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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 31 each recite the limitation "selecting one or more audio components … according to their respective priority…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no prior mention in either claim of any priority being assigned to any audio components. It is recommended to amend each of claims 1 and 31 to clarify how a priority is determined and/or assigned to each of a plurality of audio components such that selection could be made based on priorities.
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.
Claims 1, 22-23, 25-26, 32-33 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2007/0266168 A1 to Sampat et al. in view of US 2017/0105083 A1 to Nair.
Re claim 1, Sampat teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, a plurality of audio components during gameplay of a video game;
The abstract describes that Sampat is directed to prioritizing audio streams of a video game application on a mobile device by a processor executing an application.
during gameplay, outputting an audio stream corresponding to the plurality of audio components;
[0026], a video game application executed on mobile device 10 can “include several audio streams, such as one or more types of background music, and a number of interactive real-time sound effects (such as explosions or gunfire). The audio streams may correspond to different audio channels of the game. Some video games provide many sound effects …, e.g., sounds for jumping, running, sliding, driving, turning, changing direction, and the like. Also, sounds may be associated with background characters as well, or the appearance or destruction of such characters. Indeed, the number of sound effect channels in a video game is generally unlimited and typically defined by the game designer (also referred to more generally as the content provider of the application).”
[0027], “… audio instructions may be delivered to the user, from the game, in response to action by the video game characters. Such instructions may be needed for the user to understand the game. Other sounds, however, may be less important, such as gunfire or explosions, and may enhance the user experience, but may be unnecessary for the user to understand the game. Still other sounds may be even less important, such as background music or other sounds.”
[0028], “In accordance with this disclosure, audio streams are encoded separately in the application that executes on processor 12.”
determining a utilization of the processor outputting the audio stream; comparing the utilization to a threshold value; determining the utilization satisfies the threshold value;
[0045] describes that, when audio streaming starts, an audio task may determine whether a) enough memory exists to handle the audio stream and b) whether processing speed is insufficient to handle a given audio stream, even if there is enough memory.
[0051] describes an example where a low quality platform only has sufficient processing speed to ensure the inclusion of high priority streams.
in response to determining the utilization satisfies the threshold value, selecting one or more audio components of the plurality of audio components to adjust according to their respective priority in order to reduce the processor utilization in outputting the audio stream;
and adjusting one or more selected audio components of the audio stream to provide for output.
[0004], an illustrative embodiment of a low-quality cell phone may be determined to have insufficient processing power to decode multimedia in real-time. In this case, the audio complexity will be reduced in order to allow the game to function on the lower quality cell phone.
[0030]-[0031], by contrast, a mobile device 10 with a faster decoding unit 16 (processor) is enabled to generate enhanced audio relative to a lower quality device, based in part on the priority given to a plurality of audio streams.
[0043] describes that an output (combined audio stream) is created by an audio task, based on platform constraints including “limited processing power,” wherein the audio streams used to create the combined audio stream are chosen based on priority – “Each respective audio stream is included only if sufficient memory and processing power are available after inclusion of the higher priority audio streams.” It is noted that this decision process can be adaptive, and change based on complexity of high priority streams.
[0044] describes that one or more “low priority” audio streams are “excluded from the common audio stream in a given instance” in order to “free system resources”.
The claimed “adjustment” is met by at least temporarily omitting certain low priority audio components from a common audio stream and reserving them for possible inclusion in the common audio stream if the amount of data associated with high priority audio components decreases.
Although Sampat teaches substantially the same inventive concept, Sampat’s primary embodiment adjusts a combined audio stream based on CPU utilization so as not to include selected audio components below a priority threshold to conserve processor resources (see [0043]). Sampat thus lacks adjusting a quality of selected streams based on CPU utilization.
Nair is an analogous audio degradation reference that, like Sampat, uses established stream priorities to determine which of a plurality of streams to affect in order to conserve limited CPU resources. The discussion of Nair in the Non-Final Rejection of 01/13/2026 is incorporated by reference herein. For background on the operation of Nair, refer to [0031], describing a field of uses for 3D computer game audio synthesis, [0204], describing measuring CPU resources available, [0207], describing audio stream priority levels and quality requirements.
Nair teaches, see [0063]-[0064], that when CPU resources are insufficient, certain selected audio sources given lower priorities, such as distant sound sources, are degraded using a lower-quality synthesis than more critical sound sources.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that in Sampat, instead of merely omitting certain low-priority audio sources to save limited CPU resources, that certain audio sources could be included but at a degraded quality as taught by Nair without causing any unexpected results. The motivation to include degraded versions of less-critical or background sounds as opposed to omitting them entirely would be to maintain a richer environment that upheld the CPU resource usage optimization of Sampat.
Re claims 22-23, 32-33, gameplay audio components include data files containing player and non player character sound effects (e.g., [0038], sounds for jumping, running, sliding, driving, turning, changing direction, background characters). Any additional characteristics of sound file data recited in the claim fail to distinguish over the prior art because a payload of computer-readable media that merely exists to convey information to a user without affecting the function of the computer itself is a matter of nonfunctional descriptive material. MPEP 2111.05 Part III. provides instructions for the examination of claims directed to computer-readable media. Here it is explained that:
Where the programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship will be found. For instance, a claim to computer-readable medium programmed with attribute data objects that perform the function of facilitating retrieval, addition, and removal of information in the intended computer system, establishes a functional relationship such that the claimed attribute data objects are given patentable weight. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.
The instant claims to certain types of audio data files are likened to the second case, wherein the claims are directed to conveying a message to a human reader without causing any function that improves the function of the computer itself or otherwise causes a transformation that would define the graphical message combined with the computer as a new invention.
Re claim 21, refer to the rejection of claim 21, and note that in [0044], Sampat indicates that audio processing uses a limited portion of “system resources of the platform”, and prior in [0003] Sampat describes that it was known in the prior art that mobile devices process “audio and video information” that is “segmented into frames”.
Re claims 25, 35, Sampat teaches that types of audio data affects the priority given, see [0026]-[0027]. An example provided is that gunfire or explosion sound data may be less important for understanding the context of video game action than other sound data, such as instructive sounds.
Re claims 26, 36, Nair in [0063] teaches that relative priorities for virtual audio sources can be established based on distances of the virtual audio sources from the player character within the game environment, where audio components having a virtual audio source nearer (closer) to the player character are determined as having a higher priority.
Re claim 31, refer to the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampat in view of US 9,253,559 B1 to Post.
Re claims 24 and 34, although Sampat teaches substantially the same inventive concept wherein audio components can be degraded based on available system resources, Sampat is silent as to whether audio processing resources are expressed as a percentage of total resources.
Post is an analogous prior art reference in the art of audio processing on a mobile device. Post teaches that it was known, see 9:15-29, that audio processing capability can be determined as a percentage of total mobile device processing capability.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention that Sampat’s decision process on audio degradation could have involved determining a percentage of available system resources as taught by Post without causing any unexpected results. The motivation would be to facilitate audio stream degradation based on a simple to calculate metric.
Claims 27-28, 37-38, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampat in view of Nair and US 2020/0382894 A1 to Wash et al.
Re claims 27-28 and 37-38, Although Nair, as used in combination with Sampat, teaches in [0063] that certain audio may be degraded wherein “The user may not notice that a lower-quality binaural synthesis may be used on, for example, sounds that are fainter, farther away, or less interesting to the user”, Sampat in view of Nair is silent as to whether game world sounds that are fainter, farther away or less interesting are determined using eye gaze-tracked user gaze.
Walsh is an analogous prior art reference in the art of virtual audio synthesis for 3D virtual environments subject to audio quality priorities, see abstract. Walsh teaches that it was known in the art for virtual sound-producing objects located centrally in a user’s field of vision to be rendered at a higher quality than objects located outside a central field of vision to reduce computational costs (abstract, Figs. 1, 3-4 and [0020], [0021] which disclose that the gaze tracking used for audio rendering quality determination can be by “an eye-tracking device”.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that Sampat in view of Nair’s 3D virtual game world audio degradation could have used gaze tracking to determine audio-of-interest as taught by Walsh. The expected advantage would be to provide more intelligent audio degradation for saving CPU usage than was possible before the use of gaze tracking.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-30 and 39 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, and if the 35 USC 112(b) antecedent basis rejection of claims 1 and 31 are overcome.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights