppens teaches updating mirror source positions as source positions change over time (Par. [0079], [0087]-[0088], and [0136]; “The approach allows the mirror source positions related to a moving source to be updated regularly”) but does not teach the method of claim 1, comprising applying a time- varying deviation to the effective simulated position of one or more of the audio source, the receiver, or the sound reflective object within the virtual environment.
However, Kobayashi teaches controlling time differences between direct and reflected sounds in a virtual sound space (Col. 3, lines 50-55; “a difference of time and a difference of volume between a sound from the virtual speaker as a virtual sound source and its reflected sound when they enter into both the ears are controlled as parameters of the direct sound and reflected sound.”) and (Col. 4, lines 41-47; “By controlling the difference of time between the left and right ears in the unit of 1/10 to 5 seconds and the sound volume in the unit of ndB (n is a natural number of one or two digits), it was made evident that a position for localization of a sound image in terms of horizontal plane, vertical plane and distance can be achieved arbitrarily”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Koppens teachings with Kobayashi because both references are directed to simulating virtual acoustic environments. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply Kobayashi’s time varying control technique to Koppens’ mirror source system to produce time varying deviations in simulated source positions.
In regards to claim(s) 7, Koppens teaches generating simulated reflection paths using mirror source positions derived from the geometry of a room (Par. [0094], [0122]-[0127]), but does not teach the method of claim 4, comprising varying at least one of: an effective simulated position of the reflective surface between different simulated audio paths; or an orientation of the reflective surface between different simulated audio paths
However, Kobayashi teaches that virtual reflected sounds are modeled from reflective boundaries set up in the virtual sound space (Col. 9, lines 45-48; “a signal processing portion for the left, right reflected sounds based on the function of transmission of the virtual reflected sound because of a reflection characteristic set up arbitrarily in the virtual sound space) Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Kobayashi’s “reflection characteristics set up arbitrarily” teaches a reflective surface or orientation can be varied.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Kobayashi’s arbitrarily variable reflection system to Koppens’ mirror source model to vary effective reflective surface position or orientation among simulated audio paths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Koppens and Kobayashi to represent a wider range of acoustic environments and reflection conditions.
In regards to claim(s) 11, Koppens teaches frequency dependent reflection attenuation (Par. [0116]; “The model will typically also include reflection coefficients/filters, or a similar material property, to model the (possibly frequency-dependent) attenuation due to the reflections on the boundaries of the room.”) but does not teach determining a positional deviation based on a wavelength or frequency of the audio signal.
However, Kobayashi teaches the method of claim 1, comprising; determining at least one wavelength or at least one frequency of an audio signal to be propagated, wherein the deviation of the effective simulated position is determined based at least on the at least one wavelength or the at least one frequency of the audio signal. (Col. 10, lines 39-44; “in frequencies (hereinafter referred to as aHz) below a frequency whose half wave length is this diameter, that half wave length exceeds the diameter of the above spheres and therefore, it is estimated that a sound of a frequency below the above aHz is hardly affected by the head portion of a person.”) and (Col. 3, lines 47-51; “ it is estimated that a sound having a frequency larger than a frequency (hereinafter referred to as bHz) whose half wave length exceeds the diameter of the aforementioned concha is hardly affected by the concha as a physical element.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Kobayashi’s frequency dependent sizing principles to Koppens’ positional deviation determination such that the deviation magnitude is based on at least one frequency of the audio signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining the teachings of Kobayashi and Koppens would improve reflected sound localization by modeling frequency dependent acoustic interactions.
In regards to claim(s) 12, Koppens does not teach the method of claim 11, wherein determining at least one wavelength or at least one frequency of an audio signal to be propagated comprises: determining a dominant frequency of the audio signal; and determining a magnitude of the deviation based at least on the determined dominant frequency. However, Kobayashi further teaches that the frequency threshold separating low and medium bands determines the magnitude of time difference and volume parameters applied to virtual sound paths ( Col. 7, lines 32-37; “These filters divide inputted audio signals to, for example, low band of below about 1000 Hz, medium band from about 1000 to about 4000 Hz and high band of above about 4000 Hz for each of the left, right channels.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Kobayashi’s dominant frequency-based sizing approach to Koppens’ positional deviation determination such that the deviation magnitude is based on a determined dominant frequency of the audio signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Koppens and Kobayashi to improve localization accuracy by tailoring positional adjustment to the dominant frequency to obtain predictable results.
In regards to claim(s) 13, Koppens does not teach using a lowest dominant frequency to determine deviation magnitude. However, Kobayashi further teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the dominant frequency comprises a lowest dominant frequency of the audio signal ( Col. 3, lines 39-54; “in frequencies (hereinafter referred to as aHz) below a frequency whose half wave length is this diameter, that half wave length exceeds the diameter…it is estimated that a sound of a frequency below the above aHz is hardly affected by the head portion of a person…a difference of time and a difference of volume between a sound from the virtual speaker as a virtual sound source and its reflected sound when they enter into both the ears are controlled as parameters”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the lowest dominant frequency of the audio signal to determine positional deviation magnitude as taught in the combination of Koppens and Kobayashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using the lowest dominant frequency to determine positional deviation magnitude provides a restrictive limit that accounts for the longest wavelengths and sensitivity to path length interference.
In regards to claim(s) 16, Koppens teaches frequency dependent attenuation reflected signals (Par. [0116] and [0069]; “The acoustic property data may specifically include a reflection attenuation measure for each wall which indicates the attenuation caused by the boundary when sound is reflected by the boundary.”) but does not teach the method of claim 11, wherein; the deviation of the effective simulated position increases as determined wavelengths of the audio signal gets longer.
However, Kobayashi teaches the time difference parameter is larger and more operative for longer wavelengths and reduces by volume based comb filter processing for shorter wavelengths (Col. 4, lines 34-39; “Although about the audio signals of virtual direct sound and virtual reflected sound in this band, some extent of localization of sound image out of the head is enabled only by controlling two parameters, namely, a difference of time of sounds entering into the left and right ears and a difference of sound volume.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Kobayashi’s wavelength dependent scaling principle to Koppens’ positional deviation parameter, such that the deviation magnitude is proportional to signal wavelength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining the teachings of Kobayashi and Koppens would improve positioning of reflected sound.
In regards to claim(s) 19, Koppens teaches determining mirror positions per audio source per mirror room, applying a single uniform position offset regardless of the frequency content of the audio signal but does not teach applying a plurality of deviations to an effective simulated position during propagation of a single audio signal.
However, Kobayashi further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising applying a plurality of deviations to the effective simulated position of one or more of the audio source, the receiver, or the sound reflective object during propagation of an audio signal (Col. 7-8, lines 66-67 to lines 1-4; “by using three control portions CL, CM and CH, for each band, a control processing with a time difference and a volume difference with respect to the left and right ears described previously as parameter is applied to signals for the left and right channels in each band.”) and (Col. 8, lines 19-23; “by using control portions CEL, CEH for the band of two virtual reflected sounds, a control processing with a time difference and a volume difference with respect to sounds reaching the left and right ears is carried out.”). Kobayashi teaches that a single deviation parameter is not sufficient for accurate virtual sound localization.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Kobayashi’s multiple deviations within Koppens’ mirror source system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining the teachings of Kobayashi and Koppens would improve localization across the signal spectrum.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppens (EP 4132012 A1), in view of Remaggi (“Acoustic Reflector Localisation for Blind Source Separation and Spatial Audio”), further in view of Kobayashi (US 6801627 B1), and further in view of Perry (“Speaker Placement and Reflections from Nearby Walls Is Speaker-Boundary Interference Killing Your Bass?”), hereinafter Perry.
In regards to claim(s) 14, Koppens teaches simulating virtual acoustic environment using mirror sources to represent reflected audio paths. Kobayashi teaches processing direct and reflected sounds in a virtual sound space using frequency dependent boundaries defined by half wave length relationships (Col. 3, lines 37-42; “if the head of a person is regarded as a sphere having a diameter of about 150-200 mm although there is a personal difference therein, in frequencies (hereinafter referred to as aHz) below a frequency whose half wave length is this diameter, that half wave length exceeds the diameter of the above spheres”). Kobayashi further teaches that interference effects between direct and reflected sounds is determined by half wavelength frequency threshold (Col. 4, lines 8-11; “the inputted audio signal in the headphone speaker of this band can be localized at any place out of the head by filtering the audio signals of the virtual speaker sound and virtual reflected sound of this band with the comb filter”). Collectively, Koppens and Kobayashi teach simulating reflected audio paths and applying a frequency dependent based positional deviation but do not teach the method of claim 12, comprising; determining a half wavelength value of the dominant frequency of the audio signal, wherein the magnitude of the deviation is restricted to less than the half wavelength value.
However, Perry teaches that destructive interference occurs when the path length difference between direct and reflected sound approaches one half wavelength of the relevant frequency (Pg. 2, par. 6; “a quarter wavelength from your wall, the total travel difference (for a wave reflecting back on itself) is half a wavelength. This means the reflected and direct sound are 180 degrees out of phase.”) and provides the relationship that links path length differences to cancellation frequency (Pg. 6; “quarter wavelength cancellation frequency”). Perry further teaches constraining geometric positioning relative to reflective boundaries to prevent path differences from reaching a half wavelength threshold.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Perry’s half wavelength interference limit within the reflection simulation teachings of Koppens in view of Kobayashi’s recognition that half wavelength values determine interreference between direct and reflected sounds. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to limit positional deviation to less than the half wavelength of the dominant frequency to avoid destructive interference.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppens (EP 4132012 A1), in view of Remaggi (“Acoustic Reflector Localisation for Blind Source Separation and Spatial Audio”), further in view of Kobayashi (US 6801627 B1), and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 110085259 B), hereinafter Wang.
In regards to claim(s) 15, Koppens in view of Kobayashi teaches determining at least one frequency of an audio signal and sizing a positional deviation based on that frequency, as discussed with respect to claim 11. Neither Koppens or Kobayashi teaches wherein determining at least one wavelength or at least one frequency of an audio signal to be propagated comprises calculating a spectral centroid of the audio signal.
However, Wang teaches calculating a spectral centroid for delay related audio processing (Pg. 3, par. [10]; “Furthermore, the audio comparison method, the obtaining each of the audio signal in each of the audio frame corresponding to the spectral centroid sequence”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Kobayashi’s frequency determination using Wang’s spectral centroid calculation because the spectral centroid is a well-known technique for determining a characteristic frequency of an audio signal.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppens (EP 4132012 A1), in view of Remaggi (“Acoustic Reflector Localisation for Blind Source Separation and Spatial Audio”), further in view of Kobayashi (US 6801627 B1), and further in view of Paddock et al., (US 8676361 B2), hereinafter, Paddock.
In regards to claim(s) 17, Kobayashi teaches performing frequency analysis on audio signals to determine dominant frequency thresholds (Col. 3, lines 39-44), and identifies delay-based artifacts develop at frequency dependent delay conditions (Col. 6, lines 19-22; “There was no discontinuity or feeling about antiphase in a band below aHz, an intermediate range of aHz-bHz and a crossover portion between this intermediate band and a band above bHz.”). Kobayashi does not teach applying a random deviation applying a random positional deviation when a path falls within a predetermined threshold of a phase artifact causing delay value.
However, Paddock teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: applying a random deviation to an effective simulated position of one or more of the audio source, the receiver, or the sound reflective object when simulating an audio path having a delay value within a predetermined threshold of one or more of the delay values that are likely to cause phase artifacts (Col. 11, lines 55-58; “The wall simulator 590 can also help to break-up, re-shape, or remove the unwanted effects of strong periodic processing artifacts or troublesome periodic features. The DFM techniques used in the stage simulator do not use regeneration”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Paddock’s randomized artifact reduction technique when delays approach the interference thresholds identified by Kobayashi to achieve the random deviation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Paddock’s randomization under Kobayashi’s non regeneration condition would yield predictable results of reduced artifacts.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppens (EP 4132012 A1), in view of Remaggi (“Acoustic Reflector Localisation for Blind Source Separation and Spatial Audio”), and further in view of Paddock et al., (US 8676361 B2) hereinafter Paddock.
In regards to claim(s) 20, Koppens does not teach enforcing a deviation magnitude to be a prime number. However, Paddock further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of the deviation is enforced to be a prime number. (Col. 24, lines 19-31; “Conventional DFM techniques use number theory algorithms for non-harmonic, non-resonant wave reflection. For example, the quadratic residues… and the primitive roots… can be applied in this context. ”) and (Col. 23, lines 62-64; “Predetermined “tap” points are created in a circular delay line by calculating the distribution of primitive roots across a reflective surface.”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a prime number constraint to Koppens’ derivation to improve phase diffusion and reduce periodic interference artifacts.
Conclusion
Accordingly claims 1-24 is/are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BUSHIRA MUSA whose telephone number is (571)272-9156. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 5712701344. 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.
/B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights