DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application.
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 § 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(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layton et al. (US 20060287748 A1) in view of Bank (US 20180063211 A1) (provided in response to applicant’s challenge of examiner’s official notice).
Regarding claim 1, Layton discloses a device (see figures 2-4) comprising:
a memory (48 of figure 4, paragraph [0073]) configured to store audio data associated with an immersive audio environment (see abstract, paragraphs [0073]-[0075]); and
one or more processors (40 and peripheral devices of 21 of figure 4, see paragraph [0075]) configured to:
obtain a listener pose in the immersive audio environment (paragraph [0046], "a global positioning system locater to determine a current spatial location of a listener and an accelerometer device to determine a current orientation");
obtain an asset associated with the listener pose (such as audio stream to be output close to the location or URL information, paragraphs [0048] and [0075] to [0076]) and retrieve the asset from the memory or obtain the asset from a remote device (paragraphs [0075] to [0076], also see data cache 48 of figure 4, and “local data” block of figure 8); and
generate an output audio signal based on the asset (local sound sources or ULR audio streams, paragraphs [0048] and [0075] to [0076], “The track player determination unit 13 utilises the current position information from the system 11 to determine suitable audio tracks to play around the current position of the listener 15”).
Layton also discloses wherein “data cache 48 is provided for storing frequently used data”, paragraph [0073], and “Advantageously, the method further comprises the step of downloading said audio content from a computer network”, paragraph [0031].
Layton does not expressly discloses determining whether an asset is stored locally and retrieving based on the determination.
Bank discloses wherein a processor (that of client electronic device 56 or computer 28 of figure 1, paragraph [0058]) is configured to determine whether data associated with audio is stored locally at the memory (paragraph [0043], “determine the location of the stream/file associated with that entry”) and
based on the determination, select whether to retrieve the asset from the memory or to obtain the asset from a remote device (paragraph [0043], “If this media data file (i.e., Jailhouse Rock) is available locally (e.g., within c:\mymusic\), client application 40 may locally obtain … However, for this particular entry, the media data file is not available locally. Therefore, client application 40 may remotely obtain).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the determination of the presence of local data and retrieval selection of Bank in the system of Layton for the benefit of using faster local memory when the data is available and when not retrieving the data from a network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bank with Layton, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Layton discloses wherein the asset corresponds to one or more audio streams associated with the immersive audio environment.
Regarding claim 7, Layton discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform a rendering operation (via 12) on the asset during generation of the output audio signal (paragraphs [0044] to [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Layton discloses wherein the output audio signal includes an output binaural signal, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to binauralize an output of the rendering operation to generate the output binaural signal (paragraph [0110]).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Layton and Bank of claim 1 discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to, based on a determination that the asset is not stored locally at the memory:
select to obtain the asset from the remote device (no other choice);
initiate retrieval of the asset from the remote device (necessarily must be done to get data);
decode the asset at an audio stream decoder (required for network traffic paragraph [0031] and streaming audio paragraph [0075]); and
generate the output audio signal at a renderer (via 12).
Regarding claim 13, Layton discloses wherein the listener pose indicates a position of a listener in the immersive audio environment (paragraph [0046], [0029], and [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, Layton discloses wherein the listener pose indicates a position of a listener and an orientation of the listener in the immersive audio environment (paragraph [0046], [0029], and [0055]).
Regarding claim 15, Layton discloses further comprising a pose sensor coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the pose sensor and the one or more processors are integrated within a head-mounted wearable device (paragraph [0050] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 16, Layton discloses further comprising a modem coupled to the one or more processors and configured to receive the asset from the remote device (paragraph [0109]).
Claim 17 is rejected in a analogous manner to claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected in a analogous manner to claim 10.
Claim 20 is rejected in a analogous manner to claim 1 in view of paragraph [0073] of Layton.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9, 11, 12, and 19 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 filed April 10th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous objections to the specification.
In general applicant argues that the Layton reference does not teach all the claimed limitations and that the examiner’s use of official notice is improper (see applicant’s arguments dated April 10th, 2026, starting page 7). The examiner disagrees and provides a reference to support the official notice.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, “However, Layton nowhere discloses any processor logic that determines, at asset-selection time and based on listener pose, whether a pose-associated asset is stored locally and conditionally selects between local retrieval and remote retrieval based on that determination.
The mere presence of a cache does not satisfy the claim requirement. Claim 1 is not directed to storing data per se, but to an explicit decision operation performed by the processor in response to a listener pose, where the retrieval source (local memory versus remote device) is selected based on the outcome of that determination. Layton is silent as to any such conditional, pose-aware retrieval selection” (see applicant’s arguments dated April 10th, 2026, top of page 8).
The examiner disagrees. The claim does not contain many of the elements mentioned by applicant. There is no mention of asset selection, no mention of an asset-selection time, the determination being based on the listener pose, performing steps in response to a listener pose, or pose aware retrieval selection. The claim only states “determine whether an asset associated with the listener pose is stored locally at the memory”. This is not related to a time and the determination is not based on the pose other than the asset is “associated with it”. An “asset” could exist that is associated with all possible poses, and therefore not dependent on what pose is obtained. The claim further states “based on the determination, select whether to retrieve the asset from the memory or to obtain the asset from a remote device” this selection is not based on the pose but on the determination result. The examiner maintains that this type of procedure reads on rudimentary memory cache hierarchy, well known in the art.
Applicant has not defined the “asset” in enough detail to differentiate it from generic data. There is no mention of what an asset is in the claim. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “an asset associated with the listener pose” would include any data related to the listener pose. The written description provides no definition of an “asset” and there is no indication that a special meaning should be given.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the examiner’s reliance on official notice is improper (see applicant’s arguments dated April 10th, 2026, page 8). The examiner has provided the Bank reference as above as evidence.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, “Layton does not disclose: … performing such determination at retrieval time” (see applicant’s arguments dated April 10th, 2026, top of page 9). The examiner would again like to point out that no “retrieval time” is mentioned in the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning ” (see applicant’s arguments dated April 10th, 2026, top of page 9), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., asset selection, an asset-selection time, the determination being based on the listener pose, performing steps in response to a listener pose, pose aware retrieval selection, performing such determination at retrieval time) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hennessy and Patterson, "Computer Architecture - A Quantitative Approach (Fifth Edition)", chapter 2. (see section 2.1 and figure 2.1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights