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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species a, claims 1-5 and 9-13, in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claims 1-5, 9-10, and 13, claim limitations “acquisition unit,” “transmission unit,” and “correction unit " have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “unit" coupled with functional language “acquire,” “transmit” and “correct” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claims 1-5, 9-10, and 13 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is to a program which is not a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badhwar et al. (US Pub. 20200245092) in view of Maeno et al. (US Pub. 20180359594).
Regarding claim 1, Badhwar discloses an information processing device (see abstract) comprising:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire head rotation information of a user (see fig. 4; paragraph 51; “The motion sensor 406 may track the head movement of the listener”);
a transmission unit configured to transmit the head rotation information to a cloud system (see fig. 4; paragraph 51; “The motion sensor 406 may output the indication 408 which is then sent to the cloud spatial audio processing system 106 over the communication link 118”); and
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire content information to be presented to the user and meta information accompanying the content information, the content information being generated by predetermined processing performed by the cloud system using the head rotation information (see paragraphs 25 and 51; “The cloud spatial audio processing system 106 may convert the spatial audio to binaural audio based on the head movement”).
Badhwar fails to explicitly disclose a correction unit configured to correct, based on the meta information, a presentation position of a content reproduced by the content information.
However, Maeno discloses a correction unit configured to correct, based on the meta information, a presentation position of a content reproduced by the content information (see abstract; paragraphs 46 and 209).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated Maeno’s correction unit configured to correct, based on the meta information, a presentation position of a content reproduced by the content information with the information processing device of Badhwar, in order to reproduce an acoustic field more appropriately.
Regarding claim 2, Badhwar in view of Maeno discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Badhwar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the correction unit corrects, based on the meta information, a sound source position of a virtual sound source reproduced by the content information.
However, Maeno discloses wherein the correction unit corrects, based on the meta information, a sound source position of a virtual sound source reproduced by the content information (see abstract; paragraphs 46 and 209).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated Maeno’s wherein the correction unit corrects, based on the meta information, a sound source position of a virtual sound source reproduced by the content information with the information processing device of Badhwar, in order to reproduce an acoustic field more appropriately.
Regarding claim 3, Badhwar in view of Maeno discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the predetermined processing is binaural operation processing of generating a binauralized sound source.
Regarding claim 4, Badhwar in view of Maeno discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the binaural operation processing is performed using a head-related transfer function.
Regarding claim 10, Badhwar in view of Maeno discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first acquisition unit acquires, as the head rotation information, rotation information including at least one of acceleration applied to a head of the user and an azimuth of the head.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the device of claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12, the claimed limitations are a program claim directly corresponding to the device of claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, the claimed limitations are a system claim directly corresponding to the device of claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 5 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7697. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM, PST.
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.
/PAUL KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695