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 § 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) 1-10, 12-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gamper (GAMPER et al., "Interaural Time Delay Personalisation Using Incomplete Head Scans", IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, XP033258460, 2017, pp. 461-465, IDS 7/29/25).
Regarding claim 1, Gamper teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving head geometry information for a user (mapping listener’s anthropometric features, sec 2.1);
determining a calculated interaural-time-delay (ITD) value for the user based on the head geometry information (ITD modeling, geometric ITD model, sec 2.2);
generating a first modified head-related transfer function (HRTF) with the calculated ITD value and a second modified HRTF with the calculated ITD value (HRTF for each ear, sec 1);
generating a first modified audio signal with the first modified HRTF and a second modified audio signal with the second modified HRTF (using HRTF for each ear, sec 1); and transmitting the first modified audio signal and the second modified audio signal to one or more loudspeakers for output (spatially rendered sound with HRTFs, sec 1).
Regarding claim 2, Gamper teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the first modified HRTF with the calculated ITD value comprises changing a first time-of-arrival value of a first HRTF to a second time-of-arrival value and generating the second modified HRTF (τ = tL – tR, sec 2.1) with the calculated ITD value comprises changing a third time-of-arrival value of a second HRTF to a fourth time-of-arrival value based on the calculated ITD value (calculating the ITD for each ear, sec 2.1).
Regarding claim 3, Gamper teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein a difference between the second time-of-arrival value and the fourth time-of-arrival value equals the calculated ITD value (τ = tL – tR, sec 2.1).
Regarding claim 4, Gamper teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the first modified HRTF with the calculated ITD value comprises changing a first time-of-arrival value of a first HRTF to a second time-of-arrival value (τ = tL – tR, sec 2.1) and generating the second modified HRTF with the calculated ITD value comprises retaining a third time-of-arrival value of a second HRTF at a same value (sec 2.1).
Regarding claim 5, Gamper teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein a difference between the second time-of-arrival value and the third time-of-arrival value equals the calculated ITD value (τ = tL – tR, sec 2.1).
Regarding claim 6, Gamper teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining a head diameter for the user based on the head geometry information (head width, sec 2.2).
Regarding claim 7, Gamper teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein determining the calculated ITD value for the user based on the head geometry information comprises determining the calculated ITD value for the user based on the head diameter (ITD determined based on head width, sec 2.2).
Regarding claim 8, Gamper teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein determining the head diameter for the user based on the head geometry information comprises determining a three-dimensional position of each ear of the user (high resolution 3-D head scans, sec 2.3).
Regarding claim 9, Gamper teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein determining the head diameter for the user based on the head geometry information comprises determining an orientation of a head of the user (scans are aligned so that the head is level, pointing forward, with the centre of the interaural axis lying at the origin of the Cartesian coordinate system, fig 2a, sec 2.3).
Regarding claim 10, Gamper teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein determining the head diameter for the user based on the head geometry information comprises identifying one or more anthropomorphic landmarks on a head of the user (mapping the listener’s anthropometric features, sec 2.1).
Claims 12 and 20 are each substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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) 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamper and Lee (US 20190014431).
Regarding claim 11, Gamper teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Although Gamper does not teach wherein receiving the head geometry information for the user comprises at least one of acquiring one or more images of the user or receiving accelerometer information associated with movement of a head of the user, Lee teaches using an accelerometer for verifying appropriate positioning when acquiring images of a user’s ear (Lee, [0050-0052]) for the purpose of determining HRTF geometries of a user (Lee, [0057]).
It would have been obvious to use an accelerometer to acquire user images for HRTF purposes as disclosed by Lee since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kile Blair whose telephone number is (571)270-3544. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/KILE O BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights