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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/13/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2/13/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent Number 11937074 and Patent Number 11128978 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITU-R BS.2076-0 (cited by applicant on IDS filed on 4/18/2024; hereafter ADM) in view of Oh et al. (US 20100145487 A1; hereafter Oh).
Regarding claims 1-3, ADM is a standard that defines a parameter, objectDivergence (p. 37, section 9.6), with a value between 0-1 (the range including the claimed “non-zero divergence” and “zero divergence”). When describing an sound object, a dry sound for the object and corresponding metadata describing the sound object (how it occupied in space, such as position and movement) as seen from a view of the listener’s position, are encoded and transmitted for future rendering. The objectDivergence disclosed in ADM is an additional associated metadata of at least one audio object. As disclosed on p. 16 and p.37, the definition of objectDivergence states that two additional audio objects associated with the audio object such that respective locations of the two additional audio objects are evenly spaced from the location of the audio object are created (“symmetrical on both sides of the object”, “split symmetrically”). Respective weight factors are determined for application to the audio object and the two additional audio object (for non-zero divergence, such as 0.5, the weight of 0.5 for LCR loudspeaker configuration; for zero divergence with value of 0, only the original object being present).
ADM fails to explicitly state that the two additional created audio objects are at the same radial distance from the intended listener’s position as the audio object. However, this claimed feature is met by the teaching of ADM as a whole. The claimed radial distance is a perceived distance between sound and the listener. ADM explicitly states that the pair of virtual objects, symmetrically placed to the original object, “should not create an image shift from the original object position and should be power preserving across virtual objects and the original”. If one virtual object of the pair object is at a radial distance different from the radial distance of the other virtual object of the pair, one skilled in the art would have expected that the sound image would be shifted from the original object position. An example is provided in ADM that with the original object located directly center in front of the listener, the pair of the virtual object could have a range of 30 degrees. When the left virtual object is located 30 degree from the center toward the left side, the right virtual object is located 30 degree from the center toward the right side. The value of 0.5, being set as an example, indicates that the pair of virtual objects are at the same radial distance from the intended listener’s position as the audio object in order to not create an image shift for the original object and preserve the power across the virtual objects and the original. Thus, one skilled in the art would have recognized that claimed feature is taught by ADM.
ADM also fails to explicitly disclose a method including steps that in accordance with determining that the audio object is to be rendered with non-zero divergence and in accordance with determining that the audio object is to be rendered with zero divergence and a corresponding processor to implement the method. However, it is within the level of the ordinary skill in the art to implement a rendering process based on the encoded audio stream with metadata, including objectDivergence as disclosed in ADM. To implement such rendering process, the value of objectDivergence must be determined in order to determine the corresponding weight for each of two or more speaker feeds (such as 0, 0.5, or 1 as provided as examples in sect. 9.6 of ADM) based on the value of parameter objectDivergence attached to the encoded bitstream. Oh is cited here as an example that teaches that the encoded audio is being rendered by determining weight factors based on the metadata, and the audio object is rendered based on the determined weight using a metadata processing unit (Figs. 1 and 4, e.g.). Oh is further cited here for teaching a non-transitory computer readable medium for storing instructions causing a processing device to perform the process of rendering ([0255]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify ADM in view of well known audio object decoding process or processor, such as taught by Oh, by using a processing device controlled by a non-transitory computer readable medium to implementing the rendering based on parameter objectDivergence in order to enable the object to be rendered in a more realistic effect by two or more speakers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that ADM in combination of Oh fails to meet the newly added limitation. The office disagrees. ADM explicitly states that the pair of virtual objects, symmetrically placed to the original object, “should not create an image shift from the original object position and should be power preserving across virtual objects and the original”. An example is provided that with the original object located directly center in front of the listener, the pair of the virtual object could have a range of 30 degrees. When the left virtual object is located 30 degree from the center toward the left side, the right virtual object is located 30 degree from the center toward the right side. The value of 0.5, being set as an example, indicates that the pair of virtual objects are at the same radial distance from the intended listener’s position as the audio object in order to not create an image shift for the original object and preserve the power across the virtual objects and the original. Thus, ADM teaches that rendering of the pair of the virtual object should not shift the image of the original object, and by having the pair of the virtual object at the same radial distance from the listener would ensure such requirement.
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 PING LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/PING LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights