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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/5/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered. In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 22-23, 25-27, 34-35 and 41. Currently claims 22-41 are pending.
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.
Claim 22-25, 29, 31, 33-37 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fersch et al. (US 2016/0300577) in view of Chinen et al. (US 20180033440).
Regarding Fersch teaches an apparatus (Fig. 3: system 300 for rendering audio content; Fig. 4: example computer system 400; [0066]; [0069]; Examiner’s Note: a general purpose computer, a special purpose computer or a programmable data processing apparatus as exemplary apparatus) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 4: CPU 401; [0069]); and
at least one memory storing instructions (Fig. 4: ROM 402, RAM 403; [0068]) storing instructions ([0063]; [0069]) that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
obtain media content ([0019]: “audio content as input”), wherein the media content comprises at least one audio content;
obtain content information (Fig. 1: step S101; Fig. 2: steps S201-S203), the content information comprising an identification of the at least one audio content ([0022]-[0024]; [0040]; Examiner’s Note: as some examples disclosed in [0022]-[0024], “an identification” is interpreted as a preset priority level of an audio object of media content, which is optionally included in priority metadata);
determine an at least partially reduced rendering of the at least one audio content based, at least partially, on the identification of the at least one audio content (Fig. 2: step S208, “a computing level” is assigned according to determined reduced rendering; [0043]-[0053]),
provide the at least partially reduced rendering of the at least one audio content (Fig. 1: steps S102-S103; Fig. 2: steps S209-S210; [0054]).
Fersch does not further the at least partially reduced rendering comprising causing the apparatus to
reduce a spectral range of the at least one audio content during rendering.
The differentiating feature indicates how reduced rendering comprising is specifically implemented. It is not new in the related art, however.
Chinen, for instance, teaches reduced rendering comprising causing the apparatus to reduce a spectral range of the at least one audio content during rendering (Figs. 9, 10 and 13; [0066]: “In encoding … an audio signal of an object, in the present technology, an amount of calculation in decoding can be decreased by transmitting … priority information of the audio signal of each object”; [0078]: “the encoding device analyzes the degree of the priority degree of the audio signal based on a sound pressure or a spectral shape of the audio signal, and a correlation of spectral shapes between channels or between objects”; [0172]: “in a case where the priority information of a predetermined object is lower than a predetermined threshold value Q, the output selection unit 199 supplies the MDCT coefficient of that object to the zero value output unit 200 as a value zero”; [0174]: “The zero value output unit 200 generates the audio signal based on the MDCT coefficient supplied from output selection unit 199 and supplies the audio signal to the rendering unit 162. In this case, since the MDCT coefficient is zero, a soundless audio signal is generated”; [0213]-[0214]; [0255]: “For example, in the bit stream, a scale factor for obtaining the MDCT coefficient, side information, and a quantized spectrum are included as the encoded data of the audio signal. Here, the scale factor is information for indicating the sound pressure of the audio signal and the quantized spectrum is information indicating the spectral shape of the audio signal”; [0256]: “If the priority information is generated using the scale factor and the quantized spectrum like this, the priority information can immediately obtained before performing the decoding of the encoded data, and thus, it is possible to decrease the amount of calculation for generating the priority information”; [0261]-[0262]; Examiner’s Note: in a case that an audio object is encoded with a priority information resulting in activation of zero value output unit 200 in Fig. 10 or Fig. 13, no processing is implemented for the audio object, i.e., reducing the spectral range of the audio object to zero).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to combine Chinen’s technique with Fersch’s technique to decrease the amount of calculation for decoding while not causing an uncomfortable feeling to a listener by not decoding an audio object selectively ([0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 23, Fersch further teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein determining the at least partially reduced rendering of the at least one audio content comprises the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to at least one of:
dampen rendering of the at least one audio content ([0024]: “the object's gain may also be useful when determining how important the object is”); or
Regarding claim 24, Fersch further teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least partially reduced rendering of the at least one audio content is further based on a quota associated with the identification (Fig. 2: step S208, “a computing level” read on a quota; [0043]-[0053]), wherein the quota is configured to define an amount of audio content ([0019]: “The audio objects will be rendered in different rendering modes according to their priority level, so that less important objects may be rendered in a less complex way to save computational resources, while important objects may be rendered without compromise by allocating more computational resources”; [0024]).
Regarding claim 25, Fersch further teaches the apparatus of claim 24, wherein determining to at least partially reduce the rendering of the at least one audio content comprises the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
determine that the quota associated with the priority identification of the at least one audio content is full (Fig. 2: step S206-S207; [0042]); and
modify the priority identification of the at least one audio content to be a lower priority classification (Fig. 2: steps S206, S208; [0043]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 29, Chinen further teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the media content further comprises at least one of:
video content ([0003]: moving picture is implied as what the prior art is applied); or
image content ([0003]: moving picture is implied as what the prior art is applied).
Regarding claim 31, Fersch further teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein content information comprises at least one of:
an identifier parameter ([0023]: a number from 1 to N associated with the priority level of an audio object reads on an identifier parameter) for identifying which of the at least one audio content the content information is for;
a priority class parameter ([0024]: a spectral parameter, which is necessarily used for spectral analysis to determining a human voice, reads on a priority class parameter) for classifying the at least one audio content with respect to identifying a rendering effect to be applied to the at least one audio content;
a priority effect parameter ([0024]: “Other metadata of the audio object such as the object's gain may also be useful when determining how important the object is”) defining the rendering effect to be applied to the at least one audio content; or
Regarding claim 33, Fersch further teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least one audio content comprises at least one object (Fig. 1: step S101, Fig. 2: steps 201, 205; [0009]-[0010]: “an audio object in the audio content”), wherein the content information comprises priority content information (Fig. 1: step S101; Fig. 2: steps S201-S203), wherein the identification comprises an identification for determining and classifying the at least one audio content ([0022]-[0024]; [0040]; Examiner’s Note: as some examples disclosed in [0024], “an identification identifying and classifying the at least one audio content” is necessarily implemented in order for determining a particular audio object to be human voice, or a particular audio object to have its position far from the center of the entire sound field, and for assignment of an audio object’s gain).
Claim 34 is rejected for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 22.
Claim 35 is rejected for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 23.
Claim 36 is rejected for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 24.
Claim 37 is rejected for substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 25.
Claim 41 is rejected for rejected for substantially the same rationale applied to claims 22 and 34.
Claims 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fersch et al. (US 2016/0300577) in view of Chinen et al. (US 20180033440), and further in view of Leppanen et al. (EP 3174005).
Regarding claim 30, Fersch in view of Chinen does not expressly teach the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the media content comprises at least one spatial audio signal which defines an audio scene (Col. 6, ll. 17-31: the exemplary MR meeting instance comprises at least one spatial audio signal which defines an audio scene)
Fersch in view of Chinen does not expressly teach:
wherein the at least one audio signal object is located in the audio scene, and wherein the at least one spatial audio signal is configured to be rendered according to a content consumer movement.
However, the limitations are not new in the related art.
Leppanen, for instance, teaches in paras. [0031], [0034] and [0040] and Figs. 3-9 an apparatus providing VR content comprises at least one spatial audio signal which defines an audio scene, wherein the at least one audio signal object is located in the audio scene ([0031]; Figs. 3-9: audio signal object associated with singers and presenter in virtual scene), and wherein the at least one spatial audio signal is configured to be rendered according to a content consumer movement ([0034]: last sentence; [0040]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to combine the technique of Fersch in view of Chinen with the technique of Leppanen to further improve the technique of Fersch in view of Chinen to enhance a user’s VR experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-28, 32 and 38-40 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 22 and 34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30 pm-6:00 pm.
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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at 571-272-2963. 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.
/XUEMEI ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629