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 § 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, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faundez Hoffman et al (WO 2021/045891, herein Hoffman) in view of Yasuyuki et al (JP 2009194769A).
Consider claim 1. Hoffman teaches a sound propagation characteristics correction apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to generate a pseudo inverse filter (para 4, simulation of sound propagation from an audio source to the ear of the user; and generating an equalization filter for the user based on the simulation; para 6: the equalization filter, when applied to audio content being provided to the user, adjusts one or more acoustic parameters of the audio content for the user based on the simulation of sound propagation from the audio source to the ear of the user; also para 17 and 19; para 103: an individualized inverse equalization filter) by a function that smooths (e.g., equalization, it would have been obvious that equalizer performs smoothing function) sound propagation characteristics from a speaker driver of a wearable open-ear speaker (headphone or headset, para 137) to an ear canal entrance (para 137: ear canal of the user); and correct an acoustic signal on a basis of the pseudo inverse filter (e.g., the simulated equalization filter) and transmits the corrected acoustic signal to the wearable open-ear speaker (also para 48-49, para 68, para 110-111).
In order to make the record clear, Yasuyuki clearly teaches an equalizer that performs smoothing function (page 5, 3rd para: The input signal is input to a series connection circuit of the adaptive equalization filter and the ear canal model, and the adaptive equalization filter is adjusted so that an error between the ideal signal of the input signal and the output of the series circuit is minimized, A convolution operation is performed between the impulse response of the adaptive equalization filter and the sound source signal; page 8, 2nd para: By creating a filter that cancels the resonance peak actually measured in the ear canal of each person in this way, setting the tap coefficient indicating the impulse response in the convolution operation unit 16, and convolving the left and right sound source signals 3 is smoothed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Yasuyuki into the teachings of Hoffman in order to provide an ear canal resonance correction apparatus that easily perform correction according to the structure of each person's ear canal (page 5, 1st para of the translation).
Consider claim 6. Method claim 6 is rejected as apparatus claim 1, since the apparatus claim 1 would perform the claimed steps.
Consider claim 7. Hoffman in view of Yasuyuki further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program (page 6, 3rd para of the translation: The tap coefficient of the correction filter is set in the convolution operation unit 16 in the example shown in FIG. 1A, and is set in the convolution operation unit 16 once written in the memory 18 in the example shown in FIG. However, the configuration shown in (b) can be folded without being written in the memory 18, Yasuyuki) for causing a computer to function as the sound propagation characteristics correction apparatus according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faundez Hoffman et al (WO 2021/045891, herein Hoffman) in view of Yasuyuki et al (JP 2009194769A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osborn et al (US2023/0072423).
Consider claim 2. Hoffman in view of Yasuyuki does not teach the processing circuitry configured to generate a kernel ridge pseudo inverse filter that is a pseudo inverse filter using kernel ridge regression.
Osborn teaches the processing circuitry configured to generate a kernel ridge pseudo inverse filter that is a pseudo inverse filter using kernel ridge regression (fig. 11, para 376-377: ear canal, headset and LMS adaptive filtering; para 1336-1337: filtering that utilizes low-pass filter and smoothing function; para 1126-1127, 1365, 1369: ridge regression).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Hoffman in view of Yasuyuki into the teachings of Osborn in order to provide an augmented-reality device that simulates binaural hearing and capture a 3D stereo sound field around about a user's head (para 356 of Osborn).
Consider claim 3. Osborn further teaches the processing circuitry configured to generate a mollifier pseudo inverse filter that is a pseudo inverse filter using a mollifier (e.g., smoothing function; para 376-377: ear canal, headset and LMS adaptive filtering; para 1336-1337: filtering that utilizes low-pass filter and smoothing function; para 1126-1127, 1365, 1369: ridge regression).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faundez Hoffman et al (WO 2021/045891, herein Hoffman) in view of Yasuyuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Armstrong et al (US2022/0150658).
Consider claim 4. Hoffman in view of Yasuyuki does not teach the processing circuitry configured to take a moving average of the sound propagation characteristics; generates a low-pass ensuring pseudo inverse filter that is a pseudo inverse filter that ensures passage of a low frequency range of an inverse filter capable of designating strength of regularization for each frequency.
Armstrong teaches the processing circuitry configured to take a moving average of the sound propagation characteristics (para 59 and para 83: moving average filter); generates a low-pass ensuring pseudo inverse filter that is a pseudo inverse filter (para 63: multiple sounds can be filtered with this one filter to simulate variability in the source) that ensures passage of a low frequency range of an inverse filter capable of designating strength of regularization for each frequency (para 39: Collectively, these impulse responses or frequency responses can be used to define a so-called head-related transfer function (HRTF) describing the effect for each ear of the user's head on the received frequency spectrum for that point in space; para 41: An HRTF typically comprises a time or frequency filter (e.g. based on an impulse or frequency response) for a series of positions on a sphere or partial sphere surrounding the user's head (e.g. for both azimuth and elevation), so that a sound, when played through a respective one of these filters, appears to come from the corresponding position/direction. The more measured positions on which filters are based, the better the HRTF is. For positions in between measured positions, interpolation between filters can be used; para 70: low-pass filtering).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Hoffman in view of Yasuyuki into the teachings of Armstrong in order to provide consumers of media content, including interactive content such as videogames, enjoy a sense of immersion whilst engaged with that content (para 2 of Armstrong).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7503. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30AM-3:45PM.
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 at 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.
DUC NGUYEN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights