2DETAILED 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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 2/20/26 are hereby entered.
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-32 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or the rules of a game.
In regard to Claims 1, 9, 17, and 25, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] sound processing method […] the method comprising:
generating, for display, an image on the basis of a [simulated] camera in a [visual] space, the [visual] space including at least one [visual] object and at least one sound source;
determining a position of a look-at point of the [simulated] camera in the [visual] space on the basis of an operation input;
controlling a viewing direction of the [simulated] camera on the basis of the operation input, and updating the image of the [simulated] camera based on the viewing directed of the [simulated] camera;
determining a position of the [simulated] camera on the basis of the position of the look-at point and the viewing direction;
determining a position of a [simulated] microphone in the [visual] space based on a position interlocked with the position of the [simulated] camera; and
individually for the at least one sound source placed in the [visual] space,
determining a volume for outputting a sound set for the sound source, wherein the volume is determined on the basis of a distance between the sound source and a volume reference position which is set at the position of the [simulated] microphone or which is set at a position shifted toward the look-at point side from the position of the [simulated] microphone in a case where the sound source is placed on a side opposite to the look-at point with respect to the [simulated] microphone, wherein the volume reference position is determined in association with a rearward degree determined based on a first vector extending from the [simulated] microphone to the virtual object and a second vector extending from the [simulated] microphone to the at least one sound source; and
output the sound set for the sound source on the basis of the determined volume.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or claim the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code that is stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and is executed by a computer comprising a processor, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code that is stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and is executed by a computer comprising a processor, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in regard to the rejections made by applying the Mayo test under 35 USC 101 that its claimed subject matter is analogous to that of Desjardins and, thereby, patent eligible. Putting aside that decisions of the PTAB are not binding legal authority, Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to that of Desjardins to the extent that it does not concern a specific improvement to machine learning. Instead, Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to collecting data (e.g., locations of an object and a sound source in a visual space), analyzing that data (e.g., determining positions of a simulated camera and a simulated microphone in a visual space), and then providing an output based on that analysis (e.g., outputting a sound set based on the camera and microphone positions), and thereby patent ineligible as being directed to an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. Applicant’s claimed invention may also be characterized as being directed to the rules of game, a game in which certain sounds are created in the game based on inputs provided by the user.
Applicant further argues in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101 on page 14 of its Remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
266
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s claimed invention does not result in, e.g., its claimed “computer” being able to run faster, use less power, and/or be manufactured more cheaply. The claimed invention, in other words, does not result in any improvement to any of Applicant’s claimed technological devices qua devices. Instead, Applicant’s claimed invention (if the outputted sound is, in fact, heard by the human user, although that is not, in fact, required by the claims) could potentially improve that user’s gaming experience/performance. Such improvements, however, are not patent eligible under the Mayo test because they are not an improvement to technology. See, e.g., from the CAFC’s decision in Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC (2017-2257; 4/18/2019):
PNG
media_image2.png
310
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., page 9.
See also, e.g., from the CAFC’s decision in USAA v. PNC Bank (2023-1639; 6/12/2025):
PNG
media_image3.png
268
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., page 9.
For these reasons the rejection made under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715