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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to claims 5-8, claim 5 recites the limitation “determining an interaural time difference between a first direction of the plurality of directions and a second direction of the plurality of directions”. It is unclear how an interaural time difference can be determined between two directions. An interaural time difference is the difference in arrival time of a sound wave between the left and right ears. The difference itself is between ears, not between directions. Examiner interprets as determining an interaural time difference of a first direction of the plurality of directions. Claims 6-8 depend from claim 5, therefore they are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13-16, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jain US Publication No. 20180132764.
Referring to claim 1, Jain teaches a method comprising:
receiving sensor data (para 0093: “image of pinna captured at step 1102”) corresponding with a physical characteristic of a user (para 0094: “The comparison performed by the comparator 1454 may be based on comparing characteristics of the features of the pinna associated with the reference sensor output 1462 with corresponding characteristics of one or more features of the pinna associated with the image of the pinna 1460.”);
determining a first function based on a similarity between the physical characteristic of the user and a first model (para 0093: “The comparator 1460 may be arranged to compare each image of pinna 1460 associated with a respective non-linear transfer function 1458 to a reference sensor output 1462 to identify a sensor output 1460 in the entries 1:N which is closest to the reference sensor output 1462.”; para 0094: “The non-linear transfer function 1464 may be a non-linear transfer function 1458 associated with the image of the pinna 1460 which is close to (e.g., most closely matches) the reference sensor output 1462.”);
determining a second function based on a similarity of the physical characteristic between the user and a second model (para 0093: “The comparator 1460 may be arranged to compare each image of pinna 1460 associated with a respective non-linear transfer function 1458 to a reference sensor output 1462 to identify a sensor output 1460 in the entries 1:N which is closest to the reference sensor output 1462.; para 0096: “A closer match may result in a stronger weighting while a farther match may result in a weaker weighting.”);
generating a modified function, representing an audio response, by combining the first function and the second function (para 0096: “the non-linear transfer function at step 1106 may be determined based on a combination of one or more of the plurality of non-linear transfer functions stored in the database 1452”); and
generating an audio stream based on the modified function (para 0078: “At 1108, a signal indicative of one or more audio cues may be generated for given sound based on the determined non-linear transfer function. At 1110, the signal indicative of the one or more audio cues may be output by a transducer to facilitate the spatial localization of the given sound”).
Referring to claim 13, Jain teaches the similarity between the physical characteristic of the user and the first model or the second model is determined based on a feature vector representing a geometry and a shape of the physical characteristic (para 0087).
Referring to claim 14, Jain teaches determining the first function based on a first weighted value and a first head related transfer function associated with the first model, the first weighted value based on the similarity between the physical characteristic of the user and the first model; determining the second function based on a second weighted value and a second head related transfer function associated with the second model, the second weighted value based on the similarity between the physical characteristic of the user and the second model; and generating the modified function by combining the first function and the second function based on the first weighted value and the second weighted value respectively (para 0096).
Referring to claim 15, Jain teaches the first weighted value and the second weighted value are determined based on a distance between the feature vector associated with the user and the feature vector associated with the first model or the second model respectively (para 0096).
Referring to claim 16, Jain teaches the physical characteristic of the user is related to a head of the user or at least one pinna of the user (para 0087).
Referring to claim 19, Jain teaches the modified function is a head related transfer function personalized for the user (para 0096; para 0037: “A non-linear transfer function, e.g., also referred to as a head related transfer function (HRTF)”).
Referring to claim 20, Jain teaches a system comprising:
a computing device including an imaging sensor (Fig. 6A: personal audio delivery device 600 with sensor 604; para 0093: “image of pinna captured at step 1102”), and
an electronic processor coupled to the computing device (Fig. 6A: processor 602 coupled to personal audio delivery device 600) and configured to:
receive, from the imaging sensor, sensor data (para 0093: “image of pinna captured at step 1102”) corresponding with a physical characteristic of a user (para 0094: “The comparison performed by the comparator 1454 may be based on comparing characteristics of the features of the pinna associated with the reference sensor output 1462 with corresponding characteristics of one or more features of the pinna associated with the image of the pinna 1460.”);
determine a first function associated based on a similarity between the physical characteristic of the user and a first model (para 0093: “The comparator 1460 may be arranged to compare each image of pinna 1460 associated with a respective non-linear transfer function 1458 to a reference sensor output 1462 to identify a sensor output 1460 in the entries 1:N which is closest to the reference sensor output 1462.”; para 0094: “The non-linear transfer function 1464 may be a non-linear transfer function 1458 associated with the image of the pinna 1460 which is close to (e.g., most closely matches) the reference sensor output 1462.”);
determine a second function based on a similarity of the physical characteristic between the user and a second model (para 0093: “The comparator 1460 may be arranged to compare each image of pinna 1460 associated with a respective non-linear transfer function 1458 to a reference sensor output 1462 to identify a sensor output 1460 in the entries 1:N which is closest to the reference sensor output 1462.; para 0096: “A closer match may result in a stronger weighting while a farther match may result in a weaker weighting.”);
generate a modified function, representing an audio response, by combining the first function and the second function (para 0096: “the non-linear transfer function at step 1106 may be determined based on a combination of one or more of the plurality of non-linear transfer functions stored in the database 1452”); and
generate an audio stream based on the modified function (para 0078: “At 1108, a signal indicative of one or more audio cues may be generated for given sound based on the determined non-linear transfer function. At 1110, the signal indicative of the one or more audio cues may be output by a transducer to facilitate the spatial localization of the given sound”).
Referring to claim 21, Jain teaches the electronic processor is further configured to provide the audio stream to the computing device (para 0043).
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) 2-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riggs et al. US Publication No. 20190098431 (from IDS).
Referring to claim 2, Jain does not teach different functions associated with different frequencies, but Riggs et al. teaches the modified function is a first modified function associated with a first query frequency of a range of frequencies (0090). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine different functions relating to different frequencies, as taught in Riggs et al., in the method of Jain because different frequency ranges can have different spatial effects and thus different HRTFs, therefore, combining different HRTFs for different frequencies provides a more accurate HRTF for the user.
Referring to claim 3, Riggs et al. teaches generating a second modified function associated with a second query frequency of the range of frequencies (0090). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 2.
Referring to claim 4, Jain teaches the first modified function and the second modified function are generated on a frequency grid comprising a plurality of directions, the first modified function and the second modified function forming a head related transfer function spectra for the plurality of directions (para 0058). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine different functions relating to different directions, as taught in Jain, in the method of Jain and Riggs et al. because different directions can have different spatial effects and thus different HRTFs, therefore, combining different HRTFs for different directions provides a more accurate HRTF for the user.
Referring to claim 5, Jain teaches determining an interaural time difference between a first direction of the plurality of directions and a second direction of the plurality of directions (para 0033).
Referring to claim 6, Jain teaches the interaural time difference is a binaural cue relating a lateral localization of an auditory event associated with the audio stream (para 0033).
Referring to claim 18, Jain teaches the first function or the second function is a head related transfer function associated with the first model or the second model respectively (para 0096; para 0037: “A non-linear transfer function, e.g., also referred to as a head related transfer function (HRTF)”). However, Jain does not teach that the models are head and torso models, but Riggs et al. teaches the first model or the second model is a head-and-torso model (para 0066). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use a head and torso model, as taught in Riggs et al., in the method of Jain because it provides more unique geometry of the user that can affect the spatial cues, and thus provide a more accurate transfer function.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain and Riggs et al., as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Cohen et al. US Publication No. 20200104620.
Referring to claim 7, Jain teaches generating the audio stream based on a magnitude of the modified function (para 0078). However, Jain and Riggs et al. do not specify using the interaural time difference to generate the audio per se, but Cohen et al. teaches generating the audio stream based on the interaural time difference (para 0193). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interaural time difference to generate audio, as taught in Cohen et al., in the method of Jain and Riggs et al. because it provides more accurate spatial audio to the user.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain, Riggs et al., and Cohen et al., as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. US Publication No. 20210358507.
Referring to claim 8, Jain, Riggs et al., and Cohen et al. do not teach a minimum phase and a pure delay, but Zhang et al. teaches generating the audio stream using a minimum-phase filter cascaded with a pure delay (para 0133). Both Jain and Zhang et al. teach head related filter, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in modeling the HR filer as a combination of a minimum phase and a pure delay, as taught in Zhang et al., for the HR model of Jain, in the method of Jain, Riggs et al., and Cohen et al., because both HR filters provide spatialized audio.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zandi et al. US Publication No. 20240349001.
Referring to claim 9, Jain teaches generating the modified function by: generating the modified function by combining a first representation of a magnitude of the first model and a second representation of a magnitude of the second model (para 0096). However, Jain does not teach latent space representations, but Zandi et al. teaches generating a combined latent space representation of the modified function, a first representation of a magnitude of the first model in latent space, and a second representation of a magnitude of the second model in latent space (para 0080). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use latent space representations, as taught in Zandi et al., in the method of Jain because latent space can express complex data in an efficient and meaningful way, enhancing the ability of machine learning models to understand and manipulate it while reducing computational requirements.
Referring to claim 10, Zandi et al. teaches the first representation and the second representation are vectors (para 0080). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 9.
Referring to claim 11, Zandi et al. teaches generating the modified function by: generating a magnitude vector for the user across a direction grid from the combined latent space representation (para 0080). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 9.
Referring to claim 12, Zandi et al. teaches the combined latent space representation is generated using a trained artificial intelligence model (para 0080). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 9.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tussy US Publication No. 20160063235.
Referring to claim 17, Jain teaches the sensor data is produced by an imaging device coupled to a mobile device (para 0123). However, Jain does not teach prompting the user to capture images, but Tussy teaches the sensor data are images captured by the imaging device while the user moves the mobile device around a head or at least one pinna of the user based on a prompt provided via a display associated with the mobile device (paras 0019, 0083). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to prompt the user to move around for capturing images, as taught in Tussy et al., in the method of Jain because it informs the user to capture images at an appropriate time so that the system can form 2D and 3D images to help determine size and shape of a user’s head.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Wednesday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571)272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights