DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 2/4/2026:
Claims 1-16, 20, and 22 are pending
Claims 17-19, 21, and 23-28 are withdrawn
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-19, 21, and 23-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/4/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16, 20, and 22 in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged.
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 2, 7-8, 10, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 2, it recites “…wherein the renderer is configured to render a diffuse-sound acoustic impact of the given sound source….” It is unclear whether the renderer is rendering the same “acoustic impact of a diffuse sound” as recited in claim 1 or different. Although worded differently, “diffuse-sound acoustic impact” and “acoustic impact of a diffuse sound” does not appear to be different in scope. Clarification is requested since claim 1 already recites a similar feature and the recitation of “a” implies a different rendering.
Regarding claim 7, it recites “…acoustically coupled via a portal.” Claim 1 already recites “a portal” and thus subsequent recitation should refer to the same “portal”. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 8, it recites “…inside of which the listener position is located….” It is unclear “inside of…” what/where whether there should be more limitations after the “inside of” or not. Inside of the first/second spatial region? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 10, it recites “wherein the renderer is configured to determine in which spatial region relative to a listener's position or a listener's orientation, the spatially extended sound source where the reproduction of the diffuse sound lies, and to render the spatially extended sound source in dependence thereon.” The italicized portion reads grammatically strange and Examiner is unsure if it’s a grammar mistake or else. Claim 11 which recites similar features does not appear to have the same issue.
Regarding claim 16, it recites “the determination” and “the determination of one or more auditory cue information” and “the determination of one or more cue information items” without proper antecedent basis. The Examiner notes that perhaps the claim should be dependent upon claim 15 which has “a determination of one or more auditory cue information.” The Examiner further notes that “the determination of one or more auditory cue information” and “the determination of one or more cue information items” differ because of the word auditory so careful revision is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16, 20, and 22 are allowable upon overcoming the above rejection(s).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claims 1, 20, and 22, the prior art or combination thereof fails to disclose and make obvious the invention as a whole.
Regarding claim 1, Schroder (NPL: “Hybrid method for room acoustic simulation in real-time”) discloses a renderer for rendering an acoustic scene (abstract, VR system),
wherein the renderer is configured to render an acoustic impact of a diffuse sound (pg. 2, rendering of acoustic simulation includes room impulse response which includes direct, early reflections, and late reverberations), which originates in a first spatial region and in a second spatial region (Fig. 3, room to room simulation exemplified),
Schroder fails to explicitly disclose using a spatially extended sound source, and
wherein the renderer is configured to render the acoustic impact of the diffuse sound using a spatially extended sound source which is placed at a portal between the first spatial region and the second spatial region, and which reproduces the diffuse sound which originates from the first spatial region.
Herre et al (EP3879856, disclosed by Applicant) discloses using a spatially extended sound source (abstract).
Herre also fails to explicitly disclose wherein the renderer is configured to render the acoustic impact of the diffuse sound using a spatially extended sound source which is placed at a portal between the first spatial region and the second spatial region, and which reproduces the diffuse sound which originates from the first spatial region.
Schissler et al (NPL: “Interactive Sound Propagation…”, disclosed by Applicant) teaches similar limitation as Schroder. See Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and §4.
However, Schissler fails to explicitly teach wherein the renderer is configured to render the acoustic impact of the diffuse sound using a spatially extended sound source which is placed at a portal between the first spatial region and the second spatial region, and which reproduces the diffuse sound which originates from the first spatial region.
Claims 20 and 22 are allowable for the same rationale as claim 1.
The respective dependent claims are also allowable as they depend upon an allowable parent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 7:30AM-5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on (571)272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691