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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application. Claim 1 is currently amended. No claims have been canceled. No new claims are currently added.
Response to Arguments
With regard to Applicant’s remarks dated September 29, 2025:
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue at pages 7-8 of the Remarks, as filed, that “the BRI of the claimed features that is consistent with the specification requires the process steps to be performed by a processor, and not through the performance of any human mental processes”. Applicants further argue that “nowhere in the specification is there any teaching or suggestion that any of the process steps recited in the claims could be performed by anything other than a device (computing device), such as through mental processes of a human mind. Thus, when claim 1 and the other pending claims are properly interpreted in accordance with the BRI of the claim language that is consistent with the specification, it is clear that they do not include mental processes, as alleged in the Office Action”. Examiner disagrees. For the purposes of determining the subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the 2019 PEG analysis does not require claim interpretation to correspond with what and how the inventors describe their invention in the specification. The determination whether the claim recites a mental process is based on whether the claimed steps, as drafted, are part of a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “implemented by a processor of a characterization device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping and there is no requirement for the specification to actually describe claimed limitations as possibly being implemented as mental processes in order for such interpretation to be applied.
Applicants further argue at page 9 of the Remarks, as filed, that “even if an abstract idea is recited in the claims, the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, the rejections should be withdrawn”. However, in support of their position, Applicants cite a portion of the specification instead of identifying the additional claimed element that they believe is an improvement to other technology or technical field. Applicants are reminded that while claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Therefore, Applicant’s argument cannot be held as persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue at page 10 of the Remarks, as filed, that “in Yamashita, the relationship between the virtual sound source position and the perceived sound source position is used to determine if the user is an authorized user, while the claimed embodiments operate to determine if the user is appropriate (i.e., human rather than a machine). This difference is important because all human users are appropriate, while only the registered user is authorized in Yamashita”. Examiner disagrees. There is nothing in the claim that would require determining whether the user is a human rather than a machine. Applicants attempt to rely on the embodiments described in the specification to distinguish from the teachings of Yamashita instead of relying on the claim language that is absent of these features. To this extent, Applicants further argue that “the claimed embodiments differ from Yamashita in that they do not propose a simple authentication of a specific user by comparing location data from a source perceived by a user with location data from a virtual source generated based on the HTFs of the specific user, but a characterization of any user as an appropriate user by comparing data associated with the source perceived by the user to location data of a virtual source generated in a manner that is not specific to the appropriate user. The effect of this difference is to identify if the user belongs to a category of user that does not present a risk in terms of security for the supplier device: spam, risk of overload due to saturation of communication resources and/or device calculation”. Examiner disagrees for the same reasons as discussed above. There is nothing in the claim that would define “a suitable user” as a human operator and the term “suitable user” is broad enough to read on an “authorized user” of Yamashita. Therefore, Applicant’s argument cannot be held as persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
As to any arguments not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1 and 9-11, these claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter, thus falling within the defined statutory categories of invention (step 1 of the 101 analysis is YES). The claims describe a concept of comparing test (challenge) data with a response data and determining that a user is authorized based on a correct response, as claimed. These operations are deemed to be mental processes, which, while being claimed as implemented by a generic processor of a characterization device, do not require a special purpose computer to perform the claimed steps and are capable to be performed in the human mind including a perception (hearing), evaluation, judgement, and opinion (step 2A prong one is YES).
In particular, step of comparing can be performed in the human mind by listening and evaluation of data such as sounds. Step of triggering a characterization can be performed by the human audibly, in writing with pen and paper or using computer, as a tool, to make a notation that the user is suitable (authorized or verified).
There is nothing in the claim that would require a special computer processing to accomplish these tasks that would be unreasonable to perform in a human mind in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, Examiner determined that each of the claimed steps can be reasonably handled by a human mind without undue effort. The claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (step 2A prong two is NO). In particular, the only additional element beyond the abstract idea is the generic recitation of a processor of a characterization device. However, this element is described at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than using a generic computer to perform the abstract steps. The claim does not recite any specific, non-conventional arrangement of hardware, any particular algorithm or data structure for making the comparison and decision to trigger a characterization of the user, nor any concrete improvement to the functioning of the user equipment or the network (for example, an improvement tied to particular operations). Performance of a test and characterizing a user as a result of the test has been notoriously old and well known as a tool. Because the claim merely instructs implementation of the abstract idea using conventional computer components, the additional recited element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore does not confer patent eligibility.
The claims do not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (step 2B is NO). Therefore, the claims are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. As discussed above, reciting a generic “processor of a characterization device” and performing routine steps of comparing two pieces of data and deciding to classify a user as one way or the other based on the comparing amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea on a generic computing device. Mere invocation of generic computer components to automate an abstract process cannot supply an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 12 further define existing steps (via “wherein” clauses) and recite additional steps that can still be reasonably performed by the human mind without requiring a computer to perform the tasks. None of the dependent claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamashita (US 2015/0304790 A1).
As to claim 1, Yamashita teaches a method for characterizing a user of a service [unlocking the HMD to validate a function such as content viewing] (Fig. 14, par. [0009]-[0010]), the method being implemented by a processor of a characterization device and comprising:
comparing first data, associated with a first sound object spatialized at a first location of an audio scene spatialized by a user interface of a communication terminal [comparing a first position of the virtual sound source set, step S113] (par. [0128]), with second data received following a reproduction of the spatialized first sound object [with second position indicated by the reply acquired in step S111] (par. [0128]), the first data being distinct from the first sound object (par. [0054]-[0055], [0125]), the second data being based on a spatialized second sound object perceived at a second location of the spatialized audio scene (par. [0127]); and
in response a positive result of the comparing, triggering a characterization of an interaction source of the service as a suitable user [when it is determined in step S113 that the position indicated by the reply matches the position of the virtual sound source, the determination unit determines “unlocking success” and validates the function] (par. [0129]).
As to claim 2, Yamashita teaches that the first data and the second data belong to one of the following data types: a location parameter of a spatialized sound object; a category of sound object generating source; an answer to a question voiced in a sound object [position of the sound source in the three-dimensional acoustic space R (par. [0055]-[0056]).
As to claim 3, Yamashita teaches reproducing an interaction request at the first spatialized sound object, the interaction request being intended for the interaction source, and the second data are data received following the reproduction of said interaction request [reproducing a sound giving multiple options to respond to and receiving a response from the user] (par. [0191]).
As to claim 4, Yamashita teaches that the interaction request comprises a type of the second data expected during an interaction with the user interface [sounds data for “adult”, “child”, “male” and “female” attributes] (par. [0191]-[0192]).
As to claim 5, Yamashita teaches that the interaction request further comprises the second location of the second spatialized sound object, the second location corresponding to the first location [setting one of nine positions in the 3D acoustic space V corresponding to the nine options as the position of the virtual sound source] (par. [0102]).
As to claim 6, Yamashita teaches that the method for characterizing a user characterizes the user of at least one of the following elements: a service implemented by a service provision device; a device from among the following devices: the communication terminal; a local or network processing device; a service provision device; a communication network equipment to which a communication terminal of the user is connected [the system characterizes the user as someone who is validated to use a function such as content viewing by unlocking the HMD] (par. [0108]).
As to claim 7, Yamashita teaches that the method comprises a check implemented by the user interface, the check checking the user interface by using a command for spatialized reproduction comprising the first sound object and the first location [direction/menu buttons for inputting user’s reply] (par. [0114]-[0115], Fig. 9).
As to claim 8, Yamashita teaches that the check triggers an activation of a capture of data by the user interface, the captured data comprising the second data received (par. [0114]-[0115], Fig. 9).
As to claim 12, Yamashita teaches that the comparison result is positive when the first data and the second data are based on a same location, the first location of the first spatialized sound object associated with the first data being identical to the second location of the second spatialized sound object associated with the second data (par. [0128]).
As to claim 9, Yamashita teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a program stored thereon comprising program code instructions for executing a method for characterizing a user of a service when said program is executed by a processor (par. [0235]), wherein the method comprises steps, as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claim 10, Yamashita teaches a device for characterizing a user (par. [0221]), the device comprising: a processor (par. [0224]); and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon (par. [0235]) which when executed by the processor configure the device to perform the method steps, as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claim 11, Yamashita teaches a service provision device (par. [0221]), the service provision device comprising: a processor (par. [0224]) capable of implementing at least one service [processor is inherently capable of implementing a service if programmed accordingly];
an exchange interface for exchanges with a communication terminal (par. [0106], [0107]); and
a device for characterizing a user of the service, comprising a comparator of first data [determination unit 119] (par. [0108]) that performs functionality as discussed per claim 1 above, and commanding the processor to implement the service [validate a function such as content viewing (par. [0108]).
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 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 OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights