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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Starobin [US20150189439].
Regarding claim 1, Starobin discloses a computer-implemented method of generating sound in a system that includes a compact audio reproduction device (abstract), the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining a first distance between a first loudspeaker and the compact audio reproduction device ([0058] and [0059], dNC in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2);
determining a first corner frequency for a first distance filter based on the first distance ([0058] and [0059], Eq. 1 and Eq. 2);
generating a first modified audio signal for the first loudspeaker, wherein an amplitude of the first modified audio signal is based on an input audio signal and the first distance filter; and transmitting the first modified audio signal to the first loudspeaker ([0042], “The OCA processing in system 100 controls off-axis amplitude response by appropriately limiting each mid-bass driver's passband for minimal interference for off-axis seating locations as follows: outer and inner driver pairs reproduce center channel information from 80-450 Hz and 80-700 Hz respectively while only the center driver plays center channel program material through the upper midrange all the way up to its crossover point with the center tweeter (80 Hz-4 kHz)” and [0053], “Transducers located furthest from center (e.g., 210, 218) are rolled-off (low-pass filtered) at a relatively low frequency while those located closer to the center of the array (e.g. 212, 216) reproduce progressively higher frequencies in accordance with shorter wavelengths associated with higher "cross-over" frequency”).
Regarding claim 2, Starobin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a second corner frequency for a second distance filter based on the first distance; and generating a second modified audio signal for a second loudspeaker, wherein an amplitude of the second modified audio signal is based on the input audio signal and the second distance filter ([0057]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Starobin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the second loudspeaker is disposed within the compact audio reproduction device ([0044], “Center front speaker or mid-bass driver 214 is located between the left and right main speaker locations at a midpoint of the speaker array axis, preferably centered on transverse central listening axis CLA, and center front speaker 214 reproduces sound associated with signals received by it from the signal modification and combination OCA system 150 which transmits the fifth (center) audio input signal C to center front speaker 214 so that sound reproduced by system 100 associated with the fifth (center) audio input signal is perceived by a listener LL located in the listening area whose head is oriented generally toward the speaker locations to originate from approximately the location of center front speaker 214”).
Regarding claim 4, Starobin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first loudspeaker is external to the compact audio reproduction device ([0041], “The center channel CS, left main channel LMS, right main channel RMS, left surround channel LSS, and right surround channel RSS are actively controlled via programming in OCA 150 to provide strong image localization cues and a greater sense of ambience and space”).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 1 and 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5-7, 11-13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starobin, in view of Agrawal et al. [US20240196130], hereinafter Agrawal.
Regarding claim 5, Starobin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a second corner frequency for the first distance filter based on a second distance value of the first distance; generating a second modified audio signal for the first loudspeaker, wherein an amplitude of the second modified audio signal is based on the input audio signal, the first distance filter, and the second corner frequency; and transmitting the second modified audio signal to the first loudspeaker ([0058] and [0059], Eq. 1 and Eq. 2).
However, Starobin does not explicitly disclose determining that the first distance between the first loudspeaker and the compact audio reproduction device has changed from a first distance value to a second distance value.
Nevertheless, Agrawal teaches in a like invention, determining that the first distance between the first loudspeaker and the compact audio reproduction device has changed from a first distance value to a second distance value ([0032], “The device positions 306, for instance, represent data that describes different locational attributes of the client device 102 relative to the audio devices 106, such as estimation of distance between the audio devices 106 and the client device 102, angle of the client device 102 relative to speakers 136 of the audio devices 106, path attributes of paths between the audio devices 106 and the client device 102, and so forth” and [0040], “In the scenario 400 the user 108 and thus the client device 102 moves to a different position (e.g., location) in the environment 302, and thus audio output of at least some of the audio devices 106 is adapted based on the change in position”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the computer-implemented method as disclosed by Starobin, to have the determination of distance change, as taught by Agrawal, in order to better adapt to the environment.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Starobin and Agrawal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein, when the second distance value is greater than the first distance value, the second corner frequency is lower than the first corner frequency (Starobin, [0058] and [0059], dNC in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 is in denominator).
Regarding claim 7, Starobin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. However, Starobin does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising: determining that the first distance between the first loudspeaker and the compact audio reproduction device exceeds a threshold distance value; and transmitting no audio signal to the first loudspeaker.
Nevertheless, Agrawal teaches in a like invention, determining that the first distance between the first loudspeaker and the compact audio reproduction device exceeds a threshold distance value; and transmitting no audio signal to the first loudspeaker ([0040], “For instance, the device positions 402a, 402b indicate that the client device 102 is a threshold distance away from the audio devices 106a, 106b, and thus the audio output 304a, 304b is switched off”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the computer-implemented method as disclosed by Starobin, to have no audio signal transmitted to the first loudspeaker when the first distance exceeds a threshold distance value, as taught by Agrawal, in order to smartly adapt to the environment change.
Regarding claim 11, Starobin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. However, Starobin does not disclose wherein determining the first distance comprises tracking the first loudspeaker via one or more distance sensors.
Nevertheless, Agrawal teaches in a like invention, wherein determining the first distance comprises tracking the first loudspeaker via one or more distance sensors ([0043], “For instance, as part of determining the position of the client device 102 relative to the audio device 106, at 504 a distance of the client device 102 from the audio device 106 is determined. For instance, wireless signal attributes of wireless signal (e.g., UWB signal from one or more UWB tags 134) transmitted between the client device 102 and the audio device 106 are processed to estimate a distance between the client device 102 and the audio device 106”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the computer-implemented method as disclosed by Starobin, to have distance determined by distance sensors, as taught by Agrawal, in order to smartly adapt to the environment change.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the combination of Starobin and Agrawal discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein at least one of the one or more distance sensors is disposed within a compact audio reproduction device; wherein at least one of the one or more distance sensors is disposed within the first loudspeaker (Agrawal, [0043], “For instance, as part of determining the position of the client device 102 relative to the audio device 106, at 504 a distance of the client device 102 from the audio device 106 is determined. For instance, wireless signal attributes of wireless signal (e.g., UWB signal from one or more UWB tags 134) transmitted between the client device 102 and the audio device 106 are processed to estimate a distance between the client device 102 and the audio device 106”).
Regarding claims 16-18, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 5-7.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starobin, in view of FILOS et al. [US20220382509], hereinafter FILOS.
Regarding claim 8, Starobin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. However, Starobin does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising: determining that the first distance between the first loudspeaker and the compact audio reproduction device is less than a threshold distance value; and transmitting no audio signal to a second loudspeaker that is disposed within the compact audio reproduction device.
Nevertheless, FILOS teaches in a like invention, determining that the first distance between the first loudspeaker and the compact audio reproduction device is less than a threshold distance value; and transmitting no audio signal to a second loudspeaker that is disposed within the compact audio reproduction device ([0070], “The adjustment initiator 134, based on determining that the position of the user 112 as indicated by the user position data 131 is within a threshold of (e.g., less than a threshold distance from) a position of the speaker 120A, initiates the selective adjustment 143 to deactivate (e.g., turn off a volume of) the speaker 120A”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the computer-implemented method as disclosed by Starobin, to have no audio signal transmitted within a threshold distance value, as taught by FILOS, in order to avoid the interference of the signals.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starobin, in view of HUNT [US20240181367].
Regarding claim 9, Starobin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. However, Starobin does not disclose wherein the compact audio reproduction device comprises a component of an interactive toy.
Nevertheless, HUNT teaches in a like invention, wherein the compact audio reproduction device comprises a component of an interactive toy ([0025], “the interactive toy 100 may further include one or more audio, visual, and/or haptic feedback or output devices, such as for example light emitting devices, speakers or audio output devices 118, or other user-perceptible output devices”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the computer-implemented method as disclosed by Starobin, to have the compact audio reproduction device comprising a component of an interactive toy, as taught by HUNT, in order to have an immersive playing environment.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Starobin and HUNT discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the component comprises at least one of a modular component of the interactive toy or a removable component of the interactive toy (HUNT, [0025], “the interactive toy 100 may further include one or more audio, visual, and/or haptic feedback or output devices, such as for example light emitting devices, speakers or audio output devices 118, or other user-perceptible output devices”).
Regarding claims 19-20, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 1, 2 and 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights