DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claim amendment filed on January 20, 2026 and wherein claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 11 amended and claims 2, 7, 10 cancelled.
In virtue of this communication, claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-13 are currently pending in this Office Action.
With respect to the rejection of claims 3, 7, 11 under 35 USC §112(b), as set forth in the previous Office Action, the claim amendment, including the cancelation of claim 7, and argument, see paragraph 1 of page 6 in Remarks filed on January 20, 2026, have been fully considered and the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 3, 7, 11 under 35 USC § 112(b), as set forth in the previous Office Action, has been withdrawn. However, the rejection of claims 6, 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) maintained as set forth under title Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) below.
The Office appreciates the explanation of the amendment and analyses of the prior arts, and however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145.
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 3, 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) or joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recited “the determining of the minimum distance comprises determining a distance, at which a gain of the object-based audio becomes greater than a gain of the object-based audio at the reference distance by a predetermined level as the minimum distance” and the parent claim 1 recited “determining a minimum distance of the object-based audio to apply attenuation according to the audio source distance, by dividing a reference distance of the object-based audio in the metadata by a predetermined value” and the application specification failed to provide antecedent basis for a combination of claimed limitations of claim 1 and claim 3. For example, in light of the specification, parent claim 1 recited an approach of determining the minimum distance by “dividing a reference distance” to “predetermined value” “A” in equation 2 (para 77-79, tables 1-2, USPGPub 20230362574 A1 hereinafter while referred to the paragraph), and the “reference distance” is obtained from “metadata” (para 66), and thus, determining the minimum distance is nothing to do with “gain”, particularly the determination of the minimum distance has nothing to do with comparing “a gain of the object-based audio becomes greater than a gain of the object-based audio at the reference distance by …” as recited in claim 3. The specification further reads “The electronic device may determine the minimum distance of the object-based audio based on the reference distance to prevent or alleviate clipping generation as the distance between the object-based audio and the listener decreases (para 68)” which has nothing to do with “gain … greater than” or “less than” at all as recited in claim 3 at all and similar to the specification table 3, wherein the table 3 disclosed (para 84-85) that a single minimum distance determined by a single reference distance and a constant such as “5” applied to determining gains at the minimum distance (para 84, e.g., the minimum distance is set to 0.2m), and this is not determination of the minimum distance, but merely application of determined minimum distance on calculation of the gain values.
Claim 8 and 11 depend on parent claims 6, 9, respectively and rejected for the at least similar reason as described in claim 3 above because claims 8, 11 recited similar deficient limitations as recited in claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recited “the determining of the minimum distance comprises determining a distance, at which a gain of the object-based audio becomes greater than a gain of the object-based audio at the reference distance by a predetermined level as the minimum distance” and the parent claim 1 recited “the minimum distance” is determined by “dividing a reference distance of the object-based audio in the metadata by a predetermined value” and thus, it is unclear whether “the minimum distance” is determined “by dividing …” as recited in parent claim 1 or by “a distance at which a gain of the object-based audio becomes greater than a gain of … at the reference distance by a predetermined level” as recited in claim 3 and thus, renders claim indefinite.
Claim 8 and 11 depend on parent claims 6, 9, respectively and rejected for the at least similar reason as described in claim 3 above because claims 8, 11 recited similar deficient limitations as recited in claim 3.
Claim 6 recited “a gain of the object-based audio … when the audio source distance exceeds the minimum distance” and further recited “the gain” is determined “when the audio source distance is less than or equal to the minimum distance” and then “rendering the object-based audio based on the determined gain of the object-based audio”, which are confusing because it is unclear whether “the gain of the object-based audio” is determined “when the audio source distance exceeds the minimum distance” or is determined “when the audio source distance is less than or equal to the minimum distance” and it is unclear whether “the determined gain of the object-based audio” is referred to “determining a gain of the object-based audio …” “when the audio source distance exceeds the minimum distance” or “determining the gain of the object-based audio …” “when the audio source distance is less than or equal to the minimum distance” and thus, renders claim indefinite. Claim 8 is further rejected due to the dependency to claim 6.
Applicant argued “however, at the end of the day, no matter which manner is utilized, the object-based audio is rendered based on the determined gain” as asserted in paragraph 1 of page 7 in Remarks filed on January 20, 2026. In response to the argument above, it has been noticed that claim 6 recited “a gain” that is determined “when the audio source distance exceeds the minimum distance” and the (same) “gain” that is determined “when the audio source distance is less than or equal to the minimum distance”. Because the limitation “when the audio source distance exceeds the minimum distance” and the limitation “when the audio source distance is less than or equal to the minimum distance” are mutually exclusive, they must correspond to either different “gain” by word “and”, such as --determining a gain of … when the audio source distance exceeds the minimum distance and determining a [[the]] gain of … when the audio source distance is less than or equal to the minimum distance-- or same gain is determined, but contingent by using word “or”, such as --determining a gain of … when the audio source distance exceeds the minimum distance [[and]] or determining the gain of … when the audio source distance is less than or equal to the minimum distance--.
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, 3-6, 8-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method of rendering an object-based audio by using an audio source distance and the minimum distance and wherein the audio source distance is identified by using identified metadata and the minimum distance is determined by dividing a reference distance of the object-based audio in the metadata by a predetermined value, and wherein the claimed limitations of “identifying”, “determining … by dividing by a predetermined value”, as drafted is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by performing mathematic concept and manipulation of math variables and claimed limitation of “rendering”, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation BRI, covers performance of the limitations by human mind. For example, broadly claimed “metadata” would be interpreted as a data structure comprising other data of “reference distance”, and/or “audio source distance” having a definition of a distance between “an object-based audio” and “a listener”, and the “object-based audio” is broadly claimed and would be interpreted as a speaker’s sound or utterance under its BRI. The claim further recites that such data structure is used to determine a “minimum distance” by a math formula of “dividing the reference distance … by a predetermined value” and this is nothing more than a math manipulation of the data structure under its BRI. The Claim further broadly recites “rendering the object-based audio using the audio source distance and the minimum distance”, but “rendering” herein would be interpreted as a speaking person to adjust volume of the his/her utterance based on the distance between the speaker and the listener and a distance limitation (“minimum distance”), e.g., maximizing attenuation of the volume because of the shorter distance being, the louder the sound pressure would be according to sound propagation law. Therefore, claimed limitations fall within grouping of the “Mathematical Concepts” and mental processing by human mind of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim ends at “rendering”, but broadly claimed rendering would be implemented in human mind according to the sound propagation law as discussed above, and thus, “rendering” herein does not counted as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there is no additional element in claim that could be considered to be significant more than abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible, see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG”.
Claim 6 recited limitations of claim 1, and further recited additional elements by reciting “determining a gain of the object-based audio by applying attenuation according to the audio source distance” “when the audio source distance exceeds the minimum distance” and “when the audio source distance is less than or equal to the minimum distance” which merely further mathematical concept by reciting “applying attenuation”, e.g., scaling or addition or subtraction for “applying attenuation”, and therefore, the additional elements do not counted as an integration of the abstract concept into a practical application, and as sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim is not patent eligible according to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG”.
Claim 9 recited limitations of claim 1 and further recited additional component “a processor” comprised in “an electronic device” to perform all method steps of claim 1, and however, this additional component is recited in a high-level of generality to perform the abstract idea and is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed mathematically as discussed in claim 1 above, i.e., a generic hardware to perform the abstract idea such that if it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and further recited additional component by reciting “determining a distance at which a gain of the object-based audio becomes greater than a gain of the object-based audio at the reference distance by a predetermined level …” which is nothing more than mathematical concept in distance determination based on “a gain” value and “reference distance” under the sound signal propagation law and thus, does not count as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the additional components are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 1 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and further added additional components by reciting “rendering the object-based audio based on the gain of the object-based audio, which, as discussed in claim 1 above about “rendering”, does not count as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the additional component is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 1 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and further added additional component by reciting “rendering the object-based audio based on the gain of the object-based audio” and “determining a gain of the object-based audio when … “ which is, as discussed in claim 4 above about “rendering” and “determining”, does not count as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the additional component is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional components are merely mathematical concept, e.g., conditional math operation, etc. Accordingly, the claim does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 1 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 depends on claim 6 and essentially recited the limitations as recited in claim 3 and thus, rejected for the at least similar reason as described in claim 3 above.
Claim 11 depends on claim 9 and essentially recited the limitations as recited in claim 3 and thus, rejected for the at least similar reason as described in claim 3 above.
Claim 12 depends on claim 9 and essentially recited the limitations as recited in claim 4 and thus, rejected for the at least similar reason as described in claim 4 above.
Claim 13 depends on claim 9 and essentially recited the limitations as recited in claim 5 and thus, rejected for the at least similar reason as described in claim 5 above.
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 of this title, 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, 3-6, 8-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. (US 20170366912 A1, Stein) and in view of reference Chung et al. (US 20210084426 A1, hereinafter Chung).
Claim 1: Stein teaches a method of rendering object-based audio (title and abstract, ln 1-17, method steps in figs. 2A-2C and wherein the processed audio object signals are rendered through augmented reality headset or head-worn virtual reality headset, para 146 and related to audio object positioned at one of positions 20, 22, 24 in figs. 1A-1B), the method comprising:
identifying metadata of object-based audio (received and identified by the step 13, determine radial weights and accessed by step 14 in fig. 2A, para 68);
identifying an audio source distance (R, a radial distance between an audio object at a position of sound scene and the listener position, e.g., the center position in figs. 1A/1B, para 48) between the object-based audio (e.g., an audio object at a position of one of positions 20, 22, 24 in figs. 1A/1B, para 65) and a listener (a listener position at a center of the circle, with respect to distances including the far-field distance and the near-field distance, para 65) using the metadata (metadata is assessed to determine whether the object is located inside or outside a far-field boundary at step 14 in fig. 2A, para 68);
determining a minimum distance of the object-based audio (a distance getting very close to one of the listener’s ears and a gain is closed to saturation, i.e., no more change in the gain at the saturation, para 66, e.g., being closed to recovered value 0 being in the head at the origin in fig. 16, para 119) to apply attenuation according to the audio source distance (for rendering by applying HRTF weights upon the audio object distance to the listener in figs. 1A/1B and 2A, e.g., H21, H22 at near-field boundary R2, and H11, H12, H-13, H14- at far-field boundary R1 in fig. 1A/1B and calculating HRTF if source position is between the near-field boundary and the far-field boundary by using interpolation, para 66), based on a reference distance of the object-based audio (a normalized distance up to 1 or a maximum distance for a source rendered fully in the far-field, or anyone of distances is being between value 0 as in the head at the origin and value 1 as in fully far-field, para 119, para 80) and dividing the reference distance of the object-based-audio by a predetermined value (the far-field ring radius R1 is divided into 2 in figs. 1A/1B and divided by 4 in fig. 1C, para 64, and optionally using any number of radii of significance, para 64); and
rendering the object-based audio using the audio source distance and the minimum distance (generated binaural audio rendered by AR headset, generating includes applying calculated HRTF weights to the input audio signals, and HRTF weights are determined based on the at least near-field boundary as the minimum distance, para 61, 146).
However, Stein does not explicitly teach wherein the reference distance of the object-based audio is in the metadata and does not explicitly teach the minimum distance is determined by disclosed dividing the reference distance by a predetermined value for determining the minimum distance.
Chung teaches an analogous field of endeavor by disclosing a method of rendering object-based audio (title and abstract, ln 1-16 and method steps in figs. 13-14 and implemented in an audio signal processing device in fig. 2) and wherein object-based audio is disclosed (decoded object signal from the core decoder 110 into object renderer 124 in fig. 2) and wherein a reference distance for the object-based audio is disclosed to be in metadata (object distance information as goa_bsObjectDistance included in a GOA metadata or the single dynamic metadata frame indicated the distance of an object signal according to the tables of para 115-116, including a maximum distance 167km or goa_bsObjectDistance = 255 as claimed reference distance, para 124, 143, 155, etc.) for benefits of increasing rendering efficiency (by reducing the number of reference distances and distances to be considered, para 181 and by balancing loudnesses between multiple elements to be rendered, para 199 and sound field can be corrected through the given distances, para 201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied wherein the reference distance of the object-based audio is in the metadata, as taught by Chung, to the reference distance of the object-based audio and the metadata in the method, as taught by Stein, for the benefits discussed above.
However, the combination of Stein and Chung does not explicitly teach the disclosed minimum distance is determined by disclosed dividing the reference distance by the predetermined value.
It has been a recognized problem and need in the art, which may include a design need to solve the problem for adjusting sound volume based on the sound source distance with volume adjusted and the minimum distance for maximum attenuation of the sound volume for avoiding overdriven of sound intensity to the listener’s ear due to potential minimum distance to the sound source from the listener, and there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to determining the minimum distance based on the reference distance:
selecting the reference distance as the minimum distance for simplicity and no operation for math calculation,
a fraction of the reference distance by dividing or multiplying the reference distance by a predetermined constant value for less operation, but more accuracy adapted to individual hearing capability,
unevenly segmenting the reference distance for different needs from individuals,
it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success or obvious to try, see MPEP 2141, III.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the minimum distance from dividing the reference distance by the predetermined value, as one of the obviousness to try above, to the minimum distance and the reference distance in the method, as taught by the combination of Stein and Chung, for benefits discussed above.
Claim 9: the combination of Stein and Chung further teaches, according to claim 1 above, an electronic device (Stein, mobile phone, gaming console, handheld player, etc., para 54, and Chung, smart phones, tablets, etc., para 3) comprising:
a processor (Stein, processors including Intel PentiumTM x86, or other processor, etc., para 54 and Chung, the device includes a processor, abstract. Para 17-19), wherein the processor is configured to implement the method of claim 1 (the discussion in claim 1 above).
Claim 3: the combination of Stein and Chung further teaches, according to claim 1 above, wherein the determining of the minimum distance comprises
determining a distance, at which a gain of the object-based audio becomes greater than a gain of the object-based audio at the reference distance by a predetermined level as the minimum distance.
increased by a set gain as the minimum distance, compared to a gain of the object-based audio at the reference distance (Stein, the gain of audio signal is increased or intensified sharply while the sound source being closed to the listener’s ear, i.e., approximately to the minimum distance, para 66, and by an exponential increase trend in loudness or gain of audio as a sound source being closer to the head, para 74, and the maximum distance as the reference distance corresponded to a lowest gain or loudness in inverse-square law, para 19, and Chung, loudness of the rendered sound is adjusted according to the object distance or object distance information, para 74).
Claim 4: the combination of Stein and Chung further teaches, according to claim 1 above, wherein the rendering of the object-based audio comprises:
determining a gain of the object-based audio based on the audio source distance and the reference distance, when the audio source distance exceeds the minimum distance (Stein, a gain of interpolated object audio signal is calculated in increase or decrease according to the distance to the listener’s head and avoiding saturation as the sound source being close to one of the listener’s ears, i.e., the gain at the condition of the audio source distance exceeding the minimum distance, para 66, and based on an inverse-square law, para 19, and gains of each set of HRTFs are normalized to the far-field HRTF gains, i.e., based on the far-field radius or distance R1 as the reference distance, para 63, fig. 7 and near-field gain is also normalized to the far-field gain, para 80, e.g., the gain of an HRTF measured at 0.25m will be four times the gain of the same HRTF measured at 1m, etc., i.e., the gain is relative up to the gain of the far-field distance, para 74 and additionally, HRTF weights further added from each common-radius HRTF set that would include H11, H12, H13, H14 of the far-field HRTF pairs in fig. 1A, or HRTF at the reference distance, to create distance gain/attenuation for the audio object at the desired position between the minimum or near-field distance and the far-field or reference distance, para 68, and Chung, e.g., the relative distance by distanceOffset and reference distance at position_distance=255 or 167km, para 99); and
rendering the object-based audio based on the gain of the object-based audio (Stein, the updated gain values and weights are combined to form a filter applied to the audio object via element 30 to generate binaural audio with distance cues at step 32 in fig. 2A, para 68, and fig. 7, para 80 and further rendered through headphones for binaural listening, para 92 and Chung, rendering through post processor 140 including binaural renderer 153 in fig. 2, para 71-72).
Claim 5: the combination of Stein and Chung further teaches, according to claim 1 above, wherein the rendering of the object-based audio comprises:
determining a gain of the object-based audio when the object-based audio is at the minimum distance, when the audio source distance is less than or equal to the minimum distance (Stein, the near saturated gain and discussed in claim 4 above, e.g., the near-field gain is normalized to the far-field gain, para 80, e.g., the gain of an HRTF measured at 0.25m will be four times the gain of the same HRTF measured at 1m, etc., i.e., the gain is relative up to the gain of the far-field distance while the distance being closed to the listener’s ears, para 74); and
rendering the object-based audio based on the gain of the object-based audio (Stein, the updated gain values and weights are combined to form a filter applied to the audio object via element 30 to generate binaural audio with distance cues at step 32 in fig. 2A, para 68, and fig. 7, para 80 and further rendered through headphones for binaural listening, para 92 and Chung, rendering through post processor 140 including binaural renderer 153 in fig. 2, para 71-72).
Claim 6 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 1, 4-5 above (a gain determined when an audio source distance exceeds the minimum distance and discussed in claim 4 above, and a gain determined when an audio source distance is less than or equal to the minimum distance and discussed in claim 5 above).
Claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 6, 3 above.
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 9, 3 above.
Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 9, 4 above.
Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 9, 5 above.
The prior art (US 20210306792 A1 by De Bruijn et al.) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because De Bruijn above disclosed relationship between the distance, reference distance, minimum distance, etc., and gain values represented by sound loudness at different distance range containing maximum and minimum distances for each of the distance ranges (figs. 2, etc.), which is part of the disclosures disclosed by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 20, 2026 have been fully considered and but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the applicant amendment. Although a new ground of rejection has been used to address additional limitations that have been added to claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 11, a response is considered necessary for several of applicant’s arguments since references Stein and Chung will continue to be used to meet several claimed limitations.
With respect to the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 USC §103(a), as set forth in the Office Action, applicant argued: “At no point, however, does Stein teach or suggest that the minimum distance wherein the gain is limited is determined by dividing a reference distance of an object-based audio by a predetermined value, much less as claimed” because “Stein merely defines a far-field circle R1 and a near-field circle R2 with fixed radii centered around the listener. At no point does Stein teach or suggest that the far-field circle R1 or the near-field circle R2 is determined by dividing a reference distance of an object-based audio by a predetermined value”, etc., and referred to Stein’s [0065]-[0066], as asserted in paragraphs 2-3 of page 8 in Remarks filed on January 20, 2026.
In response to the argument cited above, the Office respectfully disagrees because (1) claim 1 broadly recited “a reference distance” with no citation of what “reference distance” is, and (2) Stein does not only disclosed a far-field circle R1 and a near-field circle R2 with fixed radii centered around the listener as applicant indicated (para 65-66), but also disclosed multiple circles (four circles in fig. 1C) and clearly stated “the sound space may be represented using more than two radii as shown in FIG. 1C … and using any number of radii of significance … (para [0064])” and wherein in the multi-circles (fig. 1C), it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art that the radii having closed circle to the centered listener would be interpreted as the minimum distance to the listener because of the shortest distance to the listener and such minimum distance is dependent of number of circles segmented from R1 (as reference distance in fig. 1C and further any number of circles as need, para 64) and wherein the radii is not fixed, but any number of (para 64), but applicant is in silence.
Indeed, Stein does not use the word “dividing” and “predetermined value”, but Stein’s fig. 1C is an example that the radii corresponding to R1 is divided into four radii, and Stein’s “any number of radii (para 64)” would implied that obtaining two (figs. 1A/1B), three, four (fig. 1C), or other number of radii from R1 to determine the shortest distance to the listener is by dividing the far-field radii (corresponding to R1 as reference distance) by two, three, four, or other integer number, or multiple the far-field radii by a fraction number, etc., would be obvious to try or design’s choice, as discussed in the office action above. Therefore, the argument above is moot.
Applicant further argued second prior art Chung with respect to the argued limitation of “dividing … by a predetermined value” above, see paragraphs 3-4 of page 9 and paragraphs 1-2 of page 10 in Remarks filed on January 20, 2026.
In response to the argument above, the Office further disagrees because (1) the first prior art Stein has taught the argued limitation as discussed above, the second prior art Chung does not have to teach the limitations the first prior art Stein has taught. (2) Even though Chung’s disclosure is considered, Chung also teaches that minimum distance can be determined to be a number greater than zero, e.g., 450mm, i.e., determining a minimum distance from the reference distance would be designer’s choice, either based on “dividing”, “multiplying”, etc., and thus, applicant argument above is also moot.
Therefore, based on the analyses and evidences, prior art rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) maintain. For the at least similar reasons discussed above, the prior art rejection of other independent claims 6, 9 and dependent claims 3-5, 8, 11-13 maintained.
In the response to this office action, the Office respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Office in prosecuting this application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESHUI ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30amp-4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/LESHUI ZHANG/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights