DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1 and 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of US Patent 12,242,972 in view of Morales
Regarding claim 1 and 20, claim 19 of US Pat 12,242,972 teaches everything except an inner volume of the 3D model of the room is represented as a volumetric 3D mesh model; discretize partition the volumetric 3D mesh model into at least one sub-domain using an acoustic wave equation module.
However, Morales teaches an inner volume of the 3D model of the room is represented as a volumetric 3D mesh model ([0026]: voxelizing the acoustic scene into grid cells, where the grid cells are subsequently grouped into plurality of partitions via ARD); discretize partition the volumetric 3D mesh model into at least one sub-domain using an acoustic wave equation module ([0020]&[0028]&[0068]: decomposing a domain into simulated/model rectangular partitions to then be don over the entire domain and doing parallel simulator to solve the acoustic wave equation for large acoustic space on a distributed memory architecture; [0058]: mesh). Therefore, 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, because using sub-domain to process small parts in parallel, will provide an more efficient output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13, 15 and 18 is/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.
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 1-4, 8-10, 14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh US PG-Pub 2015/0294041 in view of Morales US PG-Pub 2016/0171131.
Regarding claim 1 and 20, Yeh teaches receive a 3D model of the room, a position of at least one sound source in the 3D model of the room, and acoustic properties of at least one boundary in the 3D model of the room (Fig. 5 & [0120]: using hybrid technique for 3D model of a room with boundary element method being used); process the 3D model of the room to generate a 3D mesh model of the room ([0033] & [0201]: mesh based room acoustics), apply a wave-based solver to processed independently on a central processing unit (CPU) and/or a graphical processing unit (GPU), and wherein the CPU and/or the GPU solves at least one partial differential equation (Fig. 1-108 & [0048] & [0122]: having processor cores-108 to process in parallel models; the numerical acoustic technique using GPU based wave solver); and determine, using a wave-based solver, a wave-based impulse response of a wave- based propagation of an impulse emitted at the at least one sound source in the 3D model of the room and received at the listening point within a first acoustic frequency range (Fig. 1 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 2 & [0066] & [0074]: the wave solver for generating impulse responses of listener position in the room and having a crossover frequency for selecting Geometric or Numerical models; [0023]: hybrid combination of numerical [wave based] and geometric).
Yeh failed to teach an inner volume of the 3D model of the room is represented as a volumetric 3D mesh model; discretize partition the volumetric 3D mesh model into at least one sub-domain using an acoustic wave equation module.
However, Morales teaches an inner volume of the 3D model of the room is represented as a volumetric 3D mesh model ([0026]: voxelizing the acoustic scene into grid cells, where the grid cells are subsequently grouped into plurality of partitions via ARD); discretize partition the volumetric 3D mesh model into at least one sub-domain using an acoustic wave equation module ([0020]&[0028]&[0068]: decomposing a domain into simulated/model rectangular partitions to then be don over the entire domain and doing parallel simulator to solve the acoustic wave equation for large acoustic space on a distributed memory architecture; [0058]: mesh).
Yeh and Morales are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio modeling. Therefore, 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, because using sub-domain to process small parts in parallel, will provide an more efficient output.
Regarding claim 2, Yeh teaches wherein the CPU is at least a first central processing unit ([0124]: CPU).
Regarding claim 3, Yeh teaches performing a qualitative evaluation on the volumetric 3D mesh model evaluating computational complexity, wherein the computational complexity is correlated to critical areas of sound propagation ([0143]-[0144]: complexity analysis [which the more complex an area, it will be more critical as more is happening]).
Regarding claim 4, Yeh teaches interface for communication between node ([0039]: interface-104 for sending and receiving messages; Fig. 1: communication between processors core-108).
Yeh failed to explicitly teach wherein a message passing interface (MPI) is configured to handle communication between CPUs.
However, Morales teaches wherein a message passing interface (MPI) is configured to handle communication between CPUs ([0068]: using MPI for processor core communication).
Yeh and Morales are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio modeling. Therefore, 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, because using MPI is an alternate equivalent way to communicate between two devices.
Regarding claim 8, Morales teaches wherein at least one partial differential equation is further processed into discrete algebraic equations to be solved on the central processing unit ([0031]-[0034]: ARD solver in discrete form, with solution in discrete differential operator). Therefore, 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, because using discrete algebraic equation is an inventor choice on what mathematical method to use to calculate equations and on unexpected result will arise.
Regarding claim 9, Yeh teaches determining, using a geometrical acoustics-based solver, a geometrical impulse response of a ray-based propagation of an impulse emitted at the at least one sound source in the 3D model of the room and received at the listening point within a second acoustic frequency range; and generating the impulse response by merging the wave-based impulse response and the geometrical impulse response (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & [0024] & [0066] & [0074]: the wave solver for generating impulse responses of listener position in the room and having a crossover frequency for selecting Geometric or Numerical [wave based] models; [0023]: hybrid combination of numerical [wave based] and geometric).
Regarding claim 10, Yeh teaches wherein the 3D model of the room comprises at least one directive sound source configured for emitting sound in a defined direction (Fig. 2 & [0092]: having starting point and directions).
Regarding claim 14, Yeh teaches wherein using the wave-based solver or the geometrical acoustic solver comprises extracting at least one wave impulse response or at least one geometrical impulse response based on a simulation of a propagation of sound, wherein the propagation of sound is the wave-based propagation or the ray-based propagation, and wherein the at least one wave-based impulse response or the at least one geometrical impulse response are at least one spatial impulse response (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & [0024] & [0066] & [0074]: the wave solver for generating impulse responses of listener position in the room which are from a spatial decomposition and having a crossover frequency for selecting Geometric or Numerical [wave based] models; [0023]: hybrid combination of numerical [wave based] and geometric).
Regarding claim 19, Yeh teaches rendering a base audio signal by convolving a base audio signal with the generated impulse response or the wave-based impulse response, thereby creating a rendered audio signal ([0075]: convolving the impulse response).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh US PG-Pub 2015/0294041 in combination with Morales US PG-Pub 2016/0171131 in view of Fujitsu EP2,657,842.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches wherein the communication handled by MPI (Morales, [0068]: using MPI for processor core communication) and domains (Morales, [0028]: decomposing domain).
The combination failed to teach a halo exchange, wherein the halo exchange is performed across neighboring subdomains.
However, Fujitsu teaches a halo exchange, wherein the halo exchange is performed processes ([0048]: MPI parallel process for CPU cores and use Halo exchange on different nodes).
The combination and Fujitsu are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely data processing. Therefore, 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, because using halo exchange in an alternate equivalent way to transfer data between processors.
Claim 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh US PG-Pub 2015/0294041 in combination with Morales US PG-Pub 2016/0171131 in view of Altschule US PG-Pub 2018/0156940.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches wherein the wave- based solver comprises time-step (Morales, [0031]: ARD solver using time-step).
The combination failed to teach a time marching sub-module comprising at least a first time marching method.
However, Altschule teaches a time marching sub-module comprising at least a first time marching method ([0053]: implicit or explicit time stepping scheme).
The combination and Altschule are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely wave equation. Therefore, 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, because time marching is a way for a computer to be able to calculate continuous wave without using too much processing power.
Regarding claim 7, Altschule teaches wherein the at least first time marching method is an explicit time stepping method, a low-storage explicit Runge- Kutta algorithm (LSERK), an implicit-explicit time marching algorithm, or any combinations thereof ([0053]: implicit or explicit time stepping scheme). Therefore, 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, because time marching is a way for a computer to be able to calculate continuous wave without using too much processing power.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh US PG-Pub 2015/0294041 in combination with Morales US PG-Pub 2016/0171131 in view of Gopalakrishnan US PG-Pub 2019/0258764.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches 3D mesh model (Yeh, [0033] & [0201]: mesh based room acoustics).
The combination failed to teach a 3D curvilinear mesh model.
However, Gopalakrishnan teaches 3D curvilinear mesh model ([0048]:3D mesh curvilinear).
The combination and Gopalakrishnan are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely 3D models. Therefore, 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, because using 3D mesh curvilinear is an alternate equivalent way to analyze edges and boundaries.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh US PG-Pub 2015/0294041 in combination with Morales US PG-Pub 2016/0171131 in view of Ye US PG-Pub 2024/0244388.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches parallel discontinuous galerkin (Morales, [0104]).
The combination failed to teach a discontinuous Galerkin finite element method (DGFEM), a time-domain discontinuous Galerkin finite element method, a finite element method (FEM), or a spectral element method (SEM).
However, Ye teaches Finite element method ([0044]: Finite element analysis for wave solver).
The combination and Ye are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely wave solver. Therefore, 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, because using a finite element method is an alternate equivalent way to do simulation for acoustic phenomenon.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh US PG-Pub 2015/0294041 in combination with Morales US PG-Pub 2016/0171131 in view of Raghuvanshi US PG-Pub 2019/0356999.
Regarding claim 16, the combination failed to teach wherein a spherical receiver array is arranged around the listening point, and wherein the spherical receiver array comprises a plurality of receivers.
However, Raghuvanshi teaches wherein a spherical receiver array is arranged around the listening point, and wherein the spherical receiver array comprises a plurality of receivers ([0074] & [0084]: using spherical microphone that will be used for wave simulation for wave solver).
The combination and Raghuvanshi are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely wave solver. Therefore, 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, because using a spherical microphone are used for fast multipole 3D wave propagation.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh US PG-Pub 2015/0294041 in combination with Morales US PG-Pub 2016/0171131 in view of Raghuvanshi US PG-Pub 2019/0356999 and further in view of Sun US PG-Pub 2012/0093344.
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches spherical receiver array (Raghuvanshi, [0074]: spherical microphone).
The combination failed to explicitly teach open spherical array of cardioid receivers.
However, Sun teaches open spherical array of cardioid receivers ([0024]: spherical array using open spherical array with cardioid microphones).
The combination and Sun are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio processing. Therefore, 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, because an open spherical array with cardioid is an alternate equivalent device to pickup acoustic sounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA whose telephone number is (571)270-5519. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-9am and 11am-6pm.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights