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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 19180515. This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-4, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HACIHABIBOGLU et al. (NPL Pub. No. XP022703192, "Perceptual simplification for model-based binaural room auralisation", APPLIED ACOUSTICS. ELSEVIER PUBLISHING., GB, vol. 69, no. 8, 1 August 2008 (2008-08-01), pages 715-727).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, with respect to Figures 1-3, HACIHABIBOGLU teaches an acoustic processing device (page 716, 1st column, 2nd paragraph, "binaural auralization system") comprising:
a circuit (implicit for implementing the disclosed processing performed by the system); and
a memory (implicit for storing the instructions executed by the system), wherein using the memory, the circuit:
obtains sound space information on a sound space (page 718, 1st column, last paragraph, necessary obtained to implement the "image source model of the enclosure"; page 720, 1st column, "image-source model of a rectangular room"; "virtual sources were positioned"; and 2nd column, "absorption coefficients of the room");
obtains, based on the sound space information, a characteristic regarding a first sound, the first sound being a sound generated from a sound source in the sound space (page 720, 1st column, penultimate paragraph, "binaural room impulse responses were calculated for each
source", necessarily comprising the direct arrival); and
controls, based on the characteristic regarding the first sound, whether to select a second sound generated in the sound space in response to the first sound (page 720, 2nd column, first paragraph, "2. Begault (beg), The BRIRs were obtained by selecting the image-sources
according to the reduction strategy proposed by Begault [22, 33]. Namely, any early reflection with a level 21dB below the direct sound at a delay of 3ms and greater, and 30dB below the direct sound at a delay of 15ms or greater were eliminated. ").
Regarding claim 2, HACIHABIBOGLU teaches wherein the first sound is a direct sound, and the second sound is a reflected sound (page 720, 2nd column, first paragraph, "direct sound", "early reflection”).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 14, HACIHABIBOGLU teaches wherein the characteristic regarding the first sound is a sound volume ratio between a sound volume of the direct sound and a sound volume of the reflected sound, and the circuit: calculates the sound volume ratio based on the sound space information, and controls whether to select the reflected sound based on the sound volume ratio (page 720, 2nd column, first paragraph, wherein a difference in dB relative to the direct sound corresponds to a sound volume ratio, and said difference is derived from the BRIR calculated based on the room model and the source/listener positions).
Regarding claim 4, HACIHABIBOGLU teaches wherein the first sound is a direct sound, and the second sound is a reflected sound (page 721, first column, second paragraph "binaural stimuli presented over headphone").
Regarding claim 15, HACIHABIBOGLU teaches wherein the sound space information is scene information that includes: information on the sound source in the sound space; and information on a position of a listener in the sound space, a plurality of second sounds are generated in the sound space in response to the first sound, the plurality of second sounds each being the second sound (page 720, first column, "virtual sources were positioned in front of the listener.. at 3 m"), and
the circuit:
obtains a signal of the first sound, calculates the plurality of second sounds based on the scene information and the signal of the first sound, obtains the characteristic regarding the first sound from the information on the sound source, and selects, from the plurality of second sounds, one or more second sounds to which binaural processing is not to be applied, by controlling, based on the characteristic regarding the first sound, whether to select each of the plurality of second sounds as a sound to which the binaural processing is not to be applied (page 720, first column, "binaural room impulse responses were calculated for each source"; second column, "selecting the image-sources according to the reduction strategy proposed by Begault").
Claims 1, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TSINGOS et al. (NPL Pub. No. XP059142395, "Perceptual audio rendering of complex virtual environments", ACM TRANSACTIONS ON GRAPHICS, ACM, NY, US, vol. 23, no. 3, 1 August 2004, pages 249-258).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, with respect to Figures 1-3, TSINGOS teaches an acoustic processing device comprising:
a circuit (fig.3; Section 7, 2nd paragraph); and
a memory, wherein using the memory, the circuit:
obtains sound space information on a sound space (fig. 3: audio scene
description);
obtains, based on the sound space information, a characteristic regarding a first sound, the first sound being a sound generated from a sound source in the sound space (fig. 3: Section 4.1, positions of sources); and
controls, based on the characteristic regarding the first sound, whether to select a second sound generated in the sound space in response to the first sound (Section 4.3).
Regarding claim 19, TSINGOS teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a PC [i.e., computer] to execute the acoustic processing method (fourth, sixth, seventh paragraphs of Section 1, on pages 250-251, third, furth paragraphs under “spatial audio rendering”, last three paragraphs of sections 4.1, section 7).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 7, 10, 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HACIHABIBOGLU et al. (NPL Pub. No. XP022703192, "Perceptual simplification for model-based binaural room auralisation", APPLIED ACOUSTICS. ELSEVIER PUBLISHING., GB, vol. 69, no. 8, 1 August 2008 (2008-08-01), pages 715-727)).
Claims 5, 7, 12 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 3. Furthermore, HACIHABIBOGLU teaches wherein the circuit: calculates a time difference, based on the sound space information (page 720, second column, first paragraph, "at a delay of 3ms and greater", "at a delay of 15ms or greater).
However, HACIHABIBOGLU does not specifically teach an end time of the direct sound and an arrival time of the reflected sound. Examiner takes an official notice that an end time of the direct sound and an arrival time of the reflected sound is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HACIHABIBOGLU to incorporate the feature of an end time of the direct sound and an arrival time of the reflected sound in HACIHABIBOGLU’s invention in order to provide a selection of the end time of the direct sound and an arrival time of the reflected sound according to circumstances without any inconvenience.
Regarding claim 10, HACIHABIBOGLU does not specifically teach wherein when the reflected sound is not selected, the circuit corrects a sound volume of the direct sound based on a sound volume of the reflected sound. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein when the reflected sound is not selected, the circuit corrects a sound volume of the direct sound based on a sound volume of the reflected sound is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HACIHABIBOGLU to incorporate the feature of wherein when the reflected sound is not selected, the circuit corrects a sound volume of the direct sound based on a sound volume of the reflected sound in HACIHABIBOGLU’s invention in order to conserve energy.
Regarding claim 19, HACIHABIBOGLU teaches computer games and application [i.e., program] of a model for selecting the image sources (page 715, 1st column, page 718, 2nd column, first paragraph ).
However, HACIHABIBOGLU does not specifically teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute. Examiner takes an official notice that a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HACIHABIBOGLU to incorporate the feature of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute in HACIHABIBOGLU’s invention in order to provide required services or benefits by executing programs without any inconvenience.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HACIHABIBOGLU et al. (NPL Pub. No. XP022703192, "Perceptual simplification for model-based binaural room auralisation", APPLIED ACOUSTICS. ELSEVIER PUBLISHING., GB,
vol. 69, no. 8, 1 August 2008 (2008-08-01), pages 715-727) in view of PFISTER et al. (Foreign Pub. No. DE102004051057A1).
Regarding claim 11, HACIHABIBOGLU does not specifically teach wherein when the reflected sound is not selected, the circuit synthesizes the reflected sound in the direct sound. PFISTER teaches wherein when the reflected sound is not selected, the circuit synthesizes the reflected sound in the direct sound (third paragraph under “DISCLOSURE”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HACIHABIBOGLU to incorporate the feature of wherein when the reflected sound is not selected, the circuit synthesizes the reflected sound in the direct sound in HACIHABIBOGLU’s invention as taught by PFISTER. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide conveniently generate reverberation signal with other signal.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HACIHABIBOGLU et al. (NPL Pub. No. XP022703192, "Perceptual simplification for model-based binaural room auralisation", APPLIED ACOUSTICS. ELSEVIER PUBLISHING., GB,
vol. 69, no. 8, 1 August 2008 (2008-08-01), pages 715-727) in view of ERONEN et al. (international Pub. No. WO2021186102A1).
Regarding claim 16, HACIHABIBOGLU does not specifically teach wherein the scene information is updated based on input information, and the characteristic regarding the first sound is obtained in accordance with an update of the scene information. ERONEN teaches wherein the scene information is updated based on input information, and the characteristic regarding the first sound is obtained in accordance with an update of the scene information (page 35, lines 8-15). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HACIHABIBOGLU to incorporate the feature of wherein the scene information is updated based on input information, and the characteristic regarding the first sound is obtained in accordance with an update of the scene information in HACIHABIBOGLU’s invention as taught by ERONEN. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide conveniently an update of the scene information when detecting changes.
Regarding claim 17, HACIHABIBOGLU does not specifically teach wherein the scene information and the characteristic regarding the first sound are obtained from metadata included in a bitstream. ERONEN teaches wherein the scene information and the characteristic regarding the first sound are obtained from metadata included in a bitstream (page 35, lines 8-15). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HACIHABIBOGLU to incorporate the feature of wherein the scene information and the characteristic regarding the first sound are obtained from metadata included in a bitstream in HACIHABIBOGLU’s invention as taught by ERONEN. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide an update of the scene information obtained conveniently from metadata included in a bitstream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8 and 9 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 after overcoming the rejection based on double patenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached on 571-272-7547136. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
September 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights