DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 (s) 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim (s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. (12,328,569). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application without the specific “method of NERF & virual space” is merely a broader aspect of the patented claim(s) and thus would have been anticipated by said prior patent as currently presented.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a (2) as being anticipated by Eubank et al. (US 11,956, 623 B2).
Claim 1, Eubank et al. disclose of a device comprising: one or more memories configured to store computer-executable instructions executable by at least one processor to: generate a three dimensional neural volume from at least one of an image of a first space or a sound of the first space (fig.3 (123); col.4 line 45-67; col.6 line 19-26); use at least part of the three dimensional neural volume to generate an impulse response (IR) characterizing sound transmission in the first space (fig.3 (118); col.6 line 40-55); process audio based at least in part on using the IR & and play the processed audio on at least one speaker (col.9 line 1-12).
3. The device of claim 1, comprising the at least one processor (fig.7 (152); fig.5 (202)).
4. The device of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable to: for at least one object in the first space, correlate at least one surface characteristic to at least one acoustic reflection property; and use the at least one acoustic reflection property to generate the IR (col.6 line 55-col.7 line 30; col.12 line 15-20).
5. The device of claim 4, wherein the surface characteristic comprises at least one texture (col.6 line 30-45).
6. The device of claim 1, wherein the at least one speaker comprises at least one speaker in a speaker system that includes at least two audio channels (fig.1 (32); abstract; col.9 line 5-11).
7. The device of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: access at least one image of a physical space in which the at least one speaker is disposed; based at least in part on the image of the physical space, generate a physical space IR (fig.3 (123); col.4 line 45-67; col.6 line 19-26); and use the physical space IR to process the sound from a computer simulation that represents the first space such that audio from the computer simulation is played as it would sound to a player moving through the first space (fig.3 (118); col.6 line 40-55).
8. The device of claim 7, wherein the instructions are executable to: based at least in part on the image of the physical space, generate a physical space IR at least in part using a second three-dimensional neural volume representing the physical space (fig.3 (118); col.6 line 40-55).
9. An apparatus comprising: one or more storage media storing first instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: generate a neural volume representation of a first space (fig.3 (123); col.4 line 45-67; col.6 line 19-26); using at least one sound source and at least one microphone in the first space, generate at least one impulse response (IR) representation of the first space (col.13 line 20-35 & fig.3 (118); col.6 line 40-55/the measure acoustic signal which is obtained from microphone from a source enable the IR response); process audio from the first space at least in part using the IR representation of the first space (fig.7 (152); fig.5 (202)); and play the processed audio on at least one speaker in a second space (fig.5 (204); col.14 line 1-5).
11. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions are executable to: for at least one object in the first space, correlate at least one surface characteristic of the object to at least one acoustic reflection property; and use the at least one acoustic reflection property to generate the IR representation of the first space (col.6 line 55-col.7 line 30; col.12 line 15-20).
12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the surface characteristic comprises at least one texture (col.6 line 30-45).
13. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least one speaker comprises a speaker in a multi-channel speaker system (fig.1 (32); abstract; col.9 line 5-11).
14. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions are executable to: access at least one image of the second space in which the speaker is disposed; based at least in part on the image of the second space, generate a second space IR; and use the second space IR to process sound from the first space such that audio from the first space is played as it would sound if a player were moving through the first space (col.1 line 48-62 & col.12 line 10-30).
15. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the instructions are executable to: generate a second space IR based at least in part on using a neural volume representing the second space and the image (fig.3 (123); col.4 line 45-67; col.1 line 48-62 & col.12 line 10-30).
.
16. A method comprising: generating a neural volume representation of a first space (fig.3 (123); col.4 line 45-67; col.6 line 19-26); based at least in part on the neural volume representation, generating information representing acoustic transmission in the first space (fig.3 (118); col.6 line 40-55); and playing, on at least one speaker, audio processed using the information representing acoustic transmission in the first space (col.9 line 1-12).
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the information representing acoustic transmission in the first space comprises at least one impulse response (IR) element (col.13 line 20-35 & fig.3 (118); col.6 line 40-55).
19. The method of claim 16, wherein the first space and the audio are both sourced from a computer simulation (fig.5; col.2 line 5-17).
20. The method of claim 16, further comprising processing the audio using at least one impulse response (IR) representation of a second space in which the speaker is located, wherein the second space is a real world physical space (col.2 line 35-67; col.3 line 10-27)).
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(s) 2, 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank et al. (US 11,956, 623 B2) and Pelzer et al. (US 11,631,393 B1).
Claim 2. The device of claim 1, but the prior art never mentioned wherein processing the audio using the IR comprises: using at least one convolutional reverberation engine decoding the IR characterizing sound transmission in the first space.
But it shall be noted Pelzer et al. disclose of similar aspects regarding processing the audio using the IR comprises: using at least one convolutional reverberation engine processing the IR characterizing sound transmission in the first space (fig.1 (24); col.4 line 40-60). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such processing the audio using the IR comprises: using at least one convolutional reverberation engine processing the IR characterizing sound transmission in the first space so as to provide the proper sound effect to the audio.
Although, Peltzer et al. never specify of the reverberation engine to decode the signal, but the examiner takes official notice incorporating such aspect as decoding of the signal is well known in the art. thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the reverberation engine by adding thereto such decoding aspect for allowing the transmission and reconstruct in format for processing.
The claim(s) 10, 18 which is a broader aspect of the rejected claim(s) 2 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights