DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 12/30/2024:
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 .
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19005633 in view of Jin et al (US20190306650, hereinafter “Jin”). For example:
Regarding claim 1, 19005633 teaches a computer-implemented method (claim 1, a computer-implemented method), comprising:
determining a position and an orientation of a user in an environment (claim 1, determining a first position and a first orientation of a user in an environment);
determining, based on the position and the orientation of the user, a subset of nearest points in a dimensional map, wherein the dimensional map includes a set of points in a multi-dimensional space, each point is associated with a corresponding transfer function, and points in the subset of nearest points are closer to the position and the orientation of the user in the dimensional map than other points in the dimensional map (claim 1, identifying a first point based on the first position and the first orientation of the user in a dimensional map, the dimensional map associating a plurality of transfer functions with a corresponding plurality of points corresponding to positions and orientations in a multi-dimensional space; claim 2, wherein identifying the first point comprises selecting a nearest point from a plurality of points in the dimensional map based on a mathematical distance from the first point to the nearest point);
determining at least one crosstalk cancellation filter by combining each of the transfer functions associated with the subset of nearest points based on the respective weights (claim 1, determining at least one crosstalk cancellation filter based on the plurality of transfer functions);
generating a plurality of audio signals for a plurality of loudspeakers based on the at least one crosstalk cancelation filter (claim 1, generating a plurality of audio signals for a plurality of loudspeakers based on the at least one crosstalk cancelation filter); and
transmitting the plurality of audio signals to the plurality of loudspeakers for output (claim 1, transmitting the plurality of audio signals to the plurality of loudspeakers for output).
19005633 fails to explicitly teach determining, based on a distance between each point in the subset of nearest points to the position and the orientation of the user in the dimensional map, a respective weight for each transfer function associated with the subset of nearest points;
Jin teaches determining, based on a distance between each point in the subset of nearest points to the position and the orientation of the user in the dimensional map, a respective weight for each transfer function associated with the subset of nearest points (Fig. 5, ¶49-54, a respective weight function can be applied to each output such that the audio scene is ideally rendered (i.e. to achieve the “sweet spot” for the listener));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crosstalk cancellation apparatus (as taught by Franco) with the weighting technique (as taught by Jin). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of improved audio playback despite audio arrangements (Jin, ¶6).
The remaining independent and/or dependent claims are similarly rejected using one or more claims of the reference application and Jin (whether alone or in combination).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Franco et al (US20230042762, hereinafter “Franco”) in view of Jin et al (US20190306650, hereinafter “Jin”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Franco teaches a computer-implemented method (¶6, method), comprising:
determining a position and an orientation of a user in an environment (Fig. 6A, listener position and orientation are determined);
determining, based on the position and the orientation of the user, a subset of nearest points in a dimensional map, wherein the dimensional map includes a set of points in a multi-dimensional space, each point is associated with a corresponding transfer function, and points in the subset of nearest points are closer to the position and the orientation of the user in the dimensional map than other points in the dimensional map (¶36, selecting the set of speakers (which are points in space) that are closest to the listener; Fig. 6A, each point to be rendered comprises of a filter selection to determine a transfer function to be applied (i.e. applying HRTF to the audio for binaural rendering, see ¶27));
determining at least one crosstalk cancellation filter by combining each of the transfer functions associated with the subset of nearest points based on the respective weights (¶27, generating audio signals that comprise of target characteristics such as crosstalk cancellation based on the position of the listener);
generating a plurality of audio signals for a plurality of loudspeakers based on the at least one crosstalk cancelation filter (Fig. 7, generating a plurality of audio signals based on the target characteristics); and
transmitting the plurality of audio signals to the plurality of loudspeakers for output (Fig. 7, transmitting appropriate audio signals to the respective speakers for output).
Franco teaches determining a respective weight for each node/position along the edge of the dimensional map (¶38, Fig. 3, weighting associated with the edge);
Franco fails to explicitly teach determining, based on a distance between each point in the subset of nearest points to the position and the orientation of the user in the dimensional map, a respective weight for each transfer function associated with the subset of nearest points;
Jin teaches determining, based on a distance between each point in the subset of nearest points to the position and the orientation of the user in the dimensional map, a respective weight for each transfer function associated with the subset of nearest points (Fig. 5, ¶49-54, a respective weight function can be applied to each output such that the audio scene is ideally rendered (i.e. to achieve the “sweet spot” for the listener));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crosstalk cancellation apparatus (as taught by Franco) with the weighting technique (as taught by Jin). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of improved audio playback despite audio arrangements (Jin, ¶6).
Regarding claim 2, Franco in view of Jin teaches wherein determining the position and orientation of the user in the environment comprises receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensors (Franco, ¶52, sensors to determine positions and orientations of the listener).
Regarding claim 3, Franco in view of Jin teaches wherein determining the position and orientation of the user in the environment comprises calculating three coordinates corresponding to a position relative to a reference position and three coordinates corresponding to an orientation relative to a reference orientation (Franco, ¶84, 3-dimensional audio output; the world is 3D meaning any point in space can be represented as cartesian coordinates (e.g. X, Y, and Z) as well as polar coordinates (e.g. Azimuth, Elevation, and Roll) which can be translated as (Yaw, Pitch, and Roll)).
Regarding claim 4, Franco in view of Jin teaches wherein the three coordinates corresponding to the orientation relative to the reference orientation correspond to a roll angle, a pitch angle, and a yaw angle (Franco, ¶84, 3-dimensional audio output; the world is 3D meaning any point in space can be represented as cartesian coordinates (e.g. X, Y, and Z) as well as polar coordinates (e.g. Azimuth, Elevation, and Roll) which can be translated as (Yaw, Pitch, and Roll)).
Regarding claim 7, Franco in view of Jin teaches wherein determining the respective weight for each transfer function further comprises:
determining the weight for each transfer function based on a mathematical distance from the position and the orientation of the user to each point in the subset of nearest points within the dimensional map (Jin, ¶10-11, weighting being determined based on a distance from the user and the speaker/source position).
Regarding claim 8, Franco in view of Jin teaches wherein the mathematical distance is calculated based on a barycentric distance or a Euclidean distance (Jin, ¶11, standard Euclidean distance).
Regarding claim 10, Franco in view of Jin teaches wherein the dimensional map is selected from a plurality of dimensional maps, wherein the dimensional map is selected based on a yaw angle relative to a reference orientation that corresponds to a first orientation (Franco, Fig. 7, the position and orientation (comprising the yaw angle) is tracked so a plurality of positions can be determined during the audio reproduction period).
Regarding claim 11, Franco in view of Jin teaches wherein each of the plurality of dimensional maps is associated with a range of yaw angles relative to the reference orientation (Franco, Fig. 7, if the position and orientation of the user is to be continually tracked throughout the audio reproduction period, then a range of yaw angles relative to the previous determined angle is also continuously determined).
Regarding claim 12, Franco in view of Jin teaches wherein the plurality of audio signals comprises a left channel signal and a right channel signal (Franco, ¶22, Fig. 1A, plurality of audio output signals comprise of a left and right channel signal).
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The media can be found in Franco (¶7, media).
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected similarly as claim 7. The media can be found in Franco (¶7, media).
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected similarly as claim 3. The media can be found in Franco (¶7, media).
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected similarly as claims 4 and 11. The media can be found in Franco (¶7, media).
Regarding claim 19, Franco in view of Jin teaches wherein the dimensional map includes three-dimensions representing position in three-dimensional space and includes two-dimensions representing orientation in two-dimensional space (Franco, ¶2, outputting 3D sound fields; Fig. 1B, one of ordinary skill in the art who is capable of mapping a 3D space can equally be skilled in mapping a 2D space as shown in Fig. 1B (any point in the graph can be represented using X and Y coordinates)).
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The system can be found in Franco (¶7, system).
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco et al (US20230042762, hereinafter “Franco”) in view of Jin et al (US20190306650, hereinafter “Jin”) in further view of Mason et al (US20200275233, hereinafter “Mason”).
Regarding claim 9, Franco in view of Jin fail to explicitly teach wherein the respective weight for each transfer function is inversely proportional to a normalized distance to the position and orientation of the user, wherein a sum of the respective weights equals 1.
Mason teaches wherein the respective weight for each transfer function is inversely proportional to a normalized distance to the position and orientation of the user, wherein a sum of the respective weights equals 1 (¶15, normalizing the weight factors based on a distance measure and normalizing the weight to a value of 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the normalization technique (as taught by Mason) audio processing apparatus (as taught by Franco in view of Jin). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of improving perceptual output (Mason, ¶16).
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected similarly as claim 9. The media can be found in Franco (¶7, media).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 14 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM EST.
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 on 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights