DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 11/8/2024:
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No.12177648. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example:
Regarding claim 1, 12177648 teaches a computer-implemented method (claim 1, a method) comprising:
identifying a plurality of objects in a content item, wherein the content item is provided to a user, wherein each object of the plurality of objects is a respective source of audio in the content item, and wherein each object of the plurality of objects is associated with respective location data (claim 1, identifying, within a content item, a plurality of virtual sound objects; extracting, from the content item, location metadata for each respective virtual sound object);
generating a reference layout, relative to a position of the user, for the plurality of objects based at least in part on the location data for the plurality of objects (claim 1, generating a reference layout, relative to a user position, for the plurality of virtual sound objects based on the location metadata);
detecting a gaze of the user (claim 1, detecting a gaze of the user);
determining, based at least in part on the reference layout, that each of a first object of the plurality of objects and a second object of the plurality of objects is located along a path defined by the gaze of the user (claim 1, identifying, based on the reference layout, at least two virtual sound objects of the plurality of virtual sound objects, along a path defined by the gaze of the user); and
selectively causing enhancement of audio of the first object (claim 1, enhancing the audio of the first virtual sound object).
The remaining independent and/or dependent claims are similarly rejected using one or more claims of the patent (whether alone or in combination).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunner et al (US20190174237, hereinafter Lunner”) in view of Karri et al (US20220214858, hereinafter “Karri”).
Regarding claim 1, Lunner teaches a computer-implemented method (abstract, method of outputting audio to the user based on a user position relative to one or more audio sources) comprising:
identifying a plurality of objects in a content item, wherein the content item is provided to a user, wherein each object of the plurality of objects is a respective source of audio in the content item, and wherein each object of the plurality of objects is associated with respective location data (¶124, plurality of audio sources relative to the user are identified in a user’s environment; see also Fig. 2);
generating a reference layout, relative to a user position, for the plurality of sound objects based at least in part on the location data for the plurality of objects (Fig. 2, a layout representing user’s positioning relative to the plurality of audio sources is generated);
Lunner fails to explicitly teach in a content item, wherein the content item is provided to a user…in the content item;
detecting a gaze of the user;
determining, based at least in part on the reference layout, that each of a first object of the plurality of objects and a second object of the plurality of objects is located along a path defined by the gaze of the user; and
selectively causing enhancement of audio of the first object.
Karri teaches in a content item, wherein the content item is provided to a user…in the content item (Fig. 5, playback of video containing audio content wherein audio content comprises plurality of audio objects);
detecting a gaze of the user (¶44, gaze of the user can be detected);
determining, based at least in part on the reference layout, that each of a first object of the plurality of objects and a second object of the plurality of objects is located along a path defined by the gaze of the user (¶43-44, audio objects are identified in the playback of the vide/audio content and wherein the gaze of the user can be tracked and determined to coincide with one of the audio objects); and
selectively causing enhancement of audio of the first object (¶44, audio object coinciding with the gaze of the user can be modified).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the environment scene comprising of audio objects (as taught by Lunner) for the video and audio content scenes (as taught by Karri). The rationale to do so is to substitute one well known scene wherein one or more audio objects are present for another to yield the predictable result of enhancing audio objects regardless of what type of content the user is consuming.
Regarding claim 2, Lunner in view of Karri teaches further comprising:
determining that audio of the first object is of a first type, and that audio of the second object is of a second type,
wherein selectively causing the audio of the first object to be enhanced is based at least in part on the determining that the audio of the first object is of the first type (Karri, Fig. 4, system is capable of detecting a sound object’s location and further isolate it and associate it with a type of sound source (e.g. person or animal)).
Regarding claim 3, Lunner in view of Karri teaches wherein determining that audio of the first object is of the first type comprises determining that the audio of the first object comprises a voice (Karri, ¶35, determining whether the sound object is a voice).
Regarding claim 4, Lunner in view of Karri teaches further comprising:
based at least in part on determining that each of the first object and the second object is located along the path defined by the gaze of the user, generating for display a first option and a second option corresponding to the first object and the second option (Karri, Fig. 3, ¶34, 40, 46, a display interface shown to the user), respectively,
wherein selectively causing enhancement of the audio of the first object is further based at least in part on receiving selection of the first option corresponding to the first object (Karri, ¶34, 40, the user is able to selectively enhance/alter one or more attributes of a sound source).
Regarding claim 5, Lunner in view of Karri teaches wherein selectively causing enhancement of the audio of the first object comprises causing an amplitude of the audio of the first object to be increased without causing enhancement of audio of the second object (Lunner, ¶192, modifying an amplitude of an audio object based on a gaze parameter).
Regarding claim 6, Lunner in view of Karri teaches further comprising causing an amplitude of the audio of the second object to be decreased (Karri, ¶25, changing the volume/amplitude of an isolated sound object).
Regarding claim 7, Lunner in view of Karri teaches wherein the plurality of objects comprise a plurality of other users also consuming the content item in a virtual reality environment or an augmented reality environment (Karri, ¶31, the audiovisual content can be displayed for one or more users to view and enjoy and can be equipped with wireless devices such as VR headset).
Regarding claim 8, Lunner in view of Karri teaches wherein detecting the gaze of the user comprises:
tracking at least one of pupils of the user or a head of the user; and
determining the gaze based at least part on the tracking (Lunner, ¶29, 124, user’s head movement/orientation can be tracked to determine user’s positioning relative to the sound sources; see also Lunner, ¶183, pupil-based tracking).
Regarding claim 10, Lunner in view of Karri teaches wherein determining that each of the first object and the second object is located along the path defined by the gaze of the user is further based at least in part on determining that each of the first object and the second object at least one of intersect the path defined by the gaze or are within a threshold angle of the path defined by the gaze (Karri, ¶44, detecting an object that intersects the path of the gaze).
Regarding claims 11-18 and 20, they are rejected similarly as claims 1-8 and 10, respectively. The system can be found in Karri (¶12, system).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunner et al (US20190174237, hereinafter Lunner”) in view of Karri et al (US20220214858, hereinafter “Karri”) in further view of Cheung et al (US20250139891, hereinafter “Cheung”).
Regarding claim 9, Lunner in view of Karri fail to explicitly teach further comprising:
ranking the first object and the second object in order of a likelihood of being the target of the gaze of the user,
wherein selectively causing enhancement of the audio of the first object is further based at least in part on the ranking.
Cheung teaches further comprising:
ranking the first object and the second object in order of a likelihood of being the target of the gaze of the user,
wherein selectively causing enhancement of the audio of the first object is further based at least in part on the ranking (¶31, 35, 41, corresponding the user’s gaze with a given command to determine a likelihood of the command being associated with the object in the gaze; see also ¶39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of ranking (as taught by Cheung) to the audio system (as taught by Lunner in view of Karri). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of applying a command if the command satisfies a logic pathway (Cheung, ¶31-32).
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected similarly as claim 9. The system can be found in Karri (¶12, system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights