DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 9 July 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-19 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-19.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9 July 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
-Pgs. 45-46 contain references such as Harada et al. and McLeod which are not found in the IDS documentation filed.
Specification
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 6, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 5 recites “the audio signal components” in lines 3-4. Examiner recommends amending to –the respective audio signal components—
-Claim 6 recites “each audio signal component” in lines 3-4. Examiner recommends amending to –each of the respective audio signal components—
-Claim 13 recites “signal is being provided” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –signal is provided—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 17 recites “data processing system” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to determine each audio signal component based on the position of its associated virtual point. According to the specification the data processing system includes a computer processing unit [Pg 17, lines 7-8] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2 and 4-19 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 1 recites “a position relative to the subject” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “positions of a plurality of virtual points” originally referenced in claim 1, line 3. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 1 recites “the respective position of the virtual point” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 2 recites “wherein the method is a method for improving a physiological condition” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what is required by this claim since the original independent claim 1 recites “a method for projecting a virtual sound source to a subject” in lines 1-2. It appears that claim 2 is directed to a different method than claim 1, and doesn’t further limit claim 1, from which it depends. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 5 recites “a respective loudspeaker audio signal” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the “physical loudspeaker audio signal” originally referenced in claim 1, line 18. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 5 recites “plurality of loudspeakers” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the “one or more loudspeakers” originally referenced in claim 1, line 21. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 6 recites “obtain a loudspeaker specific set of attenuated audio signal components and combining the attenuated audio signal components in the loudspeaker specific set of attenuated audio signal components” in lines 4-6. It is unclear what this recitation requires in terms of what components are combined. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this limitation requires a combination of the attenuated audio signal components, a combination of the specific set of attenuated audio signal components, a combination of both attenuated audio signal components and specific set of attenuated audio signal components, or a separate embodiment.
-The term “left-hand side” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “left-hand side” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
-The term “right-hand side” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “left-hand side” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
- The term “left-hand side” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “left-hand side” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
-The term “right-hand side” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “left-hand side” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
-Claim 8 recites “in front of and, below”, “in front of and on a left-hand side of and above”, “in front of and on a right-hand side of and above”, “behind and above”, “behind and on a left-hand side of and below”, “behind and on a right-hand side of and below” in reference to the subject. It is unclear which perspective of the subject is being referenced and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
-Claim 8 recites “in front of and, below”, “in front of and on a left-hand side of and above”, “in front of and on a right-hand side of and above”, “behind and above”, “behind and on a left-hand side of and below”, “behind and on a right-hand side of and below” in reference to the subject. It is unclear whether these individual limitations are referencing the same loudspeaker or separate loudspeakers. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 10 recites “three-dimensional shape and position” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “three-dimensional shape and a position” originally referenced in claim 1, lines 4-5. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 14 recites “one or more virtual points” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “plurality of virtual points” and/or “each virtual point” originally referenced in claim 1, lines 3 and 6, respectively. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 14 recites “each given audio signal component” in lines 4, 6-7, 9, 10, and 12. It is unclear whether these are the same or different from “respective audio signal component” in claim 1, line 7. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 14 recites “virtual point” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “each virtual point” in claim 1, line 7. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 14 recites “a time delay operation introducing a time delay” in line 7. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “a physical signal delay operation introducing a time delay” in claim 1, line 11. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 14 recites “a modified version of the given audio signal component” in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “modified audio signal component” in claim 1, line 10. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 14 recites “the virtual point associated with the given audio signal component” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 15 recites “one or more virtual points” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “plurality of virtual points” and/or “each virtual point” originally referenced in claim 1, lines 3 and 6, respectively. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 15 recites “each given audio signal component” in lines 4, 5-6, 7, 8, 10, and 11-12. It is unclear whether these are the same or different from “respective audio signal component” in claim 1, line 7. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 15 recites “virtual point” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “each virtual point” in claim 1, line 7. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 15 recites “a signal delay operation introducing a time delay” in line 9. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “a physical signal delay operation introducing a time delay” in claim 1, line 11. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 15 recites “a modified version of the given audio signal component” in line 10. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “modified audio signal component” in claim 1, line 10. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 15 recites “the virtual height of the virtual sound source” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 16 recites “one or more virtual points” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “plurality of virtual points” and/or “each virtual point” originally referenced in claim 1, lines 3 and 6, respectively. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 16 recites “each given audio signal component” in lines 4, 5-6, 7, 8, 10-11, 12 and 13. It is unclear whether these are the same or different from “respective audio signal component” in claim 1, line 7. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 16 recites “virtual point” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “each virtual point” in claim 1, line 7. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 16 recites “a first signal delay operation introducing a time delay” in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “a physical signal delay operation introducing a time delay” in claim 1, line 11. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 16 recites “a first modified version of the given audio signal component” in line 10. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “modified audio signal component” in claim 1, line 10. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 17 recites “respective position” in lines 12, 18, and 24. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “position relative to the subject” originally referenced in claim 17, lines 7-8. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 18 recites “respective position” in lines 8, and 12. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “position relative to the subject” originally referenced in claim 18, line 5. Further clarification should be provided.
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 1-2, 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recites(s) a series of mental processes used to provide an audio signal to a subject. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data processing system is recited as performing the generic computer function of determining values related to audio signals to provide to the subject via loudspeakers. The computer readable medium executing instructions and a process of calculating audio signal, virtual points and components of each of these is a generic function of computer-readable media. Further, mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic processor does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited in claims 1-19 do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.
An analysis of the claims is shown below:
Step 1: Claims 1-16 are directed towards a method which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 17-19 are directed towards a system, and computer readable medium which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites limitations that are directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites obtaining, determining, modifying, and combining audio signal components for virtual points of a virtual sound source to provide a modified audio signal via a loudspeaker. Claims 17 and 18 recite obtaining, determining each audio signal component based on the position of its associated virtual point such that the audio signal is perceived by the subject as originating from the virtual sound source, modifying, combining and further determining signals. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. It would be practically performable in a human’s mind, or with pen and paper, to determine audio signal components for a loudspeaker system. Analyzing information and making a determination based on information is akin to an observation, evaluation or judgement that defines the mental process grouping. While independent claims 1, 17 do specify providing an audio signal to a subject, this could equate to making a decision that the audio signal component should be changed based on data collected. Claim 18 has been amended to no longer recite the step of providing the audio signal to the subject. Thus claims 1, 17, and 18 are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1-19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1-19 recite the following additional elements:
-virtual sound source (claims 1, 3, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
-virtual points (claims 1, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
-tuning fork (claim 4)
-plurality of loudspeakers/one or more loudspeakers (claims 5, 7, 8, 17)
-data processing system (claim 17)
-processor (claim 18)
The virtual sound source, virtual points, tuning fork, loudspeakers, data processing system and processor are generically recited at a high level of generality. Further, mere instructions or programs to apply judicial exception using a generic processor independently does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Most notably, none of the additional elements recited in these claims apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. While the bodies of these claims discuss aspects related to improving a physiological condition of a subject, there is no claim limitation the recites a particular treatment method.
Thus claims 1-19 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: When considered individually and in combination, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of determining audio signal components, obtaining virtual sound source information, obtaining input audio signals, modifying the input audio signal, combining determined audio signal components, determining loudspeaker audio signal for each loudspeaker, attenuating audio signal components, positioning virtual sound sources, adding depth, height, distance characteristics to the audio signal components, determining audio signals associated with virtual sound sources and introducing time delays are also generically recited at a high level of generality. Mere determination or execution or control of a processor of a loudspeaker system to apply a judicial exception using a generic audio signal components of speaker equipment does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the processes and steps can be considered nonfunctional descriptive material because there are no elements that show how the determination of audio signal components interacts with providing the determined audio signal to the subject through the system.
In reconsidering the additional elements of the loudspeaker system and methods, the additional elements were determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on the following evidence:
-Watson et al. U.S. 20160228771 discloses a virtual sound source [0031; “sound source”], virtual points [0083; “points in space”], tuning fork [0098], plurality of loudspeakers/one or more loudspeakers [0093; “left-ear speaker” “right ear speaker”], data processing system [0123; “clients”], processor [0123; “processor”] in reference to methods and systems that manage motion sickness of a user. Therefore, these elements are demonstrated to be generic, well understood components that are commonly recited in the art.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Currell (U.S. 20030007648).
Regarding Claim 1, Currell teaches a method for projecting a virtual sound source to a subject [0032]—reference to virtual sound source and [0036]—describing the output audio stream and [0010], the method comprising:
obtaining virtual sound source information defining positions of a plurality of virtual points relative to the subject [Fig. 35, “The Input Mixer (a) takes all the systems audio channels and splits them into eight channels using APM”] and [0550], [0255]—reference to reflection and reverberation effects on channels and [Fig. 3, elements “reflection locations”], the plurality of virtual points defining the virtual sound source having a three-dimensional shape and a position relative to the subject [0010]—described achieve illusions that desired audio effects are coming from specific location in a 3-D space based on implementing routing schematics (audio signal components) and incorporation positional audio channels, paths and routings and directing these through transfer functions [0550 and 0552]—reference to sound source in 360 horizontal and vertical space and spatial coordinates and [0236], [Fig. 3, elements “reflection location and element “25” which is a virtual listener as described in [0157],
obtaining an input audio signal that is the same for each of the plurality of virtual points [0048]—receiving audio signals and [0236], and [0050], [0250], determining a respective audio signal component for each virtual point of the plurality of virtual points [0236]—reference to E channel room simulation module providing direct portions of sound to be processed, [Fig. 35, “The Input Mixer (a) takes all the systems audio channels and splits them into eight channels using APM”], [0550] and [0010; “routing schematics may be various signal processors such as volume, delay, reverb, pitch shifters, panning and equalization”], based on the input audio signal and based on the respective position of the virtual point [0326], [0250], wherein determining the respective audio signal component comprises:
modifying the input audio signal to obtain a modified audio signal component using a physical signal delay operation introducing a time delay [0151], wherein the time delay is based on the respective position of the virtual point [0151; “ Each HRTF, …the subject.”]; and determining the respective audio signal component based on a combination of the modified audio signal component and the input audio signal [0107]—reference to delay times and application of an attenuation or filter to approximate the transmission and reflection losses to properly spatialize the reflection, or an inverted and/or attenuated or amplified version of the input audio signal (not interpreted to be required by the claim), and combining the determined respective audio signal components to obtain a combined audio signal [0232; “Each room simulation module …the listener.”],
determining a physical loudspeaker audio signal based on the combined audio signal [Fig. 30, elements “stereo amplifier”], and
providing the physical loudspeaker audio signal to one or more loudspeakers [Fig. 30]—signal provided from amplifiers to Meyer HD-1 Speakers, the one or more loudspeakers being configured to provide an acoustic audio signal to the subject based on the physical loudspeaker audio signal [0235].
Regarding Claim 2, Currell teaches wherein the method is a method for improving a physiological condition of the subject [0631]—reference to implementing the system in a medical field, radiation therapy, doctor therapist, etc.
Regarding Claim 5, Currell teaches comprising:
determining a respective loudspeaker audio signal for each loudspeaker in a plurality of loudspeakers [0049] and [0050; “the second pair…level.”], wherein each loudspeaker audio signal is determined based on the audio signal components [Fig. 30, elements “stereo amplifier”], and
providing the respective loudspeaker audio signal to each loudspeaker [Fig. 30]—signal provided from amplifiers to Meyer HD-1 Speakers.
Regarding Claim 6, Currell teaches wherein determining the loudspeaker audio signal for each loudspeaker comprises, for each loudspeaker audio signal, attenuating each audio signal component based on a loudspeaker specific coefficient in order to obtain a loudspeaker specific set of attenuated audio signal components and combining the attenuated audio signal components in the loudspeaker specific set of attenuated audio signal components [0086-0087]—reference to attenuation of tone due to sound propagation interactions due to air absorption and how realistic occlusion is implemented using FIR filters that reflect Sabine coefficients with absorption and reflection characteristics of materials in the room.
Regarding Claim 7, Currell teaches wherein the plurality of loudspeakers comprises at least six loudspeakers:
- a loudspeaker in front of the subject, and
- a loudspeaker behind the subject, and
- a loudspeaker on a right-hand side of the subject, and
- a loudspeaker on a left-hand side of the subject, and
- a loudspeaker above the subject, and
- a loudspeaker below the subject. Please see annotated Fig. 31 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Currell teaches wherein the plurality of loudspeakers comprises at least eight loudspeakers [Fig. 32 “Eight Virtual Speakers”]:
- a loudspeaker above the subject (interpreted above the head of the subject);
- a loudspeaker in front of and, below the subject (interpreted below the top of the head of the subject);
- a loudspeaker in front of and on a left-hand side of and above the subject (interpreted above the body of the subject);
- a loudspeaker in front of and on a right-hand side of and above the subject (interpreted above the body of the subject);
- a loudspeaker behind and above the subject (interpreted above the body of the subject);
- a loudspeaker behind and on a left-hand side of and below the subject (interpreted below the top of the head of the subject);
- a loudspeaker behind and on a right-hand side of and below the subject (interpreted below the top of the head of the subject); and
- a loudspeaker below the subject (interpreted below the head of the subject). Please see annotated Fig. 32 below where the interpretations cited above apply.
PNG
media_image2.png
582
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Currell teaches wherein the virtual sound source is shaped as a cube or a pyramid or a sphere [Fig. 33 and 52]—referencing the sound source rotating around the head and shaped in a sphere and circular configuration.
Regarding Claim 10, Currell teaches wherein the virtual sound source has a three-dimensional shape and position surrounding the subject [0010], [0155], [0550 and 0552], and [0236].
Regarding Claim 11, Currell teaches comprising providing the acoustic audio signal to the subject using a plurality of loudspeakers that surround the subject [0239]—reference to acoustic characteristics, [Fig. 3, elements 255 “plurality of loudspeakers”], and [0155].
Regarding Claim 12, Currell teaches wherein the acoustic audio signal is provided to the subject for at least one minute [0239] and [0163]—reference to audio provided for 3-minutes.
Regarding Claim 13, Currell teaches wherein the three-dimensional shape and/or position of the virtual sound source changes while the acoustic audio signal is being provided to the subject [0232-0233] and [0121].
Regarding Claim 17, Currell teaches a system for improving a physiological condition of a subject [0631]—reference to implementing the system in a medical field, radiation therapy, doctor therapist, etc, the system comprising:
one or more loudspeakers for receiving a physical loudspeaker audio signal and providing an audio signal to the subject [Fig. 30]—signal provided from amplifiers to Meyer HD-1 Speakers and [0235], and
a data processing system [0074], comprising a processor and memory operably coupled to the processor [Fig. 55, “ROM Program Memory for Location Processor”], for determining the audio signal [0236], the audio signal being associated with a virtual sound source [0032], the virtual sound source having a three-dimensional shape and a position relative to the subject [0010], [0550 and 0552] and [0236] [Fig. 3, elements “reflection location and element “25” which is a virtual listener as described in [0157], and the virtual sound source being defined by a plurality of virtual points [Fig. 35, “The Input Mixer (a) takes all the systems audio channels and splits them into eight channels using APM”] and [0550], [0255]—reference to reflection and reverberation effects on channels and [Fig. 3, elements “reflection locations”], wherein the audio signal is obtained by:
- obtaining virtual sound source information defining, for each virtual point of the plurality of virtual points, a respective position relative to the subject [0326], [0250],
- obtaining an input audio signal that is the same for each virtual point of the plurality of virtual points [0048]—receiving audio signals and [0236], and [0050],
- determine a respective audio signal component for each virtual point of the plurality of virtual points [0236], [Fig. 35, “The Input Mixer (a) takes all the systems audio channels and splits them into eight channels using APM”], [0550] and [0010], based on the input audio signal and based on the respective position of the virtual point [0326], [0250], wherein determining the respective audio signal component comprises:
modifying the input audio signal to obtain a modified audio signal component using a physical signal delay operation introducing a time delay [0151], wherein the time delay is based on the respective position of the virtual point [0151]; and determining the respective audio signal component based on a combination of the modified audio signal component and the input audio signal [0107], or an inverted and/or attenuated or amplified version of the input audio signal [0107], and
- combining the determined respective audio signal components to obtain the audio signal [0232], and
- determining the physical loudspeaker audio signal based on the audio signal [Fig. 30, elements “stereo amplifier”].
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.
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currell (U.S. 20030007648) in view of Nawfal (U.S. 20190104364).
Regarding Claim 18, Currell teaches a method comprising:
obtaining virtual sound source information defining positions of a plurality of virtual points relative to a subject, the plurality of virtual points defining a virtual sound source having a three-dimensional shape and a position relative to the subject, obtaining an input audio signal that is the same for each of the plurality of virtual points [0236], [0250],
determining a respective audio signal component for each virtual point of the plurality of virtual points [0236], [Fig. 35, “The Input Mixer (a) takes all the systems audio channels and splits them into eight channels using APM”], [0550] and [0010], based on the input audio signal and based on the respective position of the virtual point [0326], [0250],
wherein determining the respective audio signal component comprises:
modifying the input audio signal to obtain a modified audio signal component using a physical signal delay operation introducing a time delay [0151], wherein the time delay is based on the respective position of the virtual point [0151];
and determining the respective audio signal component based on a combination\ of the modified audio signal component and the input audio signal [0107], or an inverted and/or attenuated or amplified version of the input audio signal [0107],
and combining the determined respective audio signal components to obtain a combined audio signal [0232],
determining a physical loudspeaker audio signal based on the combined audio signal [Fig. 30, elements “stereo amplifier”].
Currell is silent on a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which when executed by a processor executes. Nawfal teaches a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which when executed by a processor executes [0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a computer readable medium as taught by Nawfal to output an audio signal to a user as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses the use of a ROM program connected to memory and a processor [Fig. 55] with Nawfal because Nawfal teaches the use of a virtual sound source with virtual points and audio signal components [Figs. 3-4].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currell (U.S. 20030007648) in view of Abolfathi (WO 2009151790).
Regarding Claim 4, Currell is silent on wherein the input audio signal is produced by a tuning fork. Abolfathi teaches wherein the input audio signal is produced by a tuning fork [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the audio signal via tuning fork as taught by Abolfathi to output an audio signal to a user as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses automating level controls of the audio for fine tuning of volume dynamics of the separate sound sources [0558] with Abolfathi because Abolfathi teaches programming signals to be set to specified frequencies for specified periods of time customized to patient tinnitus conditions [0095].
Claim(s) 14-16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currell (U.S. 20030007648) in view of Sibbald (U.S. 6738479).
Regarding Claim 14, Currell teaches wherein one or more virtual points of the virtual sound source are virtually positioned at a depth below the subject [0149], and wherein the combined audio signal is obtained by:
for each given audio signal component associated with a virtual point that is positioned at a virtual depth below the subject [0048], [0236] and [0250].
Currell is silent on adding depth characteristics to the given audio signal component, wherein adding depth characteristics comprises modifying the given audio signal component using a time delay operation introducing a time delay, a signal attenuation, and a signal feedback operation in order to obtain a modified version of the given audio signal component and combining the modified version of the given audio signal component with the given audio signal component, and wherein the signal attenuation is performed in dependence of the virtual depth below the subject of the virtual point associated with the given audio signal component.
Sibbald teaches adding depth characteristics to the given audio signal component [Fig. 2]—reference to room characteristics which in [Col 4, lines 26-33]—refer to these characteristics being room width, height and length where depth is interpreted to be (width), wherein adding depth characteristics comprises modifying the given audio signal component using a time delay operation introducing a time delay [Fig. 2, elements “pre-delay” and “room-width delay” and [Col 3, lines 44-47]—reference to delay corresponding to time taken for sound-waves to travel, a signal attenuation, and a signal feedback operation in order to obtain a modified version of the given audio signal component [Col 3, lines 47-58]—describes the method using delay, feedback and an attenuator to account for the arrival of the direct sound to the listener and additional time take for reflection to arrive at the listener, and combining the modified version of the given audio signal component with the given audio signal component [0232],
and wherein the signal attenuation is performed in dependence of the virtual depth below the subject of the virtual point associated with the given audio signal component [Fig. 2]—depicts the attenuator (Q) taking into account a room-width delay (w) and an attenuator (P) factoring in pre-delay values ((a+b)-r) to create an output.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use depth and distance characteristics related to the room and the user as taught by Sibbald to modify an output an audio signal conveyed to a user as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses modifying spectral directional cues responsive to configurations of reflected sound [0034] with Sibbald because Sibbald teaches modifying these same spectral characteristics using ear response transfer functions [Col 16, lines 10-11].
Regarding Claim 15, Currell teaches wherein one or more virtual points of the virtual sound source are virtually positioned at a height above the subject [Fig. 31]—as described in claim 8, and wherein, for each given respective audio signal component associated with a virtual point that is positioned at a virtual height above the subject [0048]—receiving audio signals, [0236] and [0250]—described the above channel (channel C),
Currell is silent on determining the given respective audio signal component comprises: adding height characteristics to the given respective audio signal component comprising modifying the given respective audio signal component using a signal inverting operation, a signal delay operation introducing a time delay, and a signal attenuation to obtain a modified version of the given respective audio signal component and combining the modified version of the given respective audio signal component with the given respective audio signal component, and wherein the signal attenuation is performed in dependence of the virtual height of the virtual sound source.
Sibbald teaches determining the given respective audio signal component comprises:
adding height characteristics to the given respective audio signal component comprising modifying the given respective audio signal component using a signal inverting operation [Fig. 2]—reference to room characteristics which in [Col 4, lines 26-33]—refer to these characteristics being room width, height and length, a signal delay operation introducing a time delay [Fig. 2, elements “pre-delay” and “room-width delay” and [Col 3, lines 44-47]—reference to delay corresponding to time taken for sound-waves to travel and a signal attenuation to obtain a modified version of the audio signal component, and a signal attenuation to obtain a modified version of the given respective audio signal component [Col 3, lines 47-58] and combining the modified version of the given respective audio signal component with the given respective audio signal component [Col 3, lines 47-58]—describes the method using delay, and an attenuator to account for the arrival of the direct sound to the listener and additional time take for reflection to arrive at the listener,
and wherein the signal attenuation is performed in dependence of the virtual height of the virtual sound source [Fig. 2]—depicts the attenuator (Q) taking into account a room-width delay (w) and an attenuator (P) factoring in pre-delay values ((a+b)-r) to create an output .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use height and distance characteristics related to the room and the user as taught by Sibbald to modify an output an audio signal conveyed to a user as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses modifying spectral directional cues responsive to configurations of reflected sound [0034] with Sibbald because Sibbald teaches modifying these same spectral characteristics using ear response transfer functions [Col 16, lines 10-11].
Regarding Claim 16, Currell teaches wherein one or more virtual points of the virtual sound source are virtually positioned at a virtual distance from the subject [Fig. 31]—as described in claim 8 and [0081],
and wherein, for each given respective audio signal component associated with a virtual point that is positioned at the virtual distance from the subject [0048]—receiving audio signals, [0236] and [0250]—described the front and rear channels (channel E and F),
Currell is silent on determining the given respective audio signal component comprises: adding distance characteristics to the given respective audio signal component, comprising modifying the given respective audio signal component using a first signal delay operation introducing a first time delay [Fig. 2, elements “pre-delay” and “room-width delay” and [Col 3, lines 44-47]—reference to delay corresponding to time taken for sound-waves to travel, a first signal attenuation and a signal feedback operation in order to obtain a first modified version of the given respective audio signal component and combining the first modified version of the given respective audio signal component with the given respective audio signal component to obtain a second modified version of the given respective audio signal component and performing a second signal attenuation, and wherein the first and second signal attenuation are performed in dependence of the virtual distance from the subject.
Sibbald teaches determining the given respective audio signal component comprises:
adding distance characteristics to the given respective audio signal component [Fig. 2]—reference to room characteristics which in [Col 4, lines 26-33]—refer to these characteristics being room width, height and length comprising modifying the given respective audio signal component using a first signal delay operation introducing a first time delay [Fig. 2, elements “pre-delay” and “room-width delay” and [Col 3, lines 44-47]—reference to delay corresponding to time taken for sound-waves to travel, a first signal attenuation and a signal feedback operation in order to obtain a first modified version of the given respective audio signal component and combining the first modified version of the given respective audio signal component with the given respective audio signal component to obtain a second modified version of the given respective audio signal component [Fig. 2]—depicts the attenuator (Q) taking into account a room-width delay (w) and an attenuator (P) factoring in pre-delay values ((a+b)-r) to create an output where one of these loops is interpreted to be the second modified version of the audio signal component and performing a second signal attenuation,
and wherein the first and second signal attenuation are performed in dependence of the virtual distance from the subject [Fig. 2, element “Attenuator Q”]—attenuator Q is interpreted to be the second signal attenuation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use distance characteristics related to the room and the user as taught by Sibbald to modify an output an audio signal conveyed to a user as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses accounting for reduction in sound intensity as the distance from the source increases in free space [0082] with Sibbald because Sibbald teaches using a ray-tracing method to account for first-order reflections that specify positions of the virtual sound sources and the listeners [Col 6, lines 6-20].
Regarding Claim 19, Currell is silent on further comprising performing a second signal delay operation introducing a second time delay on the second modified version of the audio signal component. Sibbald teaches and further comprising performing a second signal delay operation introducing a second time delay on the second modified version of the audio signal component [Fig. 2, element “room width delay”]—interpreted to be the second time delay on the second modified version which is the loop that includes “room-width delay (w)” and “Attenuator Q”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second time delay of the signal of the second modified version as taught by Sibbald to continuously change room simulation effects as suggested by Currell, as Currell discusses these effects changing as sound sources move across the room and to account for acoustic non-uniformity throughout the room [0235] with Sibbald because Sibbald teaches the described process being iterative and continuing ad infinitum to create successive orders of simulated reflections [Col 4, lines 26-28].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 with respect to the abstract, drawing and specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the
amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered however, new objections are presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered however, new objections are presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Claims 1-19 are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The examiner has re-evaluated subject matter eligibility based on the amendments and arguments and has concluded the following:
Step 2A-Prong One—the recited steps are still directed towards a mental process because the amended steps of obtaining, determining, modifying, combining and providing data in reference to signals are still directed towards processes performable in a human mind.
Step 1A, Prong Two—while the applicant contends that the claimed method and system apply calculations in delays to modify signals through loudspeakers, the recited limitations do not possess subject matter that addresses the delivery of these signals or the argued “signal-processing pipeline…overruling the spatio-spectral limitations of standard physical loudspeakers.” It is understood that the applicant seeks to address this problem however, the recited claims do not include reference to this subject matter and amount to obtaining, determining, modifying, and providing a signal to a physical loudspeaker. While the examiner acknowledges that claims 1 and 17 recite providing a signal to a loudspeaker, this could be akin to a decision-making steps in regards to the signals. Claim 18 does not recite this step. Furthermore, the additional elements recited in claims 1-19 are generically recited and do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.
Step 2B—while the applicant contends that the claim defines “specific physical…loudspeakers”, this specific combination is not recited within the claim language. Watson et al. demonstrates that these additional elements are generic, well understood components that are commonly recited in the art.
In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant contends that:
Currell does not teach the following limitations:
1. “the plurality of virtual points defining the virtual sound source having a three-dimensional shape”
2. “obtaining an input audio signal that is the same for each of the plurality of virtual points”
3. “determining a respective audio signal component for each virtual point…using…a time delay, wherein the time delay is based on the respective position of the virtual point”
The examiner notes that in regards to argument for limitation 1, the referenced paragraphs for this limitation [0540-0556] are not found in the body of the original rejection dated 23 February 2026. This is an amended limitation added to the combination of newly amended limitations in claims 1, 17, and 18 and warrants the new grounds of rejection presented by the examiner including: [0010], [0550 and 0552], [0236], [Fig. 3, elements “reflection location and element “25” which is a virtual listener as described in [0157].
In regards to the argument for limitation 2, the examiner has presented the new grounds of rejection citing Currell paragraphs [0250]—which discusses allocating input audio signals proportionately to virtual speaker channels, [0048]—receiving audio signals and [0236], and [0050].
In regard to the argument for limitation 3, the examiner has presented the new grounds of rejection citing Currell paragraphs [0151] and [0107] which discuss using recorded signals processed using a time delay based on sound source locations. The recited limitation includes determining audio signal components for virtual points through modification of the components using physical signal delay operations and time delays.
In view of the foregoing, the rejections for claims 1-2, 5-13, 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) citing Currell are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 4, 14-16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In view of the arguments above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections citing Currell in view of Abolfathi for claim 4, citing Currell in view of Sibbald for claims 14-16 and 19, and citing Currell in view of Nawfal for claim 18 are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights