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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “detecting an object at a location in a physical environment based on one or more images captured by the image sensor.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the location" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10 and 18 are rejecting using the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terre et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0229534) in view of Huang (US Pub. No. 2020/0310748).
Consider claim 1. Terre et al. discloses a method comprising: at a device (para. 0076 describes an extended reality appliance), a speaker coupled to the frame (para. 0372 describes audio associated with the virtual content may be output by the wearable extended reality appliance via speakers), an image sensor coupled to the frame (para. 0113 describes one or more image sensors included in the device), one or more processors, and non- transitory memory (para. 0185 describes least one processor may execute the instructions contained in the non-transitory computer-readable medium): detecting an object at a location in a physical environment based on one or more images captured by the image sensor (para. 0212 describes detecting a particular physical object of a particular category (and/or the location of the particular physical object) based on one or more images captured by the image sensor); generating audio data based on the one or more images of the physical environment in response to detecting the object (para. 00514 describes generating audio data based on the one or more images of the physical environment in response to detecting the object).
Terre et al. does not disclose a frame configured for insertion into an outer ear and playing, via the speaker, the audio data spatially from the location of the detected object.
However, Huang teaches a frame configured for insertion into an outer ear (para. 0063 describes positioning speaker in or around the ear canals of the user (e.g., earbuds or headphone)) and playing, via the speaker, the audio data spatially from the location of the detected object (claim 1 describes wherein the audio data is perceived by a first user at a first user location in a first environment as emanating from an object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a frame configured for insertion into an outer ear and playing, via the speaker, the audio data spatially from the location of the detected object, in order to provide an efficient means for recording sounds from only virtual or real objects of interest as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 8. Terre et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the audio data based on the one or more images of the physical environment includes transmitting, to a peripheral device, the one or more images of the physical environment and receiving, from the peripheral device, the audio data (para. 0336 describes determining the type of human interaction by analyzing image data in a set of images (for example, images received from one or more image sensors), by analyzing sounds received from one or more audio sensors).
Claims 9, 16, and 17 are rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claims above.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terre et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0229534) in view of Huang (US Pub. No. 2020/0310748) in further view of Faulkner et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0092862).
Consider claim 3. Terre et al. and Huang teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except detecting the object in the physical environment approaching a user of the device in the one or more images.
However, Faulkner et al. teaches detecting the object in the physical environment approaching a user of the device in the one or more images (para. 0031 describes hat at least a portion of the physical object has approached and entered a threshold spatial region surrounding the user of the display generation component).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to detect the object in the physical environment approaching a user of the device in the one or more images, in order to change an appearance of virtual content corresponding to a location of the physical object as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 4. Terre et al. and Huang teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein detecting the object at the location in the physical environment based on the one or more images includes using a model to classify the object into an object type, and generating the audio data including generating the sound associated with the object or the object type.
However, Faulkner et al. teaches wherein detecting the object at the location in the physical environment based on the one or more images includes using a model to classify the object into an object type, and generating the audio data including generating the sound associated with the object or the object type (para. 0149 describes that the physical object represents an instance of a first type of physical object that is of significance to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein detecting the object at the location in the physical environment based on the one or more images includes using a model to classify the object into an object type, and generating the audio data including generating the sound associated with the object or the object type, in order to change an appearance of virtual content corresponding to a location of the physical object as suggested by the prior art.
Consider 6. Terre et al. and Huang teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein playing the audio data spatially includes performing stereo panning based on the one or more images to play the audio data spatially.
However, Faulkner et al. teaches wherein playing the audio data spatially includes performing stereo panning based on the one or more images to play the audio data spatially (para. 0030 describes performing stereo panning based on the one or more images to play the audio data spatially).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein playing the audio data spatially includes performing stereo panning based on the one or more images to play the audio data spatially, in order to change an appearance of virtual content corresponding to a location of the physical object as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 7. Terre et al. and Huang teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein playing the audio data spatially includes performing binaural rendering based on the one or more images to play the audio data spatially.
However, Faulkner et al. teaches wherein playing the audio data spatially includes performing binaural rendering based on the one or more images to play the audio data spatially (para. 0030 describes performing binaural rendering based on the one or more images to play the audio data spatially).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein playing the audio data spatially includes performing binaural rendering based on the one or more images to play the audio data spatially, in order to change an appearance of virtual content corresponding to a location of the physical object as suggested by the prior art.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claims above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terre et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0229534) in view of Huang (US Pub. No. 2020/0310748) in further view of Evangelidis et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0319476).
Consider claim 5. Terre et al. and Huang teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the device further includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to generate pose data, and wherein the pose data is used to spatialize the audio data.
However, Evangelidis et al. teaches wherein the device further includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to generate pose data, and wherein the pose data is used to spatialize the audio data (para. 0096 describes tracking the pose of a user using a visual inertial odometry).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the device further includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to generate pose data, and wherein the pose data is used to spatialize the audio data, in order to enhance a user's experience in an environment as suggested by the prior art.
Claim 13 is rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights