DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herre et al, WO 2020/127329 (hereinafter Herre) in view of Thall et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0296533 (hereinafter Thall).
Regarding claim 18, Herre discloses an audio scene generator for generating an audio scene description (from line 35 of page 8, see On the generator- or encoder-side, a bitstream is generated using an apparatus for generating the bitstream representing a compressed description for a spatially extended sound source), comprising:
a spatially extended sound source (SESS) data generator (see Figure 10) configured for generating SESS data of the spatially extended sound source, wherein the SESS data represents a first bitstream element; and
an output interface for generating the audio scene description comprising the SESS data, wherein the output interface is configured to generate the audio scene description as a transmitted or stored bitstream (see Figure 11) comprising the first bitstream element.
Still on the issue of claim 18, Herre does not explicitly teach a modification data generator configured for generating modification data on a potentially modifying object, wherein the modification data represents a second bitstream element, the transmitted or stored bitstream comprising the second bitstream element. All the same, Thall discloses a modification data generator configured for generating modification data on a potentially modifying object (from Figure 2, see 215). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Herre with a modification data generator configured for generating modification data on a potentially modifying object as taught by Thall (the combination of references shows that the modification data of Thall is represented by the bitstream of Herre). This modification would have improved the listening experience by rendering a more realistic audio environment as suggested by Thall (see paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Herre and Thall discloses the audio scene generator of claim 18, wherein the modification data (see Figure 4 of Thall) comprises a description of a low pass function, wherein the low pass function comprises an attenuation value for a higher frequency, the attenuation value for the higher frequency representing an attenuation value being stronger compared to an attenuation value for a lower frequency, and wherein the output interface is configured to introduce the description of the attenuation function as the modification data into the audio scene description (see Figure 11 of Herre).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Herre and Thall discloses the audio scene generator of claim 18, wherein the modification data comprises geometry data (see Figure 3A of Thall) on the potentially modifying object, and wherein the output interface is configured to introduce the geometry data on the potentially modifying object as the modification data into the audio scene description (see Figure 11 of Herre).
Regarding claim 21, Herre discloses the audio scene generator of claim 18, wherein the SESS data generator (see Figure 10) is configured to generate, as the SESS data, a location of the SESS, and information on a geometry of the SESS, and wherein the output interface is configured to introduce, as the SESS data, the information on the location of the SESS and the information on the geometry of the SESS.
Regarding claim 22, Herre discloses the audio scene generator of claim 18, wherein the SESS data generator (see Figure 10) is configured to generate, as the SESS data, an information on a size, on a position, or on an orientation of the spatially extended sound source, or waveform data for one or more audio signals associated with the spatially extended sound source, or wherein the modification data calculator is configured to calculate, as the modification data, a geometry of a potentially modifying object such as a potentially occluding object.
Regarding claim 23, Herre discloses a method of generating an audio scene description (from line 35 of page 8, see On the generator- or encoder-side, a bitstream is generated using an apparatus for generating the bitstream representing a compressed description for a spatially extended sound source), comprising:
generating (see Figure 10) spatially extended sound source (SESS) data of the spatially extended sound source, wherein the SESS data represents a first bitstream element; and
generating the audio scene description comprising the SESS data, wherein the audio scene description is generated as a transmitted or stored bitstream (see Figure 11) comprising the first bitstream element.
Still on the issue of claim 23, Herre does not teach generating modification data on a potentially modifying object, wherein the modification data represents a second bitstream element, the transmitted or stored bitstream comprising the second bitstream element. All the same, Thall discloses generating modification data on a potentially modifying object (from Figure 2, see 215). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Herre with generating modification data on a potentially modifying object as taught by Thall (the combination of references shows that the modification data of Thall is represented by the bitstream of Herre). This modification would have improved the listening experience by rendering a more realistic audio environment as suggested by Thall (see paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 24, Herre discloses a non-transitory digital storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform a method of generating an audio scene description (from line 35 of page 8, see On the generator- or encoder-side, a bitstream is generated using an apparatus for generating the bitstream representing a compressed description for a spatially extended sound source), the method comprising:
generating (see Figure 10) spatially extended sound source (SESS) data of the spatially extended sound source, wherein the SESS data represents a first bitstream element; and
generating the audio scene description comprising the SESS data, wherein the audio scene description is generated as a transmitted or stored bitstream (see Figure 11) comprising the first bitstream element.
Still on the issue of claim 24, Herre does not teach generating modification data on a potentially modifying object, wherein the modification data represents a second bitstream element, the transmitted or stored bitstream comprising the second bitstream element. All the same, Thall discloses generating modification data on a potentially modifying object (from Figure 2, see 215). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Herre with generating modification data on a potentially modifying object as taught by Thall (the combination of references shows that the modification data of Thall is represented by the bitstream of Herre). This modification would have improved the listening experience by rendering a more realistic audio environment as suggested by Thall (see paragraph 0017).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-10 and 12-17 are allowed.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLISA ANWAH whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
May 16, 2026
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights