DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the American Inventors Act (AIA ).
Responsive to the communication dated June 7, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
The ADS does not claim any international or domestic priority. The effective filing date is June 7, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 06/07/2023 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 06/07/2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 06/07/2023 has been reviewed. The abstract is accepted.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0002 and 0003 as well as the abstract, “execution of ray-tracing algorithm” should read “execution of a ray-tracing algorithm” or similar.
In paragraph 0007, the acronym RIR is not defined. It is defined in paragraph 0015 of the detailed description; however the description of the drawings occurs before the detailed description. It is recommended for the acronym to be defined in both instances.
In paragraph 0016, “a combination of ray-tracing method” should read “a combination of ray-tracing methods” or “a combination of a ray-tracing method”.
In paragraph 0017, the last sentence has almost nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph.
In paragraph 0020, the figure (FIG. 3) does not illustrate a host system and there is no 122 label in any drawing provided.
In paragraph 0020, “it intersects the receiver” should read “it intersects with the receiver”.
In paragraph 0025, “in time domain” should read “in the time domain”.
In paragraph 0025, FIG. 3B references labels 320, 322, and 324 and they are not described in the disclosure.
In paragraph 0031, “FIG. 6” is referred to. There is no Fig. 6 in the drawings.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Objections
A review of the claims found the following objections:
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the characteristics of the venue comprises”. The word “comprises” should read “comprise”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “location of receiver/listener” is missing the word “a”.
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: There is an extra space in line 3 between “for” and “the”.
Claims 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the simulating comprise simulating” should read “the simulating comprises simulating”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one or more ray-tracing model” should read “one or more ray-tracing models”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “location of receiver/listener” is missing the word “a”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is an extra space in line 3 between “receiver/listener,” and “and”.
Appropriate action is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 1.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “A system comprising”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “simulate a first portion of an audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing models on characteristics of a venue”. The term “simulate” is interpreted as mathematical calculations. As supported by the specification in paragraph 0014, the audio impulse response… of a venue is described as being hypothetical: “Instead of performing physical measurements, the acoustic impulse response of the room can be ‘simulated’ without ever being in the room”, which directs the claim to mathematical calculations because there is no real venue or real audio impulse response in the claims. Ray-tracing models are also mathematical calculations in the instant specification in paragraph 0014 “as an example the acoustic response of loudspeakers in a venue can be predicted by statistical methods or ray-tracing mathematical modeling methods”. EXAMINER NOTE: The output of the ray-tracing model is used in the instant specification in paragraph 0017 and Figure 2 as input with “a statistically calculated reverberation time (RT) and direct-to-reverb (DRR)” indicating that simulating the first portion is a mathematical calculation.
“predict a second portion of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical models on the characteristics of the venue;”. In paragraph 0014, the audio impulse response… of a venue is described as being hypothetical: “Instead of performing physical measurements, the acoustic impulse response of the room can be ‘simulated’ without ever being in the room”, which directs the claim to mathematical calculations because there is no real venue or real audio impulse response in the claims. The phrase “predict… via execution of… statistical models” inherently means mathematical calculations. EXAMINER NOTE: A statistical method/model is described in the instant specification in paragraph 0014 as providing “a quick estimation of the sound pressure level (SPL), frequency response (FR), and speech transmission index (STI)”, which are mathematical calculations. Furthermore, the instant specification states in paragraph 0021 “statistical modeling uses a mathematical model(s) to estimate impulse response”.
“combine the simulated first portion of the audio impulse response and the predicted second portion of the audio impulse response into a composite audio impulse response; and”. In paragraph 0014, the audio impulse response is described as being hypothetical: “Instead of performing physical measurements, the acoustic impulse response of the room can be ‘simulated’ without ever being in the room”, which directs the claim to mathematical calculations because there is no real audio impulse response in the claims. The term “combining” refers to mathematical formulae. EXAMINER NOTE: Summation is described in paragraph 0025 of the instant specification “the combiner 240 may sum the impulse response head and tail in time domain”, which is a mathematical calculation being done with number representations of audio waves.
The above method performs mathematical calculations, which is a judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
While the claim recites “a storage configured to store one or more statistical models and one or more ray-tracing models; and a processor configured to”, according to paragraph 0038 and forward, the “system” comprises a computer program product and/or a computer system. Therefore, this system is interpreted as a generally recited computer component that has components “configured to” perform the various mathematical calculations. These computer elements are therefore merely invoked as tools that execute the abstract idea.
While the claim recites “display the composite audio impulse response via a user interface”, this limitation amounts to outputting, which is post-solution extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As outlined in Step 2A Prong One and above, the claim is nothing more than mathematical concepts. The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
STEP 2B: NO.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The courts have found selecting information based on types of information and availability of information for display exemplify extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) + (h). As explained by the Federal Circuit Court, one example of ‘limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception’ is ‘limiting the abstract idea of… displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’. The limitation merely limits the field of use of displaying the result to a user interface.
Because displaying only adds insignificant extra-solution activity to limit the claim’s field of use, adding a final step of displaying data to a process that only recites a mathematical relationship does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing an audio impulse response.
Therefore, it is found that the claim does not recite any additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The system of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the characteristics of the venue comprises geometric attributes of a space, acoustical attributes of the space, location of receiver/listener, and locations of one or more loudspeakers within the space”. The claim recites additional elements upon Claim 1, which was determined to be at least one judicial exception. The claim recites characteristics of a venue. This only limits the mathematical calculations to a field of use of acoustic responses within a type of room. Each element viewed together uses mathematical calculations for a field of use, but once the audio impulse response is calculated, nothing significant is done. Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The element recited in the claim does not include any additional elements which rely on or use the abstract idea in any meaningful way that is more than mere claim construction.
Step 2A Prong Two also asks whether Claim 2’s additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use. The elements amount to merely indicating a field of use in which to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider whether the practical application in Step 2A Prong Two recites significantly more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements of the claim individually do not integrate the judicial exception. In combination with Claim 1, the claim, when viewed as a whole, does not meaningfully limit Claim 1, because the venue’s construction does not sufficiently limit the mathematical calculations of Claim 1. It is determined that the claim limitations are not significant (i.e. they impose no meaningful limits on the claim such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider again whether the claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception. It is found that the composition of the venue is merely linking the use of mathematical equations to a field of use and is not significantly more.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions (inherited from Claim 1) such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The system of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the processor is configured to simulate a head region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing models, wherein the head region represents direct sound and early reflections”. The claim merely defines a part of what is in the simulation, which is mathematical formulae. Therefore, the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2B PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not claim the process of acting upon a head region of the audio impulse response as part of the invention, merely to calculate the audio impulse response. Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any addition elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations, now with a well-defined input called a head region, for a hypothetical scenario.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions (inherited from Claim 1) such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The system of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the processor is configured to predict a tail region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical methods, where in the tail region represents reverberation time”. The claim merely defines a part of what is in the prediction, which is mathematical formulae. Therefore, the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2B PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
The claim does not claim the process of acting upon a tail region of the audio impulse response as part of the invention, merely to calculate the hypothetical audio impulse response. Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any addition elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations, now with a well-defined input, called a tail region, for a hypothetical scenario.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions (inherited from Claim 1) such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The system of claim 4”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the processor is configured to predict a rate of decay of the tail region via execution of a first statistical model on the characteristics of the venue, and predicting an amplitude of the tail region via execution of a second statistical model on the characteristics of the venue, the simulated first portion, and the predicted rate of decay”. ”. The claim merely defines what is in the prediction, which has been determined to be mathematical formulae. Therefore, the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
The phrase “predict… via execution of a first statistical model” and the phrase “predicting… via execution of a second statistical model” is interpreted as mathematical calculations. EXAMINER NOTE: A statistical simulation is described in the instant specification in paragraph 0017 that “takes advantage of the computational benefits of the statistical simulation within the tail region of the RIR”, which are mathematical concepts. Furthermore, the instant specification states in paragraph 0021 “statistical modeling uses a mathematical model(s) to estimate impulse response”.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any addition elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations, now with a well-defined output for a hypothetical scenario.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions (inherited from Claim 1) such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The system of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the processor is configured to calculate one or more of a sound pressure level (SPL), a frequency response (FR), and a speech transmission index (STI) for the composite audio impulse response”. Paragraph 0014 of the instant specification states “the acoustic response of loudspeakers in a venue can predicted by statistical methods or ray-tracing mathematical modeling methods… auralization at the listener location can be rendered, and SPL, FR, and STI can also be derived. Auralization is the process of rendering audible a sound field of a source in space by physical or mathematical modeling.” Therefore, calculating SPL, FR, and STI is achieved using mathematical calculations. The claim merely defines a part of what is being calculated, which is merely mathematical formulae. Therefore, the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2B PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not claim any process of acting upon the sound pressure level, frequency response, or speech transmission index of the audio impulse response as part of the invention, merely to calculate the composite audio impulse response. Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any addition elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations, now with well-defined outputs for a hypothetical scenario.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions (inherited from Claim 1) such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The system of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the processor is configured to simulate the first portion of the audio impulse response and prediction the second portion of the audio impulse response for a predefined location within the venue”. The claim recites an additional element for Claim 1, which was determined to be at least one judicial exception. The claim re-recites the language of Claim 1 and characteristics of a location in a venue. This only limits the mathematical calculations to a field of use of acoustic responses within a type of room. Each element viewed together uses mathematical calculations for a field of use, but once the audio impulse response is calculated, nothing significant is done. Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The element recited in the claim does not include any additional elements which rely on or use the abstract idea in any meaningful way that is more than mere claim construction.
Step 2A Prong Two also asks whether Claim 7’s additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use. The elements amount to merely indicating a field of use in which to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider whether the practical application in Step 2A Prong Two recites significantly more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements of the claim individually do not integrate the judicial exception. In combination with Claim 1, the claim, when viewed as a whole, does not meaningfully limit Claim 1, because the venue’s internal location does not sufficiently limit the mathematical calculations of Claim 1. It is determined that the claim limitations are not significant (i.e. they impose no meaningful limits on the claim such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider again whether the claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception. It is found that the composition of the venue is merely linking the use of mathematical equations to a field of use and is not significantly more.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions (inherited from Claim 1) such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “A method…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “storing one or more statistical models and one or more ray-tracing models;”. The phrase “storing” is interpreted as observing. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably understand to observe the statistical models and ray-tracing models using a mental process.
“simulating a first portion of an audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing model[s] on characteristics of a venue;”. The term “simulate” is interpreted as mathematical calculations. As supported by the specification in paragraph 0014, the audio impulse response… of a venue is described as being hypothetical: “Instead of performing physical measurements, the acoustic impulse response of the room can be ‘simulated’ without ever being in the room”, which directs the claim to mathematical calculations because there is no real venue or real audio impulse response in the claims. Ray-tracing models are also mathematical calculations in the instant specification in paragraph 0014 “as an example the acoustic response of loudspeakers in a venue can be predicted by statistical methods or ray-tracing mathematical modeling methods”. EXAMINER NOTE: The output of the ray-tracing model is used in the instant specification in paragraph 0017 and Figure 2 as input with “a statistically calculated reverberation time (RT) and direct-to-reverb (DRR)” indicating that simulating the first portion is a mathematical calculation.
“predicting a second portion of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical models on the characteristics of the venue;”. The term “simulate” is interpreted as mathematical calculations. As supported by the specification in paragraph 0014, the audio impulse response… of a venue is described as being hypothetical: “Instead of performing physical measurements, the acoustic impulse response of the room can be ‘simulated’ without ever being in the room”, which directs the claim to mathematical calculations because there is no real venue or real audio impulse response in the claims. The phrase “predicting… via execution of… statistical models” is interpreted as mathematical calculations. EXAMINER NOTE: A statistical method/model is described in the instant specification in paragraph 0014 as providing “a quick estimation of the sound pressure level (SPL), frequency response (FR), and speech transmission index (STI)”, which are mathematical concepts. Furthermore, the instant specification states in paragraph 0021 “statistical modeling uses a mathematical model(s) to estimate impulse response”.
“combining the simulated first portion of the audio impulse response and the predicted second portion of the audio impulse response into a composite audio impulse response; and”. The term “simulate” is interpreted as mathematical calculations. As supported by the specification in paragraph 0014, the audio impulse response is described as being hypothetical: “Instead of performing physical measurements, the acoustic impulse response of the room can be ‘simulated’ without ever being in the room”, which directs the claim to mathematical calculations because there is real audio impulse response in the claims. Ray-tracing models are also mathematical calculations in the instant specification in paragraph 0014 “as an example the acoustic response of loudspeakers in a venue can be predicted by statistical methods or ray-tracing mathematical modeling methods”. The term “combining” refers to mathematical formulae. EXAMINER NOTE: Summation is described in paragraph 0025 of the instant specification “the combiner 240 may sum the impulse response head and tail in time domain”, which is a mathematical calculation being done with number representations of audio waves.
The above method performs a mental process then mathematical calculations, which are judicial exceptions. Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
While the claim recites “storing one or more statistical models and one or more ray-tracing models”, this is an example of pre-solution extra-solution activity as a step for data gathering for use in a claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
While the claim recites “displaying the composite audio impulse response via a user interface”, this limitation amounts to outputting, which is post-solution extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As outlined in Step 2A Prong One and above, the claim is nothing more than a mental process and mathematical concepts. The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
STEP 2B: NO.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The courts have found selecting information based on types of information and availability of information for collection analysis and display exemplify extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) + (h). As explained by the Federal Circuit Court, one example of ‘limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception’ is ‘limiting the abstract idea of… displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’. The limitation merely limits the field of use of displaying the result to a user interface.
Adding a first step of storing data to a process that only recites a mental process does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing an audio impulse response. Because displaying only adds insignificant extra-solution activity to limit the claim’s field of use, adding a final step of displaying data to a process that only recites a mathematical relationship does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing an audio impulse response.
Therefore, it is found that the claim does not recite any additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 8…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the characteristics of the venue comprises geometric attributes of a space, acoustical attributes of the space, location of receiver/listener, and locations of one or more loudspeakers within the space”. The claim recites additional elements upon Claim 8, which was determined to be at least one judicial exception. The claim recites characteristics of a venue. This only limits the mathematical calculations to a field of use of acoustic responses within a type of room. Each element viewed together uses mathematical calculations for a field of use, but once the audio impulse response is calculated, nothing significant is done. Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The element recited in the claim does not include any additional elements which rely on or use the abstract idea in any meaningful way that is more than mere claim construction.
Step 2A Prong Two also asks whether Claim 9’s additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use. The elements amount to merely indicating a field of use in which to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider whether the practical application in Step 2A Prong Two recites significantly more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements of the claim individually do not integrate the judicial exception. In combination with Claim 8, the claim, when viewed as a whole, does not meaningfully limit Claim 8, because the venue’s construction does not sufficiently limit the mathematical calculations of Claim 8. It is determined that the claim limitations are not significant (i.e. they impose no meaningful limits on the claim such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider again whether the claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception. It is found that the composition of the venue is merely linking the use of mathematical equations to a field of use and is not significantly more.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 8…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the simulating comprises simulating a head region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing models, wherein the head region represents direct sound and early reflections”. The claim merely defines a part of what is in the simulation, which is mathematical formulae. Therefore, the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2B PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not claim the process of acting upon a head region of the audio impulse response as part of the invention, merely to calculate the audio impulse response. Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any addition elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations, now with a well-defined input called a head region, for a hypothetical scenario.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 8…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the predicting comprises predicting a tail region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical methods, where in the tail region represents reverberation time”. The claim merely defines a part of what is in the prediction, which is mathematical formulae. Therefore, the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2B PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
The claim does not claim the process of acting upon a tail region of the audio impulse response as part of the invention, merely to calculate the hypothetical audio impulse response. Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any addition elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations, now with a well-defined input, called a tail region, for a hypothetical scenario.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 11…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the predicting comprises predicting a rate of decay of the tail region via execution of a first statistical model on the characteristics of the venue, and predicting an amplitude of the tail region via execution of a second statistical model on the characteristics of the venue, the simulated first portion, and the predicted rate of decay”. ”. The claim merely defines what is in the prediction, which has been determined to be mathematical formulae. Therefore, the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
The phrase “predicting… via execution of a first statistical model” and the phrase “predicting… via execution of a second statistical model” is interpreted as mathematical calculations. EXAMINER NOTE: A statistical simulation is described in the instant specification in paragraph 0017 that “takes advantage of the computational benefits of the statistical simulation within the tail region of the RIR”, which are mathematical concepts. Furthermore, the instant specification states in paragraph 0021 “statistical modeling uses a mathematical model(s) to estimate impulse response”.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any addition elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations, now with a well-defined output for a hypothetical scenario.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 8…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the simulating comprises simulating one or more of a sound pressure level (SPL), a frequency response (FR), and a speech transmission index (STI) for the composite audio impulse response”. Paragraph 0014 of the instant specification states “the acoustic response of loudspeakers in a venue can predicted by statistical methods or ray-tracing mathematical modeling methods… auralization at the listener location can be rendered, and SPL, FR, and STI can also be derived. Auralization is the process of rendering audible a sound field of a source in space by physical or mathematical modeling.” Therefore, deriving (simulating) SPL, FR, and STI is achieved using mathematical calculations. The claim merely defines a part of what is being simulated, which is merely mathematical formulae. Therefore, the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2B PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not claim any process of acting upon the sound pressure level, frequency response, or speech transmission index of the audio impulse response as part of the invention, merely to calculate the composite audio impulse response. Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any addition elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations, now with well-defined outputs for a hypothetical scenario.
EXAMINER NOTE: The claim is directed toward simulating SPL, FR, and STI via execution of a ray-tracing model. The specification goes to great lengths to explain that statistical prediction of SPL, FR, and STI overcomes the slowness of ray-tracing, indeed, the crux of the invention is a composite of ray-tracing with statistical modeling. The claim, however, seems to eschew some teachings of the specification, perhaps unintentionally. It is possible that the claim, as written, is intentional. If the claim has some unintentional language, one potential fix would be to replace “simulating comprises simulating” with “predicting comprises predicting”.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 8…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “the simulating comprises simulating the first portion of the audio impulse response and prediction the second portion of the audio impulse response for a predefined location within the venue”. The claim recites an additional element for Claim 8, which was determined to be at least one judicial exception. The claim re-recites the language of Claim 8 and characteristics of a location in a venue. This only limits the mathematical calculations to a field of use of acoustic responses within a type of room. Each element viewed together uses mathematical calculations for a field of use, but once the audio impulse response is calculated, nothing significant is done. Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The element recited in the claim does not include any additional elements which rely on or use the abstract idea in any meaningful way that is more than mere claim construction.
Step 2A Prong Two also asks whether Claim 14’s additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use. The elements amount to merely indicating a field of use in which to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider whether the practical application in Step 2A Prong Two recites significantly more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements of the claim individually do not integrate the judicial exception. In combination with Claim 8, the claim, when viewed as a whole, does not meaningfully limit Claim 8, because the venue’s internal location does not sufficiently limit the mathematical calculations of Claim 8. It is determined that the claim limitations are not significant (i.e. they impose no meaningful limits on the claim such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider again whether the claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception. It is found that the composition of the venue is merely linking the use of mathematical equations to a field of use and is not significantly more.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15.
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites: “A computer-readable medium”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves). If a claim is clearly not within one of the four categories (Step 1: NO), then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 must be made indicating that the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(1). However, if the applicant could amend the claim to fall within a statutory category, the analysis proceeds as if such an amended claim would qualify. The analysis of Claims 15-20 will proceed as if the eligibility of the claims were resolved (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites: “comprising instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising: storing one or more statistical models and one or more ray-tracing models;”. The phrase “storing” is interpreted as observing. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably understand to observe the statistical models and ray-tracing models using a mental process. No processor or computer is involved with the “storing” limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
“simulating a first portion of an audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing model[s] on characteristics of a venue;”. The term “simulate” is interpreted as mathematical calculations. As supported by the specification in paragraph 0014, the audio impulse response… of a venue is described as being hypothetical: “Instead of performing physical measurements, the acoustic impulse response of the room can be ‘simulated’ without ever being in the room”, which directs the claim to mathematical calculations because there is no real venue or real audio impulse response in the claims. Ray-tracing models are also mathematical calculations in the instant specification in paragraph 0014 “as an example the acoustic response of loudspeakers in a venue can be predicted by statistical methods or ray-tracing mathematical modeling methods”. EXAMINER NOTE: The output of the ray-tracing model is used in the instant specification in paragraph 0017 and Figure 2 as input with “a statistically calculated reverberation time (RT) and direct-to-reverb (DRR)” indicating that simulating the first portion is a mathematical calculation.
“predicting a second portion of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical models on the characteristics of the venue;”. The phrase “predicting… via execution of… statistical models” is interpreted as mathematical calculations. EXAMINER NOTE: A statistical method/model is described in the instant specification in paragraph 0014 as providing “a quick estimation of the sound pressure level (SPL), frequency response (FR), and speech transmission index (STI)”, which are mathematical concepts. Furthermore, the instant specification states in paragraph 0021 “statistical modeling uses a mathematical model(s) to estimate impulse response”. As supported by the specification in paragraph 0014, the audio impulse response… of a venue is described as being hypothetical: “Instead of performing physical measurements, the acoustic impulse response of the room can be ‘simulated’ without ever being in the room”, which directs the claim to mathematical calculations because there is no real venue or real audio impulse response in the claims.
“combining the simulated first portion of the audio impulse response and the predicted second portion of the audio impulse response into a composite audio impulse response; and”. The term “combining” refers to mathematical formulae. The term “simulate” is interpreted as mathematical calculations. EXAMINER NOTE: Summation is described in paragraph 0025 of the instant specification “the combiner 240 may sum the impulse response head and tail in time domain”, which is a mathematical calculation being done with number representations of audio waves. As supported by the specification in paragraph 0014, the audio impulse response is described as being hypothetical: “Instead of performing physical measurements, the acoustic impulse response of the room can be ‘simulated’ without ever being in the room”, which directs the claim to mathematical calculations because there is no real audio impulse response in the claims.
The above method performs a mental process then mathematical calculations, which are judicial exceptions. Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
While the claim recites “instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising”, this is a mere instruction to implement mathematical calculations and a mental process on a computer or to use the computer as a tool for performing the mathematical calculations. Merely invoking a computer or processor as a tool is not indicative of a practical application.
While the claim recites “storing one or more statistical models and one or more ray-tracing models”, this is an example of pre-solution extra-solution activity as a step for data gathering for use in a claimed process.
While the claim recites “displaying the composite audio impulse response via a user interface”, this limitation amounts to outputting, which is post-solution extra-solution activity.
As outlined in Step 2A Prong One and above, the claim is nothing more than the abstract idea, a mental process and mathematical concepts. The claim limitations viewed as a whole or by individual elements do not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
STEP 2B: NO.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity, such as ‘storing’ or ‘displaying’, does not amount to an inventive concept. The courts have found selecting information based on types of information and availability of information for collection analysis and display exemplify extra-solution activity. As explained by the Federal Circuit Court, one example of ‘limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception’ is ‘limiting the abstract idea of… displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’. The limitation merely limits the field of use of displaying the result to a user interface.
Adding a first step of storing data (observing is a mental process) to a process that only recites a mathematical relationship does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing an audio impulse response. Because displaying only adds insignificant extra-solution activity, adding a final step of displaying data to a process that only recites a mathematical relationship does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing an audio impulse response.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
Therefore, it is found that the claim does not recite any additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 15 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites “a computer-readable medium instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising”; however, the recited “computer-readable medium” is not a non-transitory computer-readable medium. See MPEP 2106.03 regarding transitory forms of signal transmission. Claims 16-20, which are dependent upon Claim 15 are rejected due to their dependency.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16.
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites: “The computer-readable medium of claim 15”. See Step 1 analysis of Claim 15. (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim shares the same claim language and Prong One analysis of Claim 2.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim shares the same claim language and Prong Two analysis of Claim 2.
While the claim recites, “instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising”, this is a mere instruction to implement mathematical calculations and a mental process on a computer or to use the computer as a tool for performing the mathematical calculations. Merely invoking a computer or processor as a tool is not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim shares the same claim language and Step 2B analysis of Claim 2.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17.
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites: “The computer-readable medium of claim 15”. See Step 1 analysis of Claim 15. (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim shares the same claim language and Prong One analysis of Claim 3.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim shares the same claim language and Prong Two analysis of Claim 3.
While the claim recites, “instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising”, this is a mere instruction to implement mathematical calculations and a mental process on a computer or to use the computer as a tool for performing the mathematical calculations. Merely invoking a computer or processor as a tool is not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim shares the same claim language and Step 2B analysis of Claim 3.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18.
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites: “The computer-readable medium of claim 15”. See Step 1 analysis of Claim 15. (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim shares the same claim language and Prong One analysis of Claim 4.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim shares the same claim language and Prong Two analysis of Claim 4.
While the claim recites, “instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising”, this is a mere instruction to implement mathematical calculations and a mental process on a computer or to use the computer as a tool for performing the mathematical calculations. Merely invoking a computer or processor as a tool is not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim shares the same claim language and Step 2B analysis of Claim 4.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19.
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites: “The computer-readable medium of claim 18”. See Step 1 analysis of Claim 15. (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim shares the same claim language and Prong One analysis of Claim 5.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim shares the same claim language and Prong Two analysis of Claim 5.
While the claim recites, “instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising”, this is a mere instruction to implement mathematical calculations and a mental process on a computer or to use the computer as a tool for performing the mathematical calculations. Merely invoking a computer or processor as a tool is not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim shares the same claim language and Step 2B analysis of Claim 5.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20.
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites: “The computer-readable medium of claim 15”. See Step 1 analysis of Claim 15. (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim shares the same claim language and Prong One analysis of Claim 6.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim shares the same claim language and Prong Two analysis of Claim 6.
While the claim recites, “instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising”, this is a mere instruction to implement mathematical calculations and a mental process on a computer or to use the computer as a tool for performing the mathematical calculations. Merely invoking a computer or processor as a tool is not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim shares the same claim language and Step 2B analysis of Claim 6.
Further, in regard to step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d) identifies elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity computer functions such as performing repetitive calculations and storing information in memory. This consideration does not favor eligibility. The additional elements of the claim do not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
The claim is found not to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., “Multi-Threaded Sound Propagation Algorithm to Improve Performance on Mobile Devices”, Sensors, January 2023 (hereafter referred to as Kim_2023) in view of MATLAB_2022, Room Impulse Response Simulation with the Image-Source Method and HRTF Interpolation. Software product manual [online]. The MathWorks Inc., 2022 [retrieved on 2026-09-21]. Retrieved from the internet: < Room Impulse Response Simulation with the Image-Source Method and HRTF Interpolation>.
Claim 1. Kim_2023 makes obvious “A system comprising: a storage configured to store one or more statistical models (p. 2, ¶ 17-19: First, we use Guide mode (G mode) to find combinations of hit-triangles likely to generate valid paths by shooting multiple rays from the listener. This is the basis for creating multithreaded algorithms. Second, we parallelized Early Reflection mode (ER mode), which handles early reflection, and Late Reverberation mode (LR mode), which handles late reverberation. Since this method uses only two threads and does not continuously maintain CPU utilization, the memory usage and CPU utilization increase rates were not large. Finally, we showed a thread synchronization scheme suitable for our algorithm… We implemented this on a Galaxy 20+ smartphone using a Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 chipset equipped with the Adreno 650 GPU.” Further, Kim_2023 teaches (p. 6, ¶ 5: LRs’ IRs require additional parameters. We employ the widely used Eyring model [29] as the LR model)”. EXAMINER NOTE: The modeling done with the incorporating of the Eyring model is a statistical model described extensively throughout Kim_2023 and summarized on page 6, paragraph 5. EXAMINER NOTE: The prior art teaches sound propagation algorithms at real-time rates in mobile devices with computing power and memory constraints. The use of “mobile devices”, such as in the title and abstract, is use of storing the model(s) on storage used within a system. “and one or more ray-tracing models; (p. 9, ¶ 1: the ray tracing processing of ER and LR modes is changed) (p. 2, ¶ 10: the ray tracing technique has recently been developed in both software and hardware”).
EXAMINER NOTE: The implication of a ray tracing model being developed in hardware necessarily implies that it has been stored.
“and a processor configured to (p. 2, ¶ 4: For the above reasons, a sound propagation algorithm in a mobile device environment must be processed based on a CPU)”. “simulate a first portion of an audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing models on a characteristics of a venue, predict a second portion of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical models on the characteristics of the venue, (p. 2, ¶ 5: we parallelized Early Reflection mode (ER mode), which handles early reflection, and Late Reverberation mode (LR mode), which handles late reverberation) (p. 6, ¶ 5: LRs’ IRs require additional parameters. We employ the widely used Eyring model [29] as the LR model. The parameters of this model are the volume of the room, the total absorbing surface area of the room…)”.
EXAMINER NOTE: As quoted above, the teaching from page 2, paragraphs 17-19 of Kim_2023 also teach these limitations.
EXAMINER NOTE: IR stands for Impulse Response. The Early Reflection (ER) is equivalent to a first portion and Late Reflection (LR) is equivalent to a second portion of the audio impulse response, as seen in Figure 1 and (p. 11, ¶ 2: “However, in the multi-threaded method, since ER and LR are divided into two threads…”).
Kim_2023 further teaches (p. 11, ¶ 7: “we divide LR mode into ray tracing processing for LR and (merge-hit-triangles + IR calculation) to increase the parallelism of the algorithm”).
EXAMINER NOTE: While the prior art teaches using ray-tracing on a second portion of the audio impulse response, the prior art also teaches using statistical models on the second portion. This can also be seen in Figure 10. This is not to be confused with the teaching of a single-threaded method that uses ray-tracing and ray-tracing pre-calculations for ER and LR.
EXAMINER NOTE: Parameters of a room are equivalent to a characteristics of a venue. A room is equivalent to a venue.
Kim_2023 makes obvious “combine the simulated first portion of the audio impulse response and the predicted second portion of the audio impulse response into a composite audio impulse response, and (p. 11, ¶ 5: To reduce this cost, we remove locks for the synchronization in the IR buffer that stores IRs in each thread, and separate buffers for ER and LR to store IRs. If two threads create IRs and store them in respective IR buffers, the IRs in the two buffers are merged through the merge-IR step, as shown in Figure 6)”.
While Kim_2023 teaches a system for simulating a first and second portion of audio impulse response and indeed combining them, Kim_2023 does not explicitly recite displaying the combined audio impulse response.
However, MATLAB_2022 makes obvious “display the composite audio impulse response via a user interface (p. 6, ¶ 2: The helper function HelperImageSource encapsulates the steps you went over in the previous section. It computes the impulse response by summing image contributions. useHRTF = true; h=HelperImageSource(roomDimensions,receiverCoord,sourceCoord,A,FVect,fs,useHRTF,hrtfData,sourcePosition);
Starting parallel pool (parpool) using the 'local' profile ...
Connected to the parallel pool (number of workers: 4). Visualize Impulse Response Plot the impulse response)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The figures on page 6 also teach the display of a composite audio impulse response via a user interface:
PNG
media_image2.png
420
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of audio room impulse response simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been that Kim_2023 teaches to efficiently simulate audio impulse responses. MATLAB_2022 teaches RIR simulation and auralization of space without having to perform acoustic measurements, and it teaches to display a summation of individual images of the audio via a user interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 for the benefit of displaying the resulting simulated portion(s) of ray-traced and statistical audio models.
Claim 3. Kim_2023 makes obvious “the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to simulate a head region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing models, wherein the head region represents direct sound and early reflections (p. 3, ¶ 5: Direct sound comes directly from the sound source to the listener… ERs are the first echoes created after the arrival of the direct sound and are created through specular reflections and diffractions. LR is a very dense group of echoes and arrives last. It is created through high-order specular reflections or diffuse reflections)”. This is shown in Figure 1. On p. 5, ¶ 4, DT stands for Direct Transmission: “DT, ER, and LR modes are steps for generating direct sound, ER, and LR, respectively”, and Figure 3 illustrates the flow chart for simulating the audio impulse response on a processor wherein the audio impulse response is split into Direct Transmission Mode and Early Reflection Mode to analyze/simulate the audio impulse response.
EXAMINER NOTE: The head region is a trivial combination of the “DT” and “ER” simulations of the prior art, where DT is the same as direct sound and ER is the same as early reflections.
Claim 4. Kim_2023 makes obvious “the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to predict a tail region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical methods, wherein the tail region represents reverberation time (p. 6, ¶ 5: LRs’ IRs require additional parameters. We employ the widely used Eyring model [29] as the LR model)”.
EXAMINER NOTE: IR stands for Impulse Response and LR stands for Late Reverberation, which means that the prior art executes at least one statistical model for reverberation time of the later part of an audio impulse response.
Claim 8. Kim_2023 makes obvious A method comprising: storing one or more statistical models (p. 2, ¶ 17-19: First, we use Guide mode (G mode) to find combinations of hit-triangles likely to generate valid paths by shooting multiple rays from the listener. This is the basis for creating multithreaded algorithms. Second, we parallelized Early Reflection mode (ER mode), which handles early reflection, and Late Reverberation mode (LR mode), which handles late reverberation. Since this method uses only two threads and does not continuously maintain CPU utilization, the memory usage and CPU utilization increase rates were not large. Finally, we showed a thread synchronization scheme suitable for our algorithm… We implemented this on a Galaxy 20+ smartphone using a Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 chipset equipped with the Adreno 650 GPU.” Further, Kim_2023 teaches (p. 6, ¶ 5: “We employ the widely used Eyring model [29] as the LR model)”.
EXAMINER NOTE: The prior art teaches sound propagation algorithms at real-time rates in mobile devices with computing power and memory constraints. The use of “mobile devices”, such as in the title and abstract, is inherently storing the model(s).
“and one or more ray-tracing models; (p. 9, ¶ 1: “the ray tracing processing of ER and LR modes is changed)”. Kim_2023 also teaches that storing ray-tracing is known (p. 2, ¶ 10: “the ray tracing technique has recently been developed in both software and hardware”).
EXAMINER NOTE: The implication of a ray tracing model being developed in hardware necessarily implies that it has been stored.
“simulating a first portion of an audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing models on a characteristics of a venue; predicting a second portion of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical models on the characteristics of the venue; (p. 2, ¶ 5: we parallelized Early Reflection mode (ER mode), which handles early reflection, and Late Reverberation mode (LR mode), which handles late reverberation”). (p. 6, ¶ 5: LRs’ IRs require additional parameters. We employ the widely used Eyring model [29] as the LR model. The parameters of this model are the volume of the room, the total absorbing surface area of the room…)”.
EXAMINER NOTE: IR stands for Impulse Response. The Early Reflection (ER) is equivalent to a first portion and Late Reflection (LR) is equivalent to a second portion of the audio impulse response, as seen in Figure 1 and (p. 11, ¶ 2: “However, in the multi-threaded method, since ER and LR are divided into two threads…”).
Kim_2023 further teaches (p. 11, ¶ 7: “we divide LR mode into ray tracing processing for LR and (merge-hit-triangles + IR calculation) to increase the parallelism of the algorithm”).
EXAMINER NOTE: While the prior art teaches using ray-tracing on a second portion of the audio impulse response, the prior art also teaches using statistical models on the second portion. This can also be seen in Figure 10. This is not to be confused with the teaching of a single-threaded method that uses ray-tracing and ray-tracing pre-calculations for ER and LR.
EXAMINER NOTE: Parameters of a room are equivalent to a characteristics of a venue. A room is equivalent to a venue.
Kim_2023 makes obvious “combining the simulated first portion of the audio impulse response and the predicted second portion of the audio impulse response into a composite audio impulse response; and (p. 11, ¶ 5: To reduce this cost, we remove locks for the synchronization in the IR buffer that stores IRs in each thread, and separate buffers for ER and LR to store IRs. If two threads create IRs and store them in respective IR buffers, the IRs in the two buffers are merged through the merge-IR step, as shown in Figure 6”).
While Kim_2023 teaches a system for simulating a first and second portion of audio impulse response and indeed combining them, Kim_2023 does not explicitly recite displaying the combined audio impulse response.
However, MATLAB_2022 makes obvious “displaying the composite audio impulse response via a user interface (p. 6, ¶ 2: The helper function HelperImageSource encapsulates the steps you went over in the previous section. It computes the impulse response by summing image contributions. useHRTF = true; h=HelperImageSource(roomDimensions,receiverCoord,sourceCoord,A,FVect,fs,useHRTF,hrtfData,sourcePosition);
Starting parallel pool (parpool) using the 'local' profile ...
Connected to the parallel pool (number of workers: 4).
Visualize Impulse Response
Plot the impulse response)”. The figures on page 6 also teach the displaying the composite audio impulse response via a user interface.
Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of audio room impulse response simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been that Kim_2023 teaches to efficiently simulate audio impulse responses. MATLAB_2022 teaches RIR simulation and auralization of space without having to perform acoustic measurements, and it teaches to display a summation of individual images of the audio via a user interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 for the benefit of displaying the resulting simulated portion(s) of ray-traced and statistical audio models.
Claim 10. Kim_2023 makes obvious “the method of claim 8, wherein the simulating comprise simulating a head region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing models, wherein the head region represents direct sound and early reflections” for substantially the same reasons as Claim 3.
Claim 11. Kim_2023 makes obvious “the method of claim 8, wherein the predicting comprises predicting a tail region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical methods, wherein the tail region represents reverberation time for substantially the same reasons as Claim 4.
Claim 15. Kim_2023 makes obvious “A computer-readable medium comprising instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising: storing one or more statistical models (p. 2, ¶ 17-19: First, we use Guide mode (G mode) to find combinations of hit-triangles likely to generate valid paths by shooting multiple rays from the listener. This is the basis for creating multithreaded algorithms. Second, we parallelized Early Reflection mode (ER mode), which handles early reflection, and Late Reverberation mode (LR mode), which handles late reverberation. Since this method uses only two threads and does not continuously maintain CPU utilization, the memory usage and CPU utilization increase rates were not large. Finally, we showed a thread synchronization scheme suitable for our algorithm… We implemented this on a Galaxy 20+ smartphone using a Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 chipset equipped with the Adreno 650 GPU.” Further, Kim_2023 teaches (p. 6, ¶ 5: We employ the widely used Eyring model [29] as the LR model)”.
EXAMINER NOTE: The prior art teaches sound propagation algorithms at real-time rates in mobile devices with computing power and memory constraints. The use of “mobile devices”, such as in the title and abstract, is use of storing the model(s) on storage used on a computer-readable medium.
“and one or more ray-tracing models; (p. 9, ¶ 1: “the ray tracing processing of ER and LR modes is changed)”. Kim_2023 also teaches that storing ray-tracing is known (p. 2, ¶ 10: “the ray tracing technique has recently been developed in both software and hardware”).
EXAMINER NOTE: The implication of a ray tracing model being developed in hardware necessarily implies that it has been stored.
“simulating a first portion of an audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing models on a characteristics of a venue, predict a second portion of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical models on the characteristics of the venue, (p. 2, ¶ 5: we parallelized Early Reflection mode (ER mode), which handles early reflection, and Late Reverberation mode (LR mode), which handles late reverberation”). (p. 6, ¶ 5: LRs’ IRs require additional parameters. We employ the widely used Eyring model [29] as the LR model. The parameters of this model are the volume of the room, the total absorbing surface area of the room…)”.
EXAMINER NOTE: IR stands for Impulse Response. The Early Reflection (ER) is equivalent to a first portion and Late Reflection (LR) is equivalent to a second portion of the audio impulse response, as seen in Figure 1 and (p. 11, ¶ 2: “However, in the multi-threaded method, since ER and LR are divided into two threads…”). (p. 11, ¶ 7: we divide LR mode into ray tracing processing for LR and (merge-hit-triangles + IR calculation) to increase the parallelism of the algorithm”).
EXAMINER NOTE: While the prior art teaches using ray-tracing on a second portion of the audio impulse response, the prior art also teaches using statistical models on the second portion. This can also be seen in Figure 10. This is not to be confused with the teaching of a single-threaded method that uses ray-tracing and ray-tracing pre-calculations for ER and LR.
EXAMINER NOTE: Parameters of a room are equivalent to a characteristics of a venue. A room is equivalent to a venue.
Kim_2023 makes obvious “combine the simulated first portion of the audio impulse response and the predicted second portion of the audio impulse response into a composite audio impulse response, and (p. 11, ¶ 5: To reduce this cost, we remove locks for the synchronization in the IR buffer that stores IRs in each thread, and separate buffers for ER and LR to store IRs. If two threads create IRs and store them in respective IR buffers, the IRs in the two buffers are merged through the merge-IR step, as shown in Figure 6”).
While Kim_2023 teaches a system for simulating a first and second portion of audio impulse response and indeed combining them, Kim_2023 does not explicitly recite displaying the combined audio impulse response.
However, MATLAB_2022 makes obvious “display the composite audio impulse response via a user interface (p. 6, ¶ 2: The helper function HelperImageSource encapsulates the steps you went over in the previous section. It computes the impulse response by summing image contributions. useHRTF = true; h=HelperImageSource(roomDimensions,receiverCoord,sourceCoord,A,FVect,fs,useHRTF,hrtfData,sourcePosition);
Starting parallel pool (parpool) using the 'local' profile ...
Connected to the parallel pool (number of workers: 4).
Visualize Impulse Response
Plot the impulse response)”. The figures on page 6 also teach the display of a composite audio impulse response via a user interface.
Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of audio room impulse response simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been that Kim_2023 teaches to efficiently simulate audio impulse responses. MATLAB_2022 teaches RIR simulation and auralization of space without having to perform acoustic measurements, and it teaches to display a summation of individual images of the audio via a user interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 for the benefit of displaying the resulting simulated portion(s) of ray-traced and statistical audio models.
Claim 17. Kim_2023 makes obvious “the computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the simulating comprise simulating a head region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more ray-tracing models, wherein the head region represents direct sound and early reflections” for substantially the same reasons as Claim 3.
Claim 18. Kim_2023 makes obvious “the computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the predicting comprises predicting a tail region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical methods, wherein the tail region represents reverberation time for substantially the same reasons as Claim 4.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., “Multi-Threaded Sound Propagation Algorithm to Improve Performance on Mobile Devices”, Sensors, January 2023 (hereafter referred to as Kim_2023) in view of MATLAB_2022, Room Impulse Response Simulation with the Image-Source Method and HRTF Interpolation. Software product manual [online]. MATLAB Corporation, 2022 [retrieved on 2026-09-21]. Retrieved from the internet: < Room Impulse Response Simulation with the Image-Source Method and HRTF Interpolation> in view of Pelzer et al., 2021 U.S. Patent 11,172,320 B1 (hereafter referred to as Pelzer_2021).
Claim 2. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 make obvious the system of claim 1. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 do not teach that “the characteristics of the venue comprises geometric attributes of a space, acoustical attributes of the space, location of receiver/listener, and locations of one or more loudspeakers within the space”.
Pelzer_2021 makes obvious “the characteristics of the venue comprises geometric attributes of a space, acoustical attributes of the space, (col. 2, line 3: there is a need for improved techniques for the physically accurate auralization of 3D environments in real-time. This includes environments wherein any (or all) of: the sound sources, the sound receiver, and the geometry/surfaces in the virtual environment may be dynamically changing as the sound sources are being simulated”), “location of receiver/listener, (col. 12, line 15: next, at block 504, the process determines a first location of a first detector in the room. This may be thought of, e.g., as the location of the listener in the room)”.
Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 and Pelzer_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of audio room impulse response simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 and Pelzer_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been that Kim_2023 teaches to efficiently simulate audio impulse responses. MATLAB_2022 teaches RIR simulation and auralization of space without having to perform acoustic measurements, and it teaches to display a summation of individual images of the audio via a user interface. Pelzer_2021 teaches various characteristics of the sound propagation simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 and Pelzer_2021 for the benefit of displaying the resulting simulated portion(s) of optimized ray-traced and statistical audio models.
Claim 7. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 make obvious the system of claim 1. Kim_2023 further discloses “the processor is configured to simulate the first portion of the audio impulse response and predict the second portion of the audio response signal (p. 2, ¶ 5: we parallelized Early Reflection mode (ER mode), which handles early reflection, and Late Reverberation mode (LR mode), which handles late reverberation) (p. 6, ¶ 5: LRs’ IRs require additional parameters. We employ the widely used Eyring model [29] as the LR model. The parameters of this model are the volume of the room, the total absorbing surface area of the room…)”.
EXAMINER NOTE: IR stands for Impulse Response. The Early Reflection (ER) is equivalent to a first portion and Late Reflection (LR) is equivalent to a second portion of the audio impulse response, as seen in Figure 1 and (p. 11, ¶ 2: “However, in the multi-threaded method, since ER and LR are divided into two threads…”) (p. 11, ¶ 7: “we divide LR mode into ray tracing processing for LR and (merge-hit-triangles + IR calculation) to increase the parallelism of the algorithm”).
EXAMINER NOTE: While the prior art teaches using ray-tracing on a second portion of the audio impulse response, the prior art also teaches using statistical models on the second portion. This can also be seen in Figure 10. This is not to be confused with the teaching of a single-threaded method that uses ray-tracing and ray-tracing pre-calculations for ER and LR.
Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 do not teach “for a predefined location within the venue”.
Pelzer_2021, however, makes obvious “for a predefined location within the venue (col. 12, line 15: the process determines a first location of a first detector in the room. This may be thought of, e.g., as the location of the listener in the room”).
Kim_2023 and Pelzer_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of audio room impulse response simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim_2023 and Pelzer_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been that Kim_2023 teaches to efficiently simulate audio impulse responses. Pelzer_2021 teaches “the process begins obtaining one or more room parameters. This may include the aforementioned room model” in column 12, line 13, such as a first/predefined location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 and Pelzer_2021 for the benefit of starting the process of optimized ray-traced and statistical audio models.
Claim 9. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 and Pelzer_2021 make obvious “the method of claim 8, wherein the characteristics of the venue comprises geometric attributes of a space, acoustical attributes of the space, location of receiver/listener, and locations of one or more loudspeakers within the space” for substantially the same reasons outlined in claim 2.
Claim 14. Pelzer_2021 makes obvious “the method of claim 8, wherein the simulating comprises simulating the first portion of the audio impulse response and predict the second portion of the audio response signal” for substantially the same reasons outlined in claim 7.
Claim 16. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 and Pelzer_2021 make obvious “the computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the characteristics of the venue comprises geometric attributes of a space, acoustical attributes of the space, location of receiver/listener, and locations of one or more loudspeakers within the space” for substantially the same reasons outlined in claim 2.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., “Multi-Threaded Sound Propagation Algorithm to Improve Performance on Mobile Devices”, Sensors, January 2023 (hereafter referred to as Kim_2023) in view of MATLAB_2022, Room Impulse Response Simulation with the Image-Source Method and HRTF Interpolation. Software product manual [online]. MATLAB Corporation, 2022 [retrieved on 2026-09-21]. Retrieved from the internet: < Room Impulse Response Simulation with the Image-Source Method and HRTF Interpolation> in view of Lehmann et al., “Diffuse Reverberation Model for Efficient Image-Source Simulation of Room Impulse Responses”, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 2010, Vol. 18, No. 6 (hereafter referred to as Lehmann_2010).
Claim 5. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 make obvious the system of claim 1 and the system of claim 4 and “the processor is configured”.
EXAMINER NOTE: RIR stands for Room Impulse Response.
Lehmann_2010 makes obvious “to predict a rate of decay of the tail region via execution of a first statistical model (p. 1430, ¶ 2: The decomposition of a RIR into two parts, namely early reflections and late (diffuse) reverberation, is a widely used model in the acoustics and engineering literature)” and “(p. 1434, ¶ 5: the considered late-reverberation model explicitly relies on the envelope (average decay) of the RIR power)”, “on the characteristics of the venue (p. 1430, ¶ 2: while providing acceptable perceptual results, the assumption of a purely exponential RIR decay however fails to account for the particular characteristics of the considered acoustic environment. A nonuniform definition of the wall absorption coefficients, for instance, will typically produce a nonexponential decay of the sound energy [32], [34]. As an alternative, existing acoustic environments can also be explicitly measured in order to model the diffuse decay of a given real room by means of a parametric algorithm for artificial reverberation… This paper presents a new method to simulate RIRs in virtual acoustic environments)”, “and predict an amplitude of the tail region via execution of a second statistical model on the characteristics of the venue, (p. 1433, ¶ 2: The resulting histogram of amplitude values is plotted as a shaded area in Fig. 2)”.
PNG
media_image3.png
699
877
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2. Amplitude distribution of the late RIR reverberations (normalized) for environments with T
PNG
media_image4.png
9
18
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,-..., 0. 3 s. This plot shows: 1) histogram of normalized diffuse RIR values (i.e., h(t) for t>t
PNG
media_image5.png
22
23
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) from 100 different RIR simulations,
2) Gaussian pdf fit of the histogram data (dashed line), and 3) logistic pdf fit
(solid line).
“the simulated first portion, (p. 1435, ¶ 5: FIG. 4. This figure displays the measured values of instantaneous acoustic power computed for the early reverberation part of the ISM-simulated RIR (black dots). The solid line represents… the predicted power envelope adjusted to fit the early reflection decay over Kλ frames)”,
PNG
media_image6.png
1396
1825
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4. RIR power measurements and predicted power envelope. Black dots (dashed line): measured RIR power during early reflections. White circles (dotted line): measured RIR power for late reverberation (for comparison purposes only). Solid line: prediction of the RIR power envelope for the considered simulation setup.
“and the predicted rate of decay (p. 1433, ¶ 2: this signal was then normalized in order to compensate for the average decay pattern)”.
EXAMINER NOTE: This refers to Fig. 2, which is predicting the amplitude of a tail region using predicted rate of decay of a statistical model.
Kim_2023 and Lehmann_2010 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of fast synthesis of audio room impulse response. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim_2023 and Lehmann_2010. The rationale for doing so would have been that Kim_2023 teaches to efficiently simulate audio impulse responses. Lehmann_2010 teaches predicting rate of decay and predicting amplitude to simulate room impulse responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim_2023 and Lehmann_2010 for the benefit of using the calculation “(p. 1433, ¶ 9: in this algorithm. The transition between the early part and the diffuse part of the RIR is defined as being abrupt, i.e., the final impulse response is reconstructed by simply concatenating the two different sections. This has shown to produce good results in the current work)”. The rate of decay and amplitude predictions help with the algorithm.
Claim 6. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 make obvious the system of claim 1. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 do not teach that “the processor is configured to calculate one or more of a sound pressure level (SPL), a frequency response (FR), and a speech transmission index (STI) for the composite audio impulse response”.
Lehmann_2010, however, makes obvious calculate one of… a frequency response (p. 1443, ¶ 3: the Gaussian distribution might appear as a potential candidate to model the diffuse RIR reflections, which can be seen as an isotropic addition of a multitude of wave fronts with large modal overlap impinging on the receiver from many direction [18], [34], [42]”). Source 42 is titled “Statistical parameters of the frequency response curves of large rooms”.
EXAMINER NOTE: The prior art relies upon at least one calculated ‘frequency response’ for late RIR reverberations and uses the late portion for a composite audio impulse response: A ‘Reconstructed RIR’ is in the section called V. Experimental Results.
EXAMINER NOTE: In a different part of the software’s documentation, MATLAB_2022 also teaches calculations for sound pressure level, frequency response, and speech transmission index, which could be used for a composite audio impulse response.
Kim_2023 and Lehmann_2010 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of fast synthesis of audio room impulse response. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim_2023 and Lehmann_2010. The rationale for doing so would have been that Kim_2023 teaches to efficiently simulate audio impulse responses. Lehmann_2010 (and reference 42 on page 1439) teaches a method that calculates frequency response (FR) in the domain of modelling impulse responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim_2023 and Lehmann_2010 for the benefit of using the FR calculation to more accurately model an audio impulse response.
Claim 12. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 and Lehmann_2010 make obvious “the method of claim 11, wherein the predicting comprises predicting a tail region of the audio impulse response via execution of the one or more statistical methods, wherein the tail region represents reverberation time” for substantially the same reasons as outlined in claim 5.
Claim 13. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 and Lehmann_2010 make obvious “the method of claim 8, wherein the simulating comprises simulating one or more of a sound pressure level (SPL), a frequency response (FR), and a speech transmission index (STI) for the composite audio impulse response” for substantially the same reasons as outlined in claim 6.
Claim 19. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 and Lehmann_2010 make obvious “the computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the predicting comprises predicting a rate of decay of the tail region via execution of a first statistical model on the characteristics of the venue, and predicting an amplitude of the tail region via execution of a second statistical model on the characteristics of the venue, the simplified first portion, and the predicted rate of decay” for substantially the same reasons as outlined in claim 5.
Claim 20. Kim_2023 and MATLAB_2022 and Lehmann_2010 make obvious “the computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the simulating comprises simulating one or more of a sound pressure level (SPL), a frequency response (FR), and a speech transmission index (STI) for the composite audio impulse response” for substantially the same reasons as outlined in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2010/0119075 A1. The prior art has a system and method that simulates a room impulse response using first and second portions of the IR then combines the early and late impulse responses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R BRODERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5391. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:00 AM - 5:00 PM) 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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
