CTNF 18/967,333 CTNF 83393 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 2. 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA 3. Claim s 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ( a2 ) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0295446 to Thagadur . In Reference to Claims 1 and 8 Thagadur discloses a system and method for processing audio content, comprising: obtaining, by a first apparatus (Fig. 1C audio device 102), wherein the first pose information comprises informative indicative of a position and/or orientation of a user (Fig. 1C sensor data 110 indicative of coordinate data 120 and orientation data 122); transmitting the first pose information from the first apparatus to a second apparatus 106 (Fig. 1C data 110 sent to 106); determining, by the second apparatus, predicted pose information based on the first pose information (Fig. 1C position predictor 104 and predicted position data 112); and outputting, by the second apparatus, the predicted pose information for rendering (Fig. 1C output {rendered} spatialized audio signal [0003, 0026]). In Reference to Claims 2 and 3 Thagadur discloses rendering the audio content based on the predicted pose information to obtain rendered audio content wherein “[t]he processor 106 may be configured to generate an output spatialized audio signal 114 based on the predicted position data 112. The output spatialized audio signal 114 may include a spatialized audio signal that has been modified or selected based on the predicted position data 112. The output spatialized audio signal 114 may be provided to the audio device 102 for use in generating an audio output (e.g., an auditory sound).” [0034]. Rendered spatialized output is sent to the first apparatus (Fig. 1C). In Reference to Claim 4 Thagadur discloses HOA audio content and channel-based surround sound {content} [0026] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 4. 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 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-aia AIA 5. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thadagur in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0002542 to Chan . Thadagur discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include that predicted pose information is sent to the second apparatus. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose transmitting the predicted pose information to the first apparatus; comparing, by the first apparatus, the predicted pose information to actual pose information and updating the rendered audio content based on a result of the comparison, and updating the rendered audio based on the comparison. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Chan. Chan teaches of augmented reality devices wherein an HMD {first apparatus} receives pose information, compares, and updates the rendered content where “[i]n some embodiments, an HMD, such as mobile device 19, may display images of virtual objects within an augmented reality (AR) environment at a frame rate that is greater than a rendering frame rate for the core rendering pipeline or rendering GPU. The HMD may modify pre-rendered images or forward predicted images that are rendered at the rendering frame rate based on updated pose estimates that are provided at a higher frequency than the rendering frame rate. In some embodiments, the HMD may generate the pre-rendered image based on a predicted pose at the rendering frame rate (e.g., every 16 ms), determine one or more updated poses associated with the HMD subsequent to generating the pre-rendered image (e.g., every 2 ms), generate one or more updated images based on the one or more updated poses and the pre-rendered image, and display the one or more updated images on the HMD.” [0039]. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Here, Thadagur discloses the claimed limitation except for the comparing occurring in the second apparatus and not the first apparatus. However, Chan teaches that the comparison of pose information and the updating of the rendered content can be integrated into the HMD of first apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the capabilities of Thadagur with those of Chan, since it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. ( In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950))(See In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 8. Claim s 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA 9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references do not teach or suggest in combination with the balance of the claim limitations of outputting an indication whether to directly route for reproduction without any further rendering . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited . 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992. 12. 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. 13. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992. /PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/967,333 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/967,333 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/967,333 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/967,333 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/967,333 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights