DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the final office action dated 12/18/2025, applicant has filed a request for continued examination and amended claims 1, 15 and 16. Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the data apparatus" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitations are “data processing apparatus” in line 1 and “second data processing apparatus” in line 3 making it unclear which data processing apparatus it is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eubank et al (US Pub No. 2020/0221248, hereinafter Eubank).
Regarding claim 1, Eubank teaches a data processing apparatus (¶ [0043-0044], server systems or cloud storage capable of storing spatial audio library 402) comprising circuitry (¶ [0043-0044], servers require circuitry to function) configured to: host a web application (Fig 4 & ¶ [0043-0044], spatial audio library stored on servers and accessible via data processing systems via user interface 406) interactable by a second data processing apparatus (¶ [0044], data processing systems capable of accessing spatial audio library 402 such as laptops, desktops, or tablets) via a web browser of the second data processing apparatus (Fig 4 & ¶ [0043-0044], spatial audio library stored on servers and accessible via data processing systems via user interface 406); receive, from the second data processing apparatus (Fig 1 & ¶ [0035], sound is recorded 102 using microphones of data processing systems and sent (received at server systems) for playback 104 being stored in audio library 402) via the web application (Fig 1 & 4, recording 102 played back for user experience 106 or developer preview 108 via user interface 406), an electronic file comprising audio information encoded in a spatial audio format (¶ [0005], recorded or encoded audio data is stored as a spatial audio object using an ambisonics format); initiate virtualisation of the received electronic file for virtualisation of the audio information encoded in the spatial audio format (¶ [0005], the spatial audio object having channels associated with respective spatial distribution and subjected to spatial audio downmixing for aural preview) and obtain a virtualised version of the electronic file comprising the virtualised audio information (Fig 4 & ¶ [0039], spatial audio object saved in spatial audio library 402), wherein the electronic file comprising the virtualised audio information is made into an audio format playable by the web browser (Fig 4, preview matrix mixer 416 downmixes spatial audio for sound preview via user interface 406) by the virtualisation comprising changing a number of channels of the audio information to allow the web browser to playback the virtualised version of the electronic file while retaining a spatial audio effect of the audio information (Fig 4 & ¶ [0041], user preview 420 allows user to experience downmixed spatial audio while maintaining spatial effects); and provide, to the second data processing apparatus via the web application, the virtualised version of the electronic file (Fig 4 & ¶ [0040-0041], sound preview 420 played for user via user interface 406 accessed through user’s data processing system).
Regarding claim 5, Eubank teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to store the virtualised version of the electronic file such that it is accessible to one or more users including a user of the second data processing apparatus (Fig 4, spatial audio library available to users via user interface 406).
Regarding claim 15, Eubank teaches a data processing apparatus comprising circuitry (¶ [0044], data processing systems capable of accessing spatial audio library 402 such as laptops, desktops, or tablets) configured to: upload, to a second data processing apparatus (Fig 1 & ¶ [0035], sound is recorded 102 using microphones of data processing systems and sent (received at server systems) for playback 104 being stored in audio library 402) via a web browser of the data apparatus interacting with a web application hosted by the second data processing apparatus Fig 4 & ¶ [0043-0044], spatial audio library stored on servers and accessible via data processing systems via user interface 406, an electronic file comprising audio information encoded in a spatial audio format (¶ [0005], recorded or encoded audio data is stored as a spatial audio object using an ambisonics format), the second data processing apparatus being configured to output the electronic file for virtualisation of the audio information encoded in the spatial audio format (Fig 4 & ¶ [0040-0041], sound preview 420 played for user via user interface 406 accessed through user’s data processing system), the virtualisation comprising changing a number of channels of the audio information to allow playback the virtualized version of the electronic file while retaining a spatial audio effect of the audio information (Fig 4 & ¶ [0041], user preview 420 allows user to experience downmixed spatial audio while maintaining spatial effects), and the second data processing apparatus being configured to obtain a virtualised version of the electronic file comprising the virtualised audio information (Fig 4 & ¶ [0039], spatial audio object saved in spatial audio library 402), wherein the virtualised version of the electronic file is converted into an audio format playable by the web browser (Fig 4, preview matrix mixer 416 downmixes spatial audio for sound preview via user interface 406); and receive, from the second data processing apparatus via the web application, the virtualised version of the electronic file (Fig 4 & ¶ [0040-0041], sound preview 420 played for user via user interface 406 accessed through user’s data processing system).
Regarding claim 16, Eubank teaches a data processing method (Abstract) comprising: receiving, from a first data processing apparatus (Fig 1 & ¶ [0035], sound is recorded 102 using microphones of data processing systems and sent (received at server systems) for playback 104 being stored in audio library 402) via a web application hosted by a second data processing apparatus ¶ [0043-0044], server systems or cloud storage capable of storing spatial audio library 402), an electronic file comprising audio information encoded in a spatial audio format (¶ [0005], recorded or encoded audio data is stored as a spatial audio object using an ambisonics format); initiate virtualization of the received electronic file for virtualization of the audio information encoded in the spatial audio format (¶ [0005], the spatial audio object having channels associated with respective spatial distribution and subjected to spatial audio downmixing for aural preview) and obtain a virtualized version of the electronic file comprising the virtualized audio information (Fig 4 & ¶ [0039], spatial audio object saved in spatial audio library 402), wherein the electronic file comprising the virtualized audio information is made into an audio format playable by the web browser Fig 4, preview matrix mixer 416 downmixes spatial audio for sound preview via user interface 406 by the virtualisation comprising changing a number of channels of the audio information to allow the web browser to playback the virtualized version of the electronic file while retaining a spatial audio effect of the audio information (Fig 4 & ¶ [0041], user preview 420 allows user to experience downmixed spatial audio while maintaining spatial effects); and provide, via the web application, the virtualised version of the electronic file (Fig 4 & ¶ [0040-0041], sound preview 420 played for user via user interface 406 accessed through user’s data processing system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank et al (US Pub No. 2020/0221248, hereinafter Eubank) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Uhlich et al (WO 2021175735, hereinafter Uhlich).
Regarding claim 2, Eubank teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Eubank does not explicitly teach wherein the spatial audio format is 360 reality audio.
Uhlich teaches a spatial audio format using 360 reality audio (See Uhlich page 8 lines 18-20, audio object may be encoded using 360 reality audio).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 360 reality audio as taught by Uhlich with the audio transmission device taught by Eubank. Doing so provides a natural and engaging listening experience with a wide compatibility of audio hardware.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank et al (US Pub No. 2020/0221248, hereinafter Eubank) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Stein et al (U.S. Pub No. 20170366913, hereinafter Stein).
Regarding claim 3, Eubank teaches the data processing apparatus claim 1.
Eubank does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic file is an MP4 file.
Stein teaches the use of MPEG formatting (See Stein ¶ [0053] lines 8-11, encoded or compressed using MPEG).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the MPEG formatting taught by Stein with the data processing apparatus taught by Eubank. MPEG formatting is well known in the art and widely used due to its efficiency and versatility. This allows users to have both quality and flexibility when sending/receiving files.
Regarding claim 4, Eubank teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Eubank does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic file is an MP3 file.
Stein teaches the use of MPEG formatting (See Stein ¶ [0053] lines 8-11, encoded or compressed using MPEG).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the MPEG formatting taught by Stein with the data processing apparatus taught by Eubank. MPEG formatting is well known in the art and widely used due to its efficiency and versatility. This allows users to have both quality and flexibility when sending/receiving files.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank et al (US Pub No. 2020/0221248, hereinafter Eubank) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Roberts et al (U.S. Pub No. 20160234345, hereinafter Roberts).
Regarding claim 6, Eubank teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 5.
Eubank does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more users are permissioned users and the virtualised version of the electronic file is accessible only to the one or more permissioned users.
Roberts teaches wherein the one or more users are permissioned users and the virtualised version of the electronic file is accessible only to the one or more permissioned users (See Roberts ¶ [0088], user permissions determining user access).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the user permissions taught by Roberts with the audio transmission device taught by Eubank. The use of user permissions is well known in the art and provides several benefits when file sharing over the internet including security and setting role guidelines to prevent unwanted editing as described by Roberts in ¶ [0088].
Regarding claim 7, Eubank teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the circuitry is configured to: playback temporal timing information of the electronic file associated with the comment (Abstract, audio data channels associated with direction and location); and store, as metadata associated with the electronic file (Abstract, spatial audio object saved as a snapshot/thumbnail for preview playback).
Eubank does not explicitly teach to receive, from the second data processing apparatus via the web application, data indicating a comment about the electronic file the data indicating the comment and the playback temporal timing information such that the data indicating the comment and the playback temporal timing information is accessible to the one or more users.
Roberts teaches to receive, from the second data processing apparatus via the web application, data indicating a comment about the electronic file (See Roberts ¶ [0055], commenting on audio files) the data indicating the comment and the playback temporal timing information such that the data indicating the comment and the playback temporal timing information is accessible to the one or more users (See Roberts ¶ [0088], user permissions determining user access).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the comments taught by Roberts with the audio transmission device taught by Eubank. The ability to add comments when sharing and collaboratively working on a media file allows the users to communicate and get their thoughts across while not being in direct communication with those they are collaborating with.
Regarding claim 8, Eubank in view of Roberts teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the playback temporal timing information is a playback temporal position (¶ [0007], channel representing a location of a user facing a viewing position).
Regarding claim 12, Eubank teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Eubank does not explicitly teach wherein the circuitry is configured to: provide, to the second data processing apparatus via the web application, a virtualised version of each of a plurality of electronic files; receive, from the second data processing apparatus via the web application, a selection of two or more of the plurality of virtualised electronic files; and provide, to the second data processing apparatus via the web application, the selected two or more virtualised electronic files for sequential and repeating playback of the audio information of the selected two or more virtualised electronic files via the web application.
Roberts teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: provide, to the second data processing apparatus via the web application, a virtualised version of each of a plurality of electronic files (See Roberts ¶ [0090] lines 1-6, peer-to-peer file transfer); receive, from the second data processing apparatus via the web application, a selection of two or more of the plurality of virtualised electronic files (See Roberts Fig 11, playlist information and options 1103); and provide, to the second data processing apparatus via the web application, the selected two or more virtualised electronic files for sequential and repeating playback of the audio information of the selected two or more virtualised electronic files via the web application (See Roberts ¶ [0087], media transfer module 201 or server 100).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the media transfer and playlist information taught by Roberts with the audio transmission device taught by Eubank. Media sharing and peer-to-peer transfer are well known in the art and provide many advantages including long distance media sharing, sharing without a central server, and collaboration.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank et al (U.S. Pub No., hereinafter Eubank) in view of Roberts et al (U.S. Pub No. 20160234345, hereinafter Roberts) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Sharp et al (U.S. Pub No. 20180349362, hereinafter Sharp).
Regarding claim 9, Eubank in view of Roberts teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 7.
Eubank in view of Roberts does not explicitly teach wherein the comment is associated with a priority level indicated by the metadata and accessible to the one or more users for performing comment filtering.
Sharp teaches wherein the comment is associated with a priority level indicated by the metadata and accessible to the one or more users for performing comment filtering (See Sharp ¶ [0061], metadata modification including priority for user navigation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a priority level as taught by Sharp with the audio transmission device taught by Eubank in view of Roberts. Doing so allows users to indicate a priority level of different tasks and provides collaborators an indication of what to focus on.
Regarding claim 10, Eubank in view of Roberts teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 7.
Eubank in view of Roberts does not explicitly teach wherein the comment is associated with an identifier of a creator or editor of the comment indicated by the metadata and accessible to the one or more users for performing comment filtering.
Sharp teaches wherein the comment is associated with an identifier of a creator or editor of the comment indicated by the metadata and accessible to the one or more users for performing comment filtering (See Sharp ¶ [0061], metadata can include name of author).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the identifier as taught by Sharp with the audio transmission device taught by Eubank in view of Roberts. Doing so allows for collaborative work to be identified and credited accordingly.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank et al (U.S. Pub No., hereinafter Eubank) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Okvist et al (U.S. Pub No. 20220021994, hereinafter Okvist).
Regarding claim 11 and 13 Eubank teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to provide, to a plurality of second data processing apparatuses via the web application (Fig 4 & ¶ [0043-0044], spatial audio library stored on servers and accessible via data processing systems via user interface 406).
Eubank does not explicitly teach synchronized playback of the audio information by a plurality of second data processing apparatuses.
Okvist teaches synchronized playback of audio information by a plurality of second data processing apparatuses (See Okvist ¶ [0003], AmpMe allows synchronized playback from web applications across multiple devices).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the synchronized playback taught by Okvist with the audio transmission device taught by Eubank. Synchronized playback through multiple devices is well known in the art and provides benefits such as instant sharing, enhanced collaboration, and increased engagement.
Regarding claim 13, Eubank teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Eubank does not explicitly teach wherein the circuitry is configured to provide, to a plurality of second data processing apparatuses via the web application, the selected two or more virtualised electronic files for synchronised playback of the audio information by the plurality of second data processing apparatuses.
Okvist teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to provide, to a plurality of second data processing apparatuses via the web application, the selected two or more virtualised electronic files for synchronised playback of the audio information by the plurality of second data processing apparatuses (See Okvist ¶ [0003], AmpMe allows synchronized playback from web applications across multiple devices).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the synchronized playback taught by Okvist with the audio transmission device taught by Eubank. Synchronized playback through multiple devices is well known in the art and provides benefits such as instant sharing, enhanced collaboration, and increased engagement.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank et al (U.S. Pub No., hereinafter Eubank) in view of Okvist et al (U.S. Pub No. 20220021994, hereinafter Okvist) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Roberts et al (U.S. Pub No. 20160234345, hereinafter Roberts).
Regarding claim 14, Eubank in view of Okvist teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the circuitry is configured to: provide, via the web application and during the synchronised playback of the audio information See Okvist ¶ [0003], AmpMe allows synchronized playback from web applications across multiple devices).
Eubank in view of Okvist does not explicitly teach to receive, from one of the plurality of second data processing apparatuses via the web application, data indicating a comment about the electronic file; the data indicating the comment to each other second data processing apparatus of the plurality of second data processing apparatuses.
Roberts teaches to receive, from one of the plurality of second data processing apparatuses via the web application, data indicating a comment about the electronic file (See Roberts ¶ [0055], commenting on audio files); the data indicating the comment to each other second data processing apparatus of the plurality of second data processing apparatuses (See Roberts Fig 11, comments 1104).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the comments taught by Roberts with the audio transmission device taught by Eubank. The ability to add comments when sharing and collaboratively working on a media file allows the users to communicate and get their thoughts across while not being in direct communication with those they are collaborating with.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bruhn et al (US Pub No. 2021/0272574) teaches simplified encoding/decoding of audio signals captured using different formats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER LIEBGOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6:30 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at (571)272-7547. 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694