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
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim appears to contain a period after the recited “having one or more audio transducers.” This may be a scanning error, as mirror claims 17 and 20 appear to bear commas at a similar location. Applicant must make certain that claims comprise only a singular terminal period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2, 3, 4, 16, 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 2, 16, 19 recite that two positions effectively define an area, the specification does not make explicit the manner in which this is accomplished and it is Examiner’s understanding that two positions define a line and three an area and as such the claims are considered indefinite. Claims 3, 4 recite “a virtual scene of virtual content,” the virtual content lacks clear antecedent, presumably either the XR media content, the XR visual content and/or the XR audio content; the claim further recites adjusting the scene to “match” the first area “as perceived by a user,” the user perception not clearly introduced and inherently subjective and variable and as such the recitation is considered indefinite. Claims 5, 6 again recite matters of user perception and are similarly considered indefinite. Claim 7 introduces ambiguity as the claim recites “determine the first position,: whereas parent claim 1 from which claim 7 depends recites “obtaining an indication of a first position,” is the determination with respect to the indication, further the specification is spare on determining a wall location and ultimately the claim relies on wall position to resolve first playback device position in a manner; presumably this is metadata driven the claim nevertheless remains unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required
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 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadri: 20170094437 hereinafter Ka further in view of Audfray: 20190246209 hereinafter Au and further in view of Shipes: 20180284882 hereinafter Sh.
Regarding claim 1
Ka teaches:
A media playback system (Ka: Abstract), comprising: a computing device comprising a display; a network interface; one or more processors; and one or more computer memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the media playback system to perform operations (Ka: ¶ 36, 40, 45, 46, 57, 58, 62; Fig 2, 3: system, playback and control devices therein operative of processors thereon using instructions, data, etc. retrieved from memory and/or conveyed among the devices over network interfaces thereof) comprising:
receiving, via the network interface, media content, wherein the media content comprises visual content and audio content (Ka: ¶ 45, 77, etc.: system, devices thereof, convey, receive media content including audio content, visual media, etc. such as over network interfaces thereof);
obtaining an indication of a first position of a first audio playback device (Ka: Abstract; ¶ 22, 86, 116 etc.: a position of the two or more playback devices relative to each other is determined and a device map of the two or more playback devices in the listening environment is generated based thereon), obtaining an indication of a second position of a second playback device (Ka: Abstract; ¶ 22, 86, 116 etc.: a position of the two or more playback devices relative to each other is determined and a device map of the two or more playback devices in the listening environment is generated based thereon),
modifying, based on the first position and the second position, the visual content (Ka: ¶ 88, 130-133: system generates displayed visual content with respect to device positions modifies same based on changes of position),
outputting, via the display, the modified visual content (Ka: ¶ 130-133: system operates to display visualizations, environmental device maps, etc.), and
causing, via the first playback device, playback of a first portion of the audio content in synchrony with playback, via the second playback device, of a second portion of the audio content (Ka: ¶ 41, 47, 48, 79, etc.: devices of the system operative to playback separate components of a common audio content in synchrony).
Ka teaches or suggests each recited structural and functional limitation of claim 1 but the disclosure relates to conventional functionality which while germane to and operative for virtual, extended, etc. reality does not explicitly teach an XR system operable for receiving and output XR media content and modifying, based on a first device position and a second device position, XR visual content; outputting, via the display, the modified XR visual content, and causing, via the first playback device, playback of a first portion of the XR audio content in synchrony with playback, via the second playback device, of a second portion of the XR audio content.
In a related field of endeavor Au media playback system, comprising: a computing device comprising a display; a network interface; one or more processors; and one or more computer memories storing instructions (Au: ¶ 18, 30, 36, 44, 45: a user interface system comprising a headset accommodating processor(s), network interface(s), memory and display(s) for output of audio and images to a user) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the media playback system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, via the network interface, extended reality (XR) media content, wherein the XR media content comprises XR visual content and XR audio content (Au: ¶ 30, 31, 48, 91: user device receives a VR game from a game server, said game comprising audio and video representations of virtual objects for output to a user),
obtaining an indication of a first position of a first playback device (Au: ¶ 29-31, 39, 51, 52, 93: user device operable to output audio and video customized to a user position with respect to a plurality of speakers),
obtaining an indication of a second position of a second playback device (Au: ¶ 29-31, 39, 51, 52, 93: user device operable to output audio and video customized to a user position with respect to a plurality of speakers),
modifying, based on the first position and the second position, at least the XR audio content (Au: ¶ 75-85; Fig 5: system modifies audio content based on game dynamics, user position, etc.), outputting, via the display, XR visual content in concert with the modified XR audio content (Au: ¶ 39-31, 78-90; Fig 5: system dynamically provides audio and video to a user), and
outputting via the display XR visual content (Au: ¶ 29-31, 36, 62, 95: system output XR visual content via the headset display comprising the visual aspects of the game; such as to provide indication that a player is moving in a physical or virtual space, a representation of a second user, etc.);
causing, via the first playback device, playback of a first portion of the XR audio content in synchrony with playback, via the second playback device, of a second portion of the XR audio content (Au: ¶ 53, 54, 93: system generates separate signal for each speaker which provides an adaptive audio signal in concert with game video and in keeping with game dynamics). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the location adaptive display and output of the Ka taught media playback system with the extended reality content of Au for at least the purpose of extending or enhancing the position aware playback and display of Ka to include the adaptive delivery of the Au taught extended reality media thereby adapting displayed XR audio and video based on positional factors of the media environment; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Ka in view of Au does not operate to present augmented reality content of virtual objects display within a view of a real world environment with sounds adjusted to particular positions of displayed objects.
In a related field of endeavor Sh teaches an augmented reality system and method (Sh: Abstract) comprising processors operative of stored code such as in a headset embodiment comprising a display (Sh: ¶ 7, 24, 25; Fig 5) wherein the system operates to present mixed, augmented, virtual, etc. reality media to a user (Sh: ¶ 2-5 14, 41, 69; Fig 5, 11-14: display of virtual content to provide an augmented, mixed, and/or virtual reality experience) said media comprising visual and audio content displayed based on a spatial relationship to the real environment (Sh: ¶ 5, 14, 71; Fig 5, 11-14: a virtual object such as a ball for gameplay overlaid upon a view of the local environment and operative to emit sounds with respect to the position and displayed motion of the virtual object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt the Ka in view of Au system for media display to incorporate the augmented reality system of Sh for at least the purpose of increasing the media available to a user; allowing a user physical access to a local environment while enjoying virtual media, such as for exercise; allowing a user to experience virtual objects in a real world environment while avoiding obstacles or emergent dangers, etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the first position and the second position define a first area, and wherein the modifying comprises adjusting a visual boundary of the XR visual content based on the first area. (Ka: Abstract; ¶ 22, 88, 130, etc.: spatial map generated based on the position of two or more playback devices relative one to the other and presents a map based on and displaying of the relative positioning of the playback devices; the determining of the first area is read as a region whose extent is determined or bounded at least in part by the first and second determined positions); (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 24, 25, 41, 69, etc.; Fig 5, 11-14: such as by adapting to user gameplay involving a virtual object). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 2, wherein adjusting the visual boundary comprises adjusting a virtual scene of virtual content to match the first area as perceived by a user of the computing device (Ka: ¶ 117; Fig 5, 8, 8A, 9: such as by production of a displayed device map of the first, second, etc. playback devices in the listening environment, area, etc.); (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 24, 25, 41, 41, 69, etc.; Fig 5, 11-14: such as by adapting to user gameplay involving a virtual object and a real world boundary such as a wall). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 2, wherein adjusting the visual boundary comprises adjusting a virtual scene of virtual content to be greater than or smaller than the first area as perceived by a user of the computing device (Ka: ¶ 130, 131, etc.; Fig 5, 8, 8A, 9: such as by presentation of a scaled version of the device map, environment, etc.); (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 24, 25, 41, 69, etc.; Fig 5, 11-14: such as by adapting to user gameplay involving a virtual object and a real world boundary such as a wall; such as to manage perspective). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the first playback device and the second playback device are in a physical environment, and wherein the modifying comprises modifying the XR visual content to be perceived as fixed at a third position in the physical environment with respect to the first position and the second position (Ka: ¶ 25, 77, 88, 120; Figs 5, 8, 8A, 9: such as by presenting a virtual point with respect to two playback devices, determining a listening position with respect thereto, etc.); (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 24, 25, 41, 67, 69, etc.; Fig 5, 11-14: such as to display a virtual object fixed in a user hand). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 5, wherein the third position is determined based on a placement of one or more pieces of furniture (Ka: ¶ 77, 12, etc.: such as by determining precise positioning in the environment with respect to a seating area, couch, etc.); (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 34, 41, 69, etc.; Fig 5, 11-14: such as by displaying a virtual object, virtual person, etc. upon real world piece of furniture such as a chair). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein determining the first position of the first playback device comprises determining a particular boundary location, and wherein the modifying comprises modifying the XR visual content based on the determined location (Au: ¶ 38: system relates speaker position to the environmental effect of a floor of the reproduction environment); (Ka: ¶ 26, 123: system computes positioning and delivery parameters based on surfaces of the environment); (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 41, 69, etc.; Fig 5, 11-14: such as by adapting to user gameplay involving a virtual object and a real world boundary such as a wall). Au in view of The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the first position and the second position are in a listening environment (Au: ¶ 29, 52: speakers positioned in a listening environment); (Ka: ¶ 21, 22, 86: playback device positions determined with respect to a listening environment, listening position therein, etc.), the operations further comprising: determining one or more properties of the listening environment (Au: ¶ 50, 92: system determines acoustic properties of an environment, directs audio rendering based thereon); (Ka: ¶ 118, 123, etc.: system determines playback device positions, geometric properties of the listening environment based thereon, including the location and inclination of surface, position of furniture, etc. therein), and wherein modifying the XR visual content comprises modifying the XR visual content based on the one or more properties of the listening environment (Au: ¶ 64, 118, 123, etc.: system modifies output of XR media based on determined environmental, positioning, etc. data); (Ka: ¶ 26, 88, 118, 123, 130: determined properties of a listening area direct output of displayed content based on determining environmental locations to generate and orient a device map of the environment); (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 41, 69, etc.; Fig 5, 11-14: such as by adapting to user gameplay involving a virtual object and a real world boundary such as a wall). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 8, wherein the one or more properties of the listening environment include at least one of: a location of a surface of the listening environment or a dimension of the listening environment (Au: ¶ 38: system relates speaker position to the environmental effect of a floor of the reproduction environment); (Ka: ¶ 26, 123: system computes positioning and delivery parameters based on surfaces of the environment); (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 41, 69, etc.; Fig 5, 11-14: such as by adapting to user gameplay involving a virtual object and a real world boundary such as a wall). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 8, wherein the one or more properties of the listening environment include an acoustic property of the listening environment (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 41, 47, 49, 52, 67 etc.; Fig 5, 11-14: such as by adapting to acoustical properties of the environment, real world objects therein). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: determining a third position corresponding to a user of the computing device, and wherein the modifying comprises modifying the XR visual content based on the first position, the second position, and the third position (Ka: ¶ 25, 88, 121: such as by determining a listening location, user position, etc. and adjustment of media output based thereon); (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 41, 69, etc.; Fig 5, 11-14: such as by adapting to user gameplay involving a virtual object and a real world boundary such as a wall). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises a portable device (Ka: ¶ 57, 82; Fig 3: such as the controller device of the system operative upon a phone, tablet, etc.) (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 24, 25, 33, 34, etc.; Fig 1-5: such as the headset of the figures). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 13
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises a wearable XR device having one or more audio transducers (Au: ¶ 32, 41, 49: such as a headset comprising speakers); (Sh: ¶ 2-7, 14, 24, 25, 33, 34, etc.; Fig 1-5: such as left and right speakers), and wherein the operations further comprise: generating based on the XR audio content, the first portion of the XR audio content the second portion of the XR audio content, and a third portion of the XR audio content (Au: ¶ 52, 86, 87: such as by determining portions of output for particular transducers such as using a crossover and/or filters for each of one or more speakers); (Ka: ¶ 41, 47, 48, 79: system may be configured to render particular portions of an audio stream on two or more playback devices) and playing back via the one or more audio transducers of the wearable XR device, the third portion of the XR audio content while (i) the first playback device plays back the first portion of the XR audio content and (ii) the second playback device plays back the second portion of the XR audio content (Au: ¶ 6, 65, 93: system provides different speakers, sets thereof with differently configured signals); (Ka: ¶ 41, 47, 48, 79: devices receive particular portions, deliver same in synchrony). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 14
Ka in view of Au in view of Sh teaches or suggests:
The media playback system of claim 1, wherein the XR media content comprises at least one of: augmented reality content, mixed reality content, and virtual reality content (Au: ¶ 30, 91: system delivers virtual reality content, mixed reality content, etc.); (Ka: ¶ 133 Figs 5, 8, 8A, 9: system generates a device map, presents same on a display); (Sh: ¶ 2-5 14, 41, 69; Fig 5, 11-14: display of virtual content to provide an augmented, mixed, and/or virtual reality experience). The claim is considered obvious over Ka as modified by Au and Sh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ka, Au, and/or Sh to the modified device of Ka, Au, and Sh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claims 15, 18—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 16, 19—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 17, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 13 and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
