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
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 , 8, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Amadu et al (US2010/028900) or, in the alternative, claims 1-5, 8-14, and 17-20 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Amadu et al (hereinafter Amadu, US2010/0208900). in view of Klayman et al. (hereinafter Klayman, US7555130) or Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen, CN108966110) or Tanaka et al. (hereinafter Tanaka, US2022/003910).
35.U.S.C. 102 Rejection
Regarding claim 1, Amadu disclosed a method for spatial sound image correction in a vehicle (paragraph 009), the method comprising:
detecting an amplitude and a time delay of two or more speakers, each speaker playing back one or more output channels;
aligning the amplitude and the time delay of the two or more speakers (paragraphs 0030, 0063, 0065);
capturing a frequency spectrum of each output channel of the two or more speakers, wherein each output channel of a first speaker has a symmetrical output channel which is one of the one or more output channels of a second speaker (paragraph 0023);
analyzing power spectrum differences between each output channel of the first speaker and each symmetrical output channel of the second speaker (paragraph 0051 disclosed correcting the sound level of spectrum by equalizes the spectrum of the signals of left channel and right channel, in order to equalize the sound level of the channels, a difference must be determined in order to properly adjust the sound level so that both channels are equalized) ;
computing a power spectrum equalizer transfer function for each symmetrical output channel pair (paragraph 0051 - 0054) ; and
applying the power spectrum equalizer transfer function to each output channel of the two or more speakers (paragraphs 0051-0054).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Amadu further disclosed detecting a center sound image based on
sound sources from the two or more speakers; and applying an additional amplitude panning to the
center sound image to locate the center sound image to a user's desired position and wherein the
center sound image is clarified using an additional equalizer (paragraphs, 0043, 0048, 0062 and 0104).
Claim 19 is a machine-readable medium claim corresponding to claim 1, thus rejected for the
same rationale as set forth in claim 1 above.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection
Regarding claim 1, as explained above, as Amadu in paragraph 0051 disclosed correcting the sound level of spectrum by equalizes the spectrum of the signals of left channel and right channel, a difference must be determined in order to know how much is needed to be adjusted so that both channels are equalized. Furthermore, Chen (Pages 4, 10, and 15 and claim 4) or Klayman (abstract, col. 5, lines 31-41, col. 7, lines 22-28, col.11, lines 35-51, col. 18, lines 9-16, col. 22, lines 29-46, etc.) or Tanaka (Paragraph 0005), teaches analyzing power spectrum differences between each output channel of the first speaker and each symmetrical output channel of the second speaker. Based on the teaching of Chen or Klayman or Tanaka, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply such known power spectrum differences analyzing technique to the method/system/device of Amadu in order to allow proper equalization of the channels.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Amadu and Chen or Klayman disclosed wherein the power spectrum equalizer transfer function is computed using a pre-measured frequency response of each output channel of the two or more speakers (paragraphs 0051, 0052, and 0100 of Amadu, or pages 5, 7 and page 10 of Chen or abstract, col. 2 lines 21-27, col. 15, lines 5-17, col. 22, line 29 to col. 23, line 11, also see Figs. 4, 6 and 7 or Klayman). Also see below claims 3 and 4 citation regarding HRTF.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the combination of Amadu and Chen or Klayman disclosed wherein the power spectrum equalizer transfer function is computed using pre-measured head-related transfer function (HRTF) data based on an azimuth, elevation angle, or location in 3D coordinates of the two or more speakers and wherein the power spectrum equalizer transfer function is computed using modeled HRTF data based on an azimuth, elevation angle or location in 3D coordinates of the two or more speakers (abstract, pages 3, 12, 13, 15 and claim 1 of Chen or col. 1, line 67 to col. 2, line 9, col. 2 lines 20-27, col. 22, lines 29- 59 of Klayman).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Amadu and Chen or Klayman disclosed wherein the power spectrum equalizer transfer function is complementary for each symmetrical output channel pair (Paragraphs 0053 and 102 of Amadu, col. 22, lines 13 to col. 23, line 10 of Klayman, page 4, lines 1-5, page 6, lines 11-19, page 8, lines 12-18 of Chen) .
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Amadu further disclosed detecting a center sound image based on
sound sources from the two or more speakers; and applying an additional amplitude panning to the
center sound image to locate the center sound image to a user's desired position and wherein the
center sound image is clarified using an additional equalizer (paragraphs, 0043, 0048, 0062 and 0104).
Claims 10 and 19 are system and computer readable medium claims corresponding to method claim 1, thus rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above. Furthermore using processor and memory/storage medium for implementation is a well-known technique in the art (for example, top of page 8, bottom of page 16, top of page 17, claims 19 and 20 of Chen) and would have been an obvious modification to the combination of Amadu and Chen or Klayman.
Claim 11 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 2, thus rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
Claims 12 and 13 are system claims corresponding to method claims 3 and 4 respectively, thus rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 3 and 4 above.
Claim 14 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 5, thus rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 above.
Claims 17 and 18 are system claims corresponding to method claims 8 and 9 respectively, thus rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 8 and 9 above.
Claim 20 a machine-readable medium claim corresponding to claim method claim 4, thus rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Amadu et al. in view of Klayman et al. (US7555130) or Chen et al. (CN108966110), and further in view of Healey et al. (hereinafter Healey, WO2013101061), cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the combination of Amadu in view of Chen or Klayman disclosed head-related-transfer-functions (col. 2, lines 20-26 and col. 20, lines 24-32 of Klayman or Abstract, pages 3-5, 12, 13, 17 and claim 1 of Chen). Although the combination does not disclose using a sensor or a camera for capturing the head position and rotation information within a vehicle, Healey teaches such (Page 3, lines 3-25). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such well known type sensor of Healey into the combination method/apparatus of Amadu and Chen or Klayman in order to capture head movement information for head-related-transfer-functions.
Claims 15 and 16 are system claims corresponding to method claims 6 and 7 respectively, thus rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 6 and 7 above.
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US 9613610) is cited to show a directional sound masking system/apparatus/method comprising Spectrum analyzer 130, Spatial analyzer134, and Spectrum equalizer 132.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3022. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 8:30AM – 4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Beck, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3750. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights