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 .
This communication is to response to Applicant’s amendment No. 18/647,606 filed on 03/04/20264.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are currently pending and has been examined. Claims 19-20 are canceled
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 04/26/2024 is considered.
The drawings filed on 04/26/2024 are noted.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-13 and 17 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.
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.
8. Claims 1, 21, 22, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitation of: “a computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining one or more sound reproduction properties of an audio output device that is connected to a video gaming system”.
The limitation of obtaining one or more sound reproduction properties of an audio output device that is connected to a video gaming, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-18 and 21-22 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a computer/processor to selected a subset of a plurality of audio components based at least on the obtained sound reproduction properties of the audio output device to perform both obtaining and selecting steps. The computer/processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer generating audio output) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of outputting, to the audio output device, the selected subset of the plurality of audio components. Thus, taken alone, the additional element fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-18 and 21-22 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-8, 14-16, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hilbert Scott T. et al. (US PG PUB 2017/0046906).
As per claims 1, 6, 8, 14-16, and 18 Hilbert discloses a gaming system which includes one or more input devices, visual display devices, and information processors. A corresponding audio components of a plurality of presentations are selectively mixed such that the audio component of the primary visual representation is dominant on at least one audio output device (see., abstract), comprising: obtaining one or more sound reproduction properties of an audio output device that is connected to a video gaming system (see., paragraphs 0100, fig 4, specifically the three dimensional (3D) audio effect that can be generated to manipulate sound produced by self-stereo speakers 22. The examiner broadly and reasonably interprets the sound reproduction as the audio effect that has been manipulated); selecting a subset of a plurality of audio components based at least on the obtained sound reproduction properties of the audio out device (see., abstract, paragraphs 0006, 0039, 0083, and 0106, the audio components that correspond to a plurality of visual presentation, audio output devices 395); outputting, to the audio output device, the selected subset of the plurality of audio components (see., abstract, paragraphs 0006, 0106, the plurality of visual presentation is readable as a subset of the plurality of audio components).
As per claim 2, Hilbert discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claim 1 above, wherein each of the plurality of audio components corresponds to an audio asset (see., paragraphs 0114, 0070, and 0124).
As per claim 3, Hilbert discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claim 1 above, wherein the subset of the plurality of audio components comprises a proper subset of the plurality of audio components (see., abstract, paragraphs 0006, and 0106, the plurality of visual presentation is readable as a subset of the plurality of audio components).
As per claim 4, Hilbert discloses the claimed limitations, wherein each of the plurality of audio components are associated with a priority value (see., paragraphs 0037 and 0134); and the subset of the plurality of audio components is selected based at least on the priority value (see., paragraphs 0006 and 0106, the plurality of visual presentation is readable as a subset of the plurality of audio components, quantitative value).
As per claim 5, Hilbert discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claim 1 above, wherein the subset of the plurality of audio components is selected based at least on a priority value threshold that is determined, based on the obtained one or more sound reproduction properties of the audio output device (see., paragraphs 0118, default value or paragraph 0129, step 615, threshold value).
As per claim 7, Hilbert discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claim 1 above, wherein the subset of the plurality of audio components are selected based at least on audio characteristics of the audio components (see., paragraphs 0006 and 0106, the plurality of visual presentation is readable as a subset of the plurality of audio components, quantitative value).
As per claims 21 and 22, Hilbert discloses a gaming system which includes one or more input devices, visual display devices, and information processors. A corresponding audio components of a plurality of presentations are selectively mixed such that the audio component of the primary visual representation is dominant on at least one audio output device (see., abstract), comprising: one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see., paragraph 0052); obtaining one or more sound reproduction properties of an audio output device that is connected to a video gaming system (see., paragraphs 0100, fig 4, specifically the three dimensional (3D) audio effect that can be generated to manipulate sound produced by self-stereo speakers 22. The examiner broadly and reasonably interprets the sound reproduction as the audio effect that has been manipulated); selecting a subset of a plurality of audio components based at least on the obtained sound reproduction properties of the audio out device (see., abstract, paragraphs 0006, 0039, 0083, and 0106, the audio components that correspond to a plurality of visual presentation, audio output devices 395); outputting, to the audio output device, the selected subset of the plurality of audio components (see., abstract, paragraphs 0006, 0106, the plurality of visual presentation is readable as a subset of the plurality of audio components).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 7:30PM. Hoteler.
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, Hu Kang can be reached on 571 270 1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights