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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“An obtainer that obtains” “a selector that selects,” and “a renderer that renders” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thakur et al. (US 2018/0262860 A1 – cited in IDS), hereinafter “Thakur.”
As to claim 1, Thakur discloses a three-dimensional audio processing method for use in reproducing three-dimensional audio using an augmented reality (AR) device (¶0238, ¶0241), the three-dimensional audio processing method comprising:
obtaining change information indicating change occurring in a space in which the AR device is located when content that includes a sound is being output in the AR device (¶0123. “In general, a plurality of objects is added to the grid on start-up. However, the grid may also deal with objects that are created and destroyed during run-time as well as objects moving in space during run-time.”);
selecting, based on the change information, one or more audio processes among a plurality of audio processes for rendering sound information indicating the sound (¶0129-0130, Figs. 11 and 13. “The processor 18 is used to model interactions between a sound source and a plurality of objects, the modelled interactions comprising occlusion of the sound source by the objects and reflection of the sound source by the objects.” “Occlusion coefficients and reflection coefficients determined using the process of FIG. 11 are used in the process of FIG. 13 to synthesise sound in which occlusion and reflection effects are present.”);
executing only the one or more audio processes selected among the plurality of audio processes (¶0130, Figs. 11 and 13. “The process of FIG. 11 is repeated for each of the sound sources in the scene. Occlusion coefficients and reflection coefficients determined using the process of FIG. 11 are used in the process of FIG. 13 to synthesise sound in which occlusion and reflection effects are present.”); and
rendering the sound information based on a first processing result of each of the one or more audio processes executed (¶0130, Figs. 11 and 13. “Occlusion coefficients and reflection coefficients determined using the process of FIG. 11 are used in the process of FIG. 13 to synthesise sound in which occlusion and reflection effects are present.”).
As to claim 2, Thakur discloses wherein in the rendering, the sound information is rendered based on the first processing result of each of the one or more audio processes and a second processing result obtained in advance, the second processing result being a second processing result of each of an other one or more audio processes among the plurality of audio processes excluding the one or more audio processes (¶0223, Fig. 13. “Audio input 200 is received by the processor 18. The processor 18 processes direct sound in a first branch 201 of the process of FIG. 13, and processes reflected sound in a second branch 202 of the process of FIG. 13.”).
As to claim 3, Thakur discloses wherein the change information includes information indicating an object that has changed in the space (¶0123. “However, the grid may also deal with objects that are created and destroyed during run-time as well as objects moving in space during run-time.”), and
in the selecting, the one or more audio processes are selected based on at least one of an acoustic characteristic of the object or a position of the object (¶0182, ¶0186 and ¶0211. “occlusion calculations return information about a size of an occluding object or objects. The occlusions calculations may return information about how sound may diffuse around the sides of the object. By including the size of the object, a directional element may be added to the occlusion.” “By performing reflection coefficient calculations only for reflections that are near the listener, it may be possible to calculate only reflections that provide a significant contribution to the final audio signal. In some circumstances, reflections that occur far away from the listener may not result in a perceptible difference in the audio signal.”).
As to claim 4, Thakur discloses wherein in the selecting: the acoustic characteristic of the object and the position of the object are used (¶0182, ¶0186 and ¶0211. “occlusion calculations return information about a size of an occluding object or objects.” “By performing reflection coefficient calculations only for reflections that are near the listener, it may be possible to calculate only reflections that provide a significant contribution to the final audio signal.” “The at least one reflection coefficient may be dependent on a reflection level associated with the OBB.”);
whether the one or more audio processes that correspond to the object are to be executed is determined based on the position of the object (¶0182, ¶0186 and ¶0211. “occlusion calculations return information about a size of an occluding object or objects.” “By performing reflection coefficient calculations only for reflections that are near the listener, it may be possible to calculate only reflections that provide a significant contribution to the final audio signal.” “The at least one reflection coefficient may be dependent on a reflection level associated with the OBB.”); and
when the one or more audio processes are determined to be executed, the one or more audio processes are selected based on the acoustic characteristic of the object (¶0182, ¶0186 and ¶0211. “occlusion calculations return information about a size of an occluding object or objects.” “By performing reflection coefficient calculations only for reflections that are near the listener, it may be possible to calculate only reflections that provide a significant contribution to the final audio signal.” “The at least one reflection coefficient may be dependent on a reflection level associated with the OBB.”)).
As to claim 5, Thakur discloses wherein the change information includes information indicating an object that has changed in the space (¶0123. “However, the grid may also deal with objects that are created and destroyed during run-time as well as objects moving in space during run-time.”), and
in the executing, the one or more audio processes are executed using a shape model obtained by simplifying the object (¶0067 and ¶0078. “In alternative embodiments, alternative geometric components in place of convex hulls and bounding boxes may be used, for example any suitable representation of shapes for example three-dimensional shapes. The geometric components may comprise a simplified representation of a corresponding object or at least part of the corresponding object.” “The further components may comprise 3D geometrical shapes.”).
As to claim 7, Thakur discloses wherein the shape model is inserted in spatial information indicating the space (¶0135, Fig. 11. “the grid system keeps track of where hulls are in space and allows quick determination of which hulls lie in a particular region in the 3D virtual world. By using a grid based search system, only spatially relevant game objects are passed through to the more CPU intensive processes like occlusion and reflection calculation.”), and
in the selecting, the one or more audio processes are selected based on the spatial information in which the shape model is inserted (¶0135, Fig. 11. “the grid system keeps track of where hulls are in space and allows quick determination of which hulls lie in a particular region in the 3D virtual world. By using a grid based search system, only spatially relevant game objects are passed through to the more CPU intensive processes like occlusion and reflection calculation.”).
As to claim 8, it is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above with further reference to Figs. 1 and 13.
As to claim 9, it is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above with further reference to ¶0248.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur, as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Geisner et al. (US 2012/0206452 A1 – cited in IDS).
As to claim 6, Thakur does not expressly disclose wherein the shape model is obtained, based on a type of the object, by reading a shape model that corresponds to the object from storage in which a plurality of shape models are stored in advance.
Geisner discloses wherein the shape model is obtained, based on a type of the object, by reading a shape model that corresponds to the object from storage in which a plurality of shape models are stored in advance (Geisner, ¶0090 and Fig. 3b. “The data fields include a type of object 341 which may be a data record which also includes sub-fields. For the type of object 341, the other data fields provide data records identifying the types of physical properties available for the type of object. For example, the other data records identify physical interaction characteristics 342, size ranges 343, shape selections available 344, typical types of material 345, colors available 347, patterns available 348, surface(s) available 351, typical surface texture(s) 346, a geometric orientation 350 of each available surface 351.”).
Thakur and Geisner are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to augmented reality.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to store data for types of object, as taught by Geisner. The motivation would have been to easily access and identify various physical properties for the type of object (Geisner, ¶0090).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Leppanen et al. (US 2021/0014630 A1) and Kumar B et al. (US 2022/0377482 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights