DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-5, 12 and 17 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, 6-10, 13-15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson US PG-Pub 2012/0254382.
Regarding claim 1, 10 and 15, Watson teaches apparatus transmit spatial audio capture requirement(s) to a privacy service (Fig. 1, Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B & [0030]-[0032]: the user-312 mobile phone will send GPS location of the user mobile phone to the event coordination service-110).
While Watson does not explicitly teach receive one or more privacy masks; and capture audio according to the one or more privacy masks. Watson in [0033] is teaching that the event coordination service-110 has the ability to adjust the settings by muting microphone capture based on the GPS location of the user mobile device or the event coordination service-110 does NOT adjust the settings, but it can communicate with the user mobile phone to display to the user what the settings adjustment should be and the mobile device itself either by an application or it’s own operating system can do the adjustment. 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 in order for the mobile phone to do it’s own adjustment without the event coordination service doing the adjustment, the event coordination service must provide the privacy mask to not capture audio by muting the user mobile phone microphone while in the room based on GPS data.
Regarding claim 6, 13 and 18, Watson teaches wherein the spatial audio capture requirement(s) comprises at least one of: positions and/or properties of microphone(s) of one or more user devices; a capture policy defining an action in case of unknown user devices; or an indication of whether the one or more user devices are involved in generating a common volumetric audio scene (Fig. 1, Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B & [0030]-[0032]: the user-312 mobile phone will send GPS location of the user mobile phone to the event coordination service-110).
Regarding claim 7, 14 and 19, Watson teaches wherein the one or more privacy masks define: one or more spatial audio capture regions for one or more user devices (Fig. 1, Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B & [0030]-[0032]: the region is within the room based on GPS location); and a mask operator indicating an action to be performed in the one or more spatial audio capture regions, wherein the action is one of removing directional component(s) and retaining diffuse component(s) of captured audio content, removing any audio content, or removing diffuse component(s) and retaining directional component(s) of captured audio content ([0030]-[0033] the event coordination service-110 has the ability to adjust the settings by muting microphone capture based on the GPS location of the user mobile device).
Regarding claim 8, Watson teaches wherein the one or more privacy masks are locked to device orientation or to an object of interest ([0030]-[0033] the event coordination service-110 has the ability to adjust the settings by muting microphone capture when user walks into the room).
Regarding claim 9, Watson teaches wherein the apparatus is a user device ([0030]-[0033]: user mobile device).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson US PG-Pub 2012/0254382 in view of Eronen US PG-Pub 2020/0288262.
Regarding claim 2, Watson teaches wherein the apparatus is one of a plurality of user devices (Fig. 1: 130, 132, 134).
Watson failed to teach plurality of user devices generating a common volumetric audio scene.
However, Eronen teaches plurality of user devices generating a common volumetric audio scene (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 & [0051]: using different devices to capture volumetric audio to then reproduce the volumetric audio).
Watson and Eronen are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. 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 multiple audio devices to capture volumetric scene helps to be able to reproduce a volumetric audio scene.
Claim 3, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson US PG-Pub 2012/0254382 in view of Xiang US PG-Pub 2014/0136981.
Regarding claim 3, 11 and 16, Watson teaches wherein the capturing the audio according to the one or more privacy masks (Fig. 1, Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B & [0030]-[0033]: the user-312 mobile phone will send GPS location of the user mobile phone to the event coordination service-110, which will mute microphone when phone in a location).
Watson failed to teach acoustically steering a beamformer to attenuate a sound signal in a spatial audio capture region defined by the one or more privacy masks.
However, Xiang teaches acoustically steering a beamformer to attenuate a sound signal in a spatial audio capture region defined by the one or more privacy masks (Fig. 3, Fig. 7 & [0062] & [0086]: microphone array it used to steer capture sound from specific location and not capture sound from other locations).
Watson and Xiang are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. 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 microphone array with beamforming is an alternate equivalent way to not capture audio from specific location.
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