DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement filed on February 21, 2025 has been considered and placed in the application file.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is audio device in claims 30, 32-38, and 40.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
6. 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.
7. Claims 30-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12267663. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious wording variants of each other.
US Patent No. 12267663
Instant Application No. 19029356
12. A system, comprising:
an audio device configured to:
receive a plurality of audio channels;
determine an acoustic environment according to a type of audio carried by the audio channels;
simulate the acoustic environment via one or more virtual channels; and
generate stereo signals according to the one or more virtual channels.
30. A system, comprising:
an audio device configured to:
receive a plurality of audio channels;
analyze characteristics of the plurality of audio channels to determine an acoustic environment;
generate one or more virtual channels that simulate the acoustic environment; and
process the plurality of audio channels according to the one or more virtual channels to generate stereo output signals.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the type of audio comprises one of game audio, music audio and movie audio.
31. The system of claim 30, wherein the type of audio comprises one of game audio, music audio and movie audio.
14. The system of claim 12, wherein when the type of audio is game audio, the audio device is configured to simulate a different acoustic environment than when the type of audio is music audio
32. The system of claim 30, wherein when the type of audio is game audio, the audio device is configured to simulate a different acoustic environment than when the type of audio is music audio.
15. The system of claim 12, wherein when the type of audio is game audio, the audio device is configured to simulate a different acoustic environment than when the type of audio is movie audio.
33. The system of claim 30, wherein when the type of audio is game audio, the audio device is configured to simulate a different acoustic environment than when the type of audio is movie audio.
16. The system of claim 12, wherein when the type of audio is movie audio, the audio device is configured to simulate a different acoustic environment than when the type of audio is music audio.
34. The system of claim 30, wherein when the type of audio is movie audio, the audio device is configured to simulate a different acoustic environment than when the type of audio is music audio.
17. The system of claim 12, wherein when the type of the audio is music audio, the audio device is configured to attenuate side audio channels and rear audio channels, of the plurality of audio channels.
35. The system of claim 30, wherein when the type of the audio is music audio, the audio device is configured to attenuate side audio channels and rear audio channels, of the plurality of audio channels.
18. The system of claim 12, wherein when the type of the audio is game audio, the audio device is configured to simulate the acoustic environment according to a scenario in a game that is generating the game audio.
36. The system of claim 30, wherein when the type of the audio is game audio, the audio device is configured to simulate the acoustic environment according to a scenario in a game that is generating the game audio.
19. The system of claim 12, wherein when the type of the audio is game audio, the audio device is configured to simulate the acoustic environment from a viewpoint of a player in a game that is generating the game audio.
37. The system of claim 30, wherein when the type of the audio is game audio, the audio device is configured to simulate the acoustic environment from a viewpoint of a player in a game that is generating the game audio.
20. The system of claim 12, wherein the audio device is configured to simulate a first acoustic environment such that a listener perceives a source of one of the virtual channels as being closer, relative to a second acoustic environment.
38. The system of claim 30, wherein the audio device is configured to simulate a first acoustic environment such that a listener perceives a source of one of the virtual channels as being closer, relative to a second acoustic environment.
21. The system of claim 12, wherein the virtual channels comprise a center channel.
39. The system of claim 30, wherein the virtual channels comprise a center channel.
22. The system of claim 12, wherein the audio device is configured to: detect the type of audio, carried by the audio channels, according to a particular sound stored in the audio device.
40. The system of claim 30, wherein the audio device is configured to: detect the type of audio, carried by the audio channels, according to a particular sound stored in the audio device.
7. Regarding claims 30-40, claims 12-22 of US Patent No. 12267663 teaches the limitations of claims 30-40, with wording variations which are similar in scope, as highlighted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 19-29 would be allowable.
9. Claims 30-40 would be allowable if overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent Claim 30, the closest prior art such as US 20110075851, US 20120201405, US 20120213375 (cited by Applicant, IDS USPAP item #1), US 20140073429, and US 20140133683 alone or in combination fails to teach a system, comprising:
analyze characteristics of the plurality of audio channels to determine an acoustic environment;
generate one or more virtual channels that simulate the acoustic environment; and
process the plurality of audio channels according to the one or more virtual channels to generate stereo output signals,
in combination with other limitations, as specified in the independent claim 1.
Claims 31-40 are allowable due to dependence from claim 30.
Independent claim 19 are allowed for the same reason as that of independent claim 1 since it contains at least similar limitations as recited in independent claim 30.
Claims 20-29 are allowable due to dependence from claim 19.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inventor
Publication
Number
Disclosure
LeBoeuf et al.
US Patent Application Publication
20110075851
In an audio-oriented system using metadata, a source audio signal is typically broken into small "windows" of time (e.g., 10-100 milliseconds in duration). A set of "features" is derived by analyzing the different characteristics of each signal window (paragraph [0007]).
Slamka et al.
US Patent Application Publication
20120201405
The reverberation components can be computed by reverberation models that have the freedom of adjusting reverberation time (T60) according to room volume and achieve different room effects (paragraph [0035]).
MENESES et al.
US Patent Application Publication
20140073429
In doing so, 3D audio enhancement component 821 provides an increased level of 3D sound directionality virtually using two audio channels (Fig. 8, paragraph [0105]).
Robinson et al.
US Patent
20140133683
FIG. 1 is a top-level overview of an audio creation and playback environment utilizing an adaptive audio system, under an embodiment (paragraph [0042]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CON P TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7532. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (08:30 AM- 05:00 PM) ET.
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 C. 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.
/C.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
