The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner again notes that none of the Certified copies of the priority document(s) have been received in the application. Although a DAS code was listed on the ADS filed May 20, 2022, no electronic copy can be found in the electronic application file by the examiner for review. Presumably an electronic copy could not be retrieved. Although an electronic copy retrieved via the Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) Program satisfies the certified copy requirement, if an electronic copy cannot be retrieved, the applicant is required to provide a certified copy.
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 1-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method, an audio object renderer, and a computer readable storage medium storing instructions of a computer program causing implementation of the method, the method being implemented by the audio object renderer. The method, comprises acquiring panned object loudspeaker gains using a point source panning of the audio object, acquiring object feature information loudspeaker gains, and combining the panned object loudspeaker gains and the object feature information loudspeaker gains in order to acquire combined loudspeaker gains, wherein the aforementioned loudspeaker gains are determined using mathematical formulas/equations. The subject matter of each claim is judged to be similar to the judicial exceptions found in Parker vs. Flook (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I.)(B.)(iii) under mathematical concepts) as the current claims are directed to gathering data, plugging into mathematical formulas/equations, and computing a result. The claims are also judged to be similar to the judicial exception found in Electric Power Group vs. Alstom (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III.)(A.) second set of bullets, bullet one under mental processes) as the current claims are directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and computing certain results of the collection and analysis for output to a device (e.g., display, loudspeaker).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each independent claim merely recites the above mathematical steps and mental process without applying it to any specific result. The claims recite elements at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of using the above mathematical formulas to analyze data over a certain period of time) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor to perform the mathematical formulas (i.e., “the audio object renderer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer”) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “amendments have been made to the independent claims to clarify that the concepts are implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination thereof. Thus, it becomes even more clear that the claims are not directed to mental processes”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor to perform the mathematical formulas (i.e., “the audio object renderer is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer”) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The amended claims are not patent eligible.
The applicant further argues that “regarding new claim 46, this claim also defines the determination of loudspeaker signals, which is clearly a technical functionality rather than a mental act.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the subject matter of each claim is judged to be similar to the judicial exceptions found in Parker vs. Flook (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I.)(B.)(iii) under mathematical concepts) as the current claims are directed to gathering data, plugging into mathematical formulas/equations, and computing a result (e.g., determination of loudspeaker signals). The claims are also judged to be similar to the judicial exception found in Electric Power Group vs. Alstom (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III.)(A.) second set of bullets, bullet one under mental processes) as the current claims are directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and computing certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g., determination of loudspeaker signals) for output to a device (e.g., display, loudspeaker). New claim 46 is not patent eligible.
The applicant further argues that “the claims are related to combining two substantially different concepts, namely a point source panning of an audio object and another panning in which the audio object is spread over an extended region. This has nothing to do with a mathematical formula or equation”. First, the alleged “two substantially different concepts” of “point source panning of an audio object” and “another panning in which the audio object is spread over an extended region” are both “point source panning” concepts. So, it is not understood how these two point source panning concepts can be considered two substantially different concepts as alleged by applicant. Second, the determination of the “loudspeaker gains” is performed using mathematical formulas or equations as disclosed and claimed by the applicant. See figure 13, for example, step 1334, which discloses a step in the method of producing “loudspeaker gains” which includes “mapping using polynomial function” for example. See also figures 8-11, regarding using mathematical formulas or equations to compute loudspeaker gains. See also claim 7, for example, which specifically claims that “the audio object renderer is configured to evaluate one or more gain functions…, and to determined the spread object loudspeaker gains” on the basis thereof. Thus, the claims are not patentably eligible for the reasons explained above.
The applicant further argues that “the claimed audio processing steps, including point source panning and a spreading of the audio object over an extended region considering the object feature is clearly not a mental process which can be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, because as explained above, the subject matter of each claim is judged to be similar to the judicial exceptions found in Parker vs. Flook (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I.)(B.)(iii) under mathematical concepts) as the current claims are directed to gathering data, plugging into mathematical formulas/equations, and computing a result (e.g., determination of loudspeaker signals). The claims are also judged to be similar to the judicial exception found in Electric Power Group vs. Alstom (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III.)(A.) second set of bullets, bullet one under mental processes) as the current claims are directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and computing certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g., determination of loudspeaker signals) for output to a device (e.g., display, loudspeaker). The claims are directed to an abstract idea, i.e., implementing the idea of determining loudspeaker gains, such as may be done by a mental process, critical thinking, and/or paper and pencil, or done by a mathematical equation, with additional computer elements, or additional structure (e.g., a computer or audio object renderer which is configured to compute the gains) recited at a high level of generality that perform generic functions routinely used in the art, and do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation or in the relevant art. Thus, the claims are not patentably eligible for the reasons explained above.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible and the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 101, as explained above, are maintained.
However, if the independent claims were amended substantially as follows, the above rejection would be withdrawn:
“A hardware apparatus including an audio object renderer for determining loudspeaker gains for an inclusion of one or more audio object signals into a plurality of loudspeaker signals on the basis of an object position information and an object feature information, and one or more loudspeakers for playing back the one or more audio object signals, wherein the audio object renderer is configured to …”
Support for the above amendment can be found in the specification, page 5, lines 10-17, for example.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7503. 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
February 23, 2026