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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to
fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lathrop et al. (US 2025/0266024).
As to claim 1, Lathrop teaches system comprising: one or more processors configured to: receive data corresponding to a simulation/model/representation of human auditory periphery (Fig.101-103, 123; Pars.110-124), the simulation based on an audio input (100); and generate one or more stimulation patterns (303) for simultaneously outputting via an output device (Figs.10-11), according to the simulation, the one or more stimulation patterns synchronized to the audio input (Pars.22, 48, 88, 190-192; Figs.1-3, 7-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Lathrop teaches wherein the audio signal comprises a music signal, and wherein the one or more stimulation patterns are synchronized and coordinated with the music signal, for synchronized musical and stimulation output (Fig.1).
As to claim 3, Lathrop teaches a display platform comprising the output device, the display platform communicably coupled to the one or more processors and configured to receive one or more signals corresponding to the one or more stimulation patterns, for rendering (Figs.10-11).
As to claim 4, Lathrop teaches a visual display, and wherein the one or more stimulation patterns comprise one or more patterns rendered on the visual display (Figs.10-11).
As to claim 5, Lathrop teaches receiving the audio input; and computing the simulation of the human auditory periphery using the audio input (Figs.1-3, 11).
As to claim 6, Lathrop teaches computing the simulation of the human auditory periphery based on at least one of a signal fine structure, signal envelop, event onsets, pitch, tonal, timbral, rhythmic, or structural features of the audio input (Pars.71-77).
As to claim 7, Lathrop teaches determining a perceived structure, an affect and an emotion as a function of the audio input, wherein the one or more stimulation patterns correspond to the simulation and the perceived structure, the affect, and the emotion (Pars.46-47; Figs.1-2).
As to claim 8, Lathrop teaches receiving the audio signal from at least one of a music source, a microphone, or an audio feed (Figs.1-2, 12; Par.224).
As to claim 9, Lathrop teaches wherein the audio signal comprises a music signal, the one or more stimulation patterns comprise one or more patterns, and wherein the one or more patterns are synchronized and coordinated with the music signal (Abstract; Pars.17-20).
Regarding claims 10-20, the corresponding method and instructions comprising the steps similar to claims 1-8, are analogous therefore rejected as being anticipated by Lathrop et al. for the foregoing reasons.
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) 1-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindau et al. (US 7,451,077).
As to claim 1, Lindau teaches a system comprising: one or more processors configured to: receive data corresponding to a simulation of human auditory periphery, the simulation based on an audio input (Fig.3A); and generate one or more stimulation patterns for outputting via an output device 106, according to the simulation, the one or more stimulation patterns synchronized to the audio input (FigS.1-3; Abstract;Col.2, lines 40-Col.3, line 24).
PNG
media_image2.png
362
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
516
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Lindau teaches wherein the audio signal comprises a music signal, and wherein the one or more stimulation patterns are synchronized and coordinated with the music signal, for synchronized musical and stimulation output (Col.2, lines 13-35, lines 52-67).
As to claim 3, Lindau teaches a display platform comprising the output device, the display platform communicably coupled to the one or more processors and configured to receive one or more signals corresponding to the one or more stimulation patterns, for rendering (Fig.5, 106).
As to claim 4, Lindau teaches a visual display, and wherein the one or more stimulation patterns comprise one or more patterns rendered on the visual display (Fig.5, 106).
As to claim 5, Lindau teaches receiving the audio input; and computing the simulation of the human auditory periphery using the audio input (Figs.3-4).
As to claim 6, Lindau teaches computing the simulation of the human auditory periphery based on at least one of a signal fine structure, signal envelop, event onsets, pitch, tonal, timbral, rhythmic, or structural features of the audio input (Abstract; Col.2, lines 40-Col.3, line 24).
As to claim 8, Lindau teaches receiving the audio signal from at least one of a music source, a microphone, or an audio feed (Fig.3A).
As to claim 9, Lindau teaches wherein the audio signal comprises a music signal, the one or more stimulation patterns comprise one or more patterns, and wherein the one or more patterns are synchronized and coordinated with the music signal (Abstract; Figs.1-4).
Regarding claims 10-20, the corresponding method and instructions comprising the steps similar to claims 1-8, are analogous therefore rejected as being anticipated by Lindau et al. for the foregoing reasons.
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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,175,996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application define an invention that is merely an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the patent for the following reasons. Comparing the claims, such as claim 1 of the two documents it is clear that all the elements of claim 1 of the present application are found in the patent claim. The difference is claim 1 of the patent comprises the additional elements including “receiving an audio input and computing a simulation of a human auditory periphery using the audio input, wherein the simulation comprises a mapping of structural features of the audio input to a predicted affect to the human auditory periphery”, that are not included in claim 1 of the present application, therefore represents a species of the generic invention of the application claims. Since it has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent.
Claims 2-20 are, respectively, anticipated by claims 2-20 of the patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Love et al. US 2018/0061438.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DEMELASH ABEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-7615. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday 7-4.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/DANIEL ABEBE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights