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 a RCE application filed on June 1, 2026 and wherein claims 1, 3-4, 18-20 amended and claim 2 previously canceled.
In virtue of this communication, claims 1, 3-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
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.
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, 3-20 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 1 recites “rendering the audio signal” based on “the reverberation time of the audio signal” by “estimating a reverberation time of an audio signal at each of … time points of the audio signal” and by “generating a reverberation for the audio signal based on the reverberation time” “the reverberation is added to a bitstream of the audio signal”, and by “generating the reverberation” based on “a type of an acoustic environment model”, “an early reflection gain”, and “a late reverberation gain, in response to an extended static metadata acoustic environment comprising and “wherein the type of the acoustic environment model comprises physical reverberation, artificial reverberation, and sample reverberation”, etc., and wherein the claimed “extended static metadata acoustic environment” is unusual phrase in the field and must be in light of the application specification and the specification disclosed the definition of this term to be math data structure AcousticEnv (), para 144 and containing claimed “early reflection gain (earlyReflectionGain, 7-bit length)“ and the “late reverberation gain (lateReverbGain, 7-bit length)” ([0145], USPGpub 20240153481 A1, hereinafter), and claimed “rendering … in response to “ this data structure by “add to a bitstream of the audio signal” is nothing more than “rendering” with “add” to such stream by formula ([0056]), which as a whole is a math concept and manipulation driven by formulas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “executed by a processor” which is merely generic computer or computer processor to execute all functions as generic such as “estimating”, “rendering”, and “generating” which is not considered as an integration into a practical application because it is merely performed by generic processor with generic functions (see Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, examples 37, 40, 42, 47, about generic computer with generic functions), and thus, 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 can be considered to be significant more than abstract idea. For example, claimed “physical reverberation, artificial reverberation, and sample reverberation” comprised in “type of the acoustic environment” merely math symbol in the AcousticEnv data structure and “generating the reverberation” is merely of execution of subroutines within the AcousticEnv data structure ([0144]-[0145]), etc., which would not be considered as additional elements and significant more than abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible, see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG” and Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 37, 40, 42, and 47.
Note: applicant argued that “In the process of the audio signal decaying over time, the reverberation time of the audio signal at different degrees of attenuation is estimated at each time point to reduce the granularity of audio rendering processing”, and “the time point in Claim 1 is the time point of the audio signal itself”, etc., paragraph 1 of page 9 in Remarks filed on June 1, 2026. The argument above further indicated that the claimed subject matter is nothing more than a math modeling of the audio signal and further, claimed rendering is to use formula to regenerate “audio signal” with no improvement and no practical meaningful steps and actions, except math concept self. Usage of “points” is nothing more than math manipulation of graphic “curves” and is nothing more than formulating the modeling to back to “audio signal” again, the procedures among which are math concepts and manipulations.
Claim 18 recites “a chip” in claim preamble and with “at least one processor and an interface” and thus, similarly to claim 1 above, a generic processor or computer for executing generic functions would not be considered as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and thus, accordingly, claim 18 is not patent eligible according to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG”.
Claim 19 recites “An electronic device, comprising: a memory and a processor” to execute the method of claim 1, and thus, rejected according to claims 1, 18 above.
Claim 20 recites “a non-transitory … medium” and with “program” stored thereon and executed by a generic “processor” and thus, rejected according to claims 1, 18-19 above.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and further recites “generating the reverberation” is “based on an estimated late reverberation gain” which is similar to claimed “late reverberation gain” as recited in parent claim 1 above and would not be considered 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 added additional component such as “an estimated late reverberation gain” are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 3 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 “constructing a model of an objective function based on a decay curve …”, “a parameter function of a fitted curve of the decay curve and weights corresponding to .. historical time points …”, “weights vary with time”, “solving the objective function with a parameter of parametric function of the fitted curve …”, and “estimating the reverberation time … based on the fitted curve”, which are merely math concept with math manipulation of “curves”, etc., and further also 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, claim 4 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 1 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and further added additional components by reciting “constructing the model of the objective function based on differences …” “curves”, and “weighting the decay curve at the … historical time points …” which is also merely math concept with math manipulation of “curves” and “weigh” functions, etc., and also 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 because the additional components are merely mathematical concept, e.g., conditional math operation, etc. Accordingly, claim 5 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 4 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 depends on claim 4 and further added “a weight … is smaller than a weight …”, etc. which is merely math comparison of math variables with no 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, claim 6 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 4 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 depends on claim 5 and further added “calculating a weight sum of the differences …” and “constructing the model … based on the weighted sum of the difference …” which is merely description of the math manipulation by “sum”, “weight”, “constructing”, etc., and would not be considered as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and the added components are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 7 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 5 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7 and further added “calculating the weighted sum of variances or standard deviations between … curve and … fitted curve at … historical time points using weights …” is merely further math manipulation by “calculating”, “deviations between …”, “using weights”, etc., and would not be considered 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, claim 8 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 7 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 depends on claim 5 and further added “calculating a sum of differences …” or “constructing the model of … based on variances or standard deviations …” which is also merely math concept of “sum”, “constructing”, etc., with no 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, claim 9 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 4 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and further added limitation to “calculating a sum of …” which is also merely math comparison of math variables with no 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, claim 10 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 9 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 depends on claim 4 and further added “determining weights … based on a statistical characteristic of the parametric function of the fitted curve …”, “constructing the model … based on the weights …” or “determining the weights … based on a characteristic of a sound signal” and “constructing the model … based on weights …” which is also merely math concepts applied on the math variables or symbols with no 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, claim 11 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 4 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11 and further added “determining the weights of … based on differences between the function values of the parametric function of decay curve … the minimum value of the parametric function … and a parametric function of the decay curve…”, etc., which is also merely math concepts applied to math variables or symbols with no 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, claim 12 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 11 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12 and further added “determining the weights of … based on differences between the function values of …” and similarly, which is also merely math concepts applied to math variables or symbols with no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional components are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 13 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 12 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 depends on claim 13 and further added “determining the weights of … based on ratios of the differences between the function values of …” and similarly, which is also merely math concepts applied to math variables or symbols with no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional components are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 14 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 13 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 depends on claim 4 and further added “based on slop coefficients of linear function” or “based on Room Impulse Response RIR of the audio signal”, etc., and similarly, which is also merely math concepts applied to math variables or symbols with no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional components are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 15 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 4 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and further added “the reverberation time is proportional to a reciprocal of the slope coefficient of the linear function”, etc., and similarly, which is also merely math concepts applied to math variables or symbols with no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional components are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 16 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 15 and is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 depends on claim 15 and further added “determining the reverberation time based on the slope coefficient of htelinear function and a preset reverberation energy decay value or … determining a first extremum equation basedon a partial derivative of the objective function …”, “determining a second extremum equation based on a partial derivative of the object function with respect to an intercept coefficient of the linear function” and “solving the first extremum equation and the second extremum equation …”, etc., and similarly, which is also merely math concepts applied to math variables or symbols with no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional components are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 17 does not rectify the 101 issue of parent claim 15 and is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 1, 2026 have been fully considered and wherein the claim amendment by adding “in response to an extended static metadata acoustic environment comprising the early reflection gain and the late reverberation gain”, etc. in independent claims 1, 18-20 would be interpreted in light of specification such as “extended static metadata acoustic environment” is nothing more than AcousticEnv() ([0144]-[0145]) and consequently the claimed “rendering” would be referred to formula ([0056]-[0057] in light of the application specification, and thus, in terms of the claim interpretation above, the Office decided withdrawn of the prior art rejections as applied in the previous office action. Further search has been conducted and associated prior arts from the search have been recorded in attached PTO-892 for reference.
Conclusion
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 on Monday-Friday 6:30amp-4:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LESHUI ZHANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights