CTNF 18/762,424 CTNF 101845 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024, 02/25/2025, and 10/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 10 , line 3 , “the source dimension is to be rotate” lacks meaning since the sentence is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections – 35 USC Code § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ( hereafter Lee, US 20210050028 A1 ) in view of Zurek et al. ( hereafter Zurek, US 20150131966 A1 ) . Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20 , Lee discloses: A device configured to process an audio bitstream, the device ( 3D audio decoder 1510 of the audio data reception apparatus 1500, ¶ 197 ) comprising: a memory ( Parts, modules, or units may be a processor or hardware part that executes successive procedures stored in a memory storage unit, ¶ 226 ) configured to store the audio bitstream representative of an audio element in an extended reality scene; and processing circuitry ( The memory may be connected to the processor by various well-known means, ¶ 233 ) coupled of the memory and configured to: obtain a playback dimension ( mainRoomVolume may represent size information about the main room included in the (virtual) space where audio content is played. The size information about the main room may include information about the width, the length, and the height of the main room, ¶ 151 ) associated with a physical space in which playback of the audio bitstream is to occur; obtain a source dimension ( the position information disclosed in ¶ 158 and Fig.15 reads on the claimed source dimension since the position information is used to generating mapping information accordance with the playback space size of the audio content for playing the audio content in the room; thus, the position information acts the same as the claimed source dimension ) associated with a source space for the extended reality scene; modify or mapping, based on the playback space size (playback dimension), the source dimension, a location of the audio element to obtain a modified location for the audio element ( ¶ 158, 161) ; render, based on the modified location for the audio element, the audio element to one or more speaker feeds; and output the one or more speaker feeds ( ¶197) . Lee does not disclose the feature of obtaining a tolerance associated with the extended reality scene and modifying for a new playback dimension for rendering the audio element based on the tolerance. However, Zurek discloses: obtaining a tolerance associated with the extended reality scene and modifying the location of the audio element based on the tolerance for the following reasons. Firstly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “tolerance” is understood as a constraint or ratio besides the scaling factor, that also limits how much the audio can be warped or moved in the scaling process. Either Zurek’s “detecting the New NSST ( step 604, Fig. 6 )” or “Any Audio Source Position Changed” (step 616, Fig.6) reads on the claimed “tolerance” because each of them is a factor that enables the system of Zurek to apply the current SST to the audio source position (source dimension) to the scale of the 3D audio ( step 608, Fig. 6 ) to generate a modified playback dimension ( step 614 ) or a new SST. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the scaling factor/ratio of Lee by considering the “New NSST” or “Any Audio Source Position Changed” as taught by Zurek to generate a modified playback dimension. The modification provides better optimization of the scaling feature so that the virtual space better matches the physical space (see Zurek, ¶ 0017 and 0019-0020) . Regarding claim 2 , Lee’s mapping feature inherently uses the claimed rescale factor. Also, the modification of Lee’s playback dimension in view of the teaching of Zurek as stated in the rejection for claim 1 above will make a new playback dimension or “modified location” according to the “tolerance” or “New NSST” or “Any Audio Source Position Changed” as taught by Zurek. Regarding claim 5 , Lee inherently teaches the source dimension includes a width of the source space, a length of the source space, and a height of the source space because Lee ( ¶ 197 ) teaches that the metadata (6DoF) decoder 1520 may extract 6DoF- related metadata information such as the size information and characteristics information of a playback space. Regarding claim 7 and 8 , Lee in view of Zurek makes obvious: wherein tolerance includes a height tolerance, a width tolerance, and a depth tolerance; wherein the tolerance includes a minimum and maximum for each of the height tolerance, a width tolerance, and a depth tolerance. Firstly, Zurek teaches a “NSST” (reads on the claimed tolerance) that is used to calculate the “SST” to be applied to audio source positions to scale the 3D audio ( ¶ 47, 73-74 and Fig. 6 ). Lee further teaches the technique of scaling a virtual space in accordance with the width, height, and length (reads on the depth) of a playback space ( ¶ 151, 158 and 161 ). Therefore, because Lee’s playback space is defined in three dimensions and Zurek’s NSST is a factor that affects the scaling of 3D audio source positions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to apply Zurek’s NSST to each corresponding dimension, such as the height, width, and depth/length of Lee’s playback space. Thus, the combination teaches a tolerance, including a height tolerance, a width tolerance, and a depth tolerance. It would have been further obvious to implement Zurek’s NSST as a range having a minimum/maximum value for each of the height, width, and depth/length dimensions of Lee’s playback space, as Zurek teaches that the NSST may be updated from one frame to another according to the virtual 3D portal size ( ¶ 47 ). Such min/max ranges would provide a predictable way to maintain the audio source positions within an acceptable scaling range while still allowing the 3D audio source positions to be adapted to the playback space. Regarding claim 11 , Lee’s 3D audio signal being played through the speakers created the claimed sound field because “sound field” is defined as “a physical area where a sound wave travel through a medium”. Since claims 13, 16-19 are corresponding to claims 2, 5, 7-8, thus, they are rejected for the same reasons set forth to their corresponding claims accordingly . 07-22-aia AIA 7 . Claim s 3, 6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Zurek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leppanen et al. ( hereafter Leppanen, US 20250039627 A1 ) . Regarding claim 3 , the combination of Lee and Zurek as stated in the rejection for claims 1 and 2 fails to teach the claimed first syntax element. Lepannen discloses: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain, from the audio bitstream, a first syntax element indicating that auto rescale is to be performed for the audio element (reads on placing audio elements inside the ScaleAnchor element, indicating that the audio elements are to be positioned with respect to the listening space, see Lepannen ¶ 97 ). Zurek discloses: a second syntax element indicating the tolerance ( reads on conveying the instantiation of the NSST within 3D audio/video data, see Zurek ¶ 47 ).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to implement the syntax element techniques of Leppanen and Zurek in the scaling as taught by Lee. The motivation to combine Lee and Zurek in further view of Leppanen is to provide an automatic method for indicating the tolerance and indicating that the scaling is to be performed. Regarding claim 6 , neither Lee nor Zurek discloses: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain a syntax element defining the tolerance from the bitstream.However, Zurek teaches the tolerance ( see rejection to claim 1 ) and Leppanen teaches techniques of encoding virtual scene data into an audio bit-stream ( apparatus 201, 212, and 214, Fig.2 , ¶ 68-72 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to implement the tolerance as taught by Zurek, into the device of Lee, using the bit-stream encoding techniques of Leppanen to encode the tolerance. The motivation to combine Lee and Zurek in further view of Leppanen is to streamline 3D audio rendering with scaling, by embedding scaling constraints directly within audio data. Regarding claim 9 , the combination of Lee and Zurek as stated in the rejection for claim 1 fails to teach the claimed “center alignment” for obtaining a new playback dimension. However, Leppanen teaches a technique of aligning a listener space with a scene using a scene origin ( center of source dimension ) and LSDF origin ( center of playback space ), ( ¶ 64-67, and Figs, 1a, 1b, and 1c ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, to implement the center alignment technique of Leppanen, and the tolerance of Zurek into the device of Lee. The motivation to do so is to provide an additional technique besides scaling to ensure the virtual scene more closely matches the playback space. Claim 14 corresponds to claim 3 discussed above and rejected for the same reason set forth to claim 3 . 07-22-aia AIA 8. Claim s 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Zurek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jax et al. (hereafter Jax, US 20250344032 A1) . Regarding claim 4 , Neither Lee nor Zurek as stated in the rejections for claim 2 determines the rescale factor as the playback dimension divided by the source dimension; However, Jax discloses: determine the rescale factor as the playback dimension divided by the source dimension; Jax ( ¶ 66 ) teaches multiplying the positions of sound objects by the factor ϕw,a/ϕw,r. ,where ϕw,a represents the actual screen width (reads on the playback dimension) and ϕw,r represents the reference screen width (reads on the source dimension) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the scaling factor of Jax in the mapping of Lee. The motivation to do so is to proportionally scale the source space to better match the playback space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the scaling of Lee based on Jax’s teaching of determining the rescale factor as the playback dimension divided by the source dimension for enabling optimization of the scaling so that the virtual space better matches the physical space ( see Zurek, ¶0017 and 0019-0020 ). Regarding the step of modifying the rescale factor based on the tolerance to obtain a new playback space which is inherently depended on a modified rescale factor, the modification as stated in the body of the 103 rejections for claim 1 would perform this feature. Claim 15 corresponds to claim 4 discussed above and rejected for the same reason set forth to claim 4 . 07-22-aia AIA 9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Zurek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blewett et al. ( hereafter Blewett, US 10735885 B1 ) . The combination of Lee, and Zurek as stated above failed to teach the claimed “rotation” feature. However, Blewett describes the technique of rotating a virtual room (source dimension) so that it is more closely aligns to a real room with physical walls (playback dimension), ( Col 8, Lines 12-29 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to implement the rotation technique of Blewett, and the tolerance of Zurek into the device of Lee. The motivation to do so is to provide an additional technique besides scaling to ensure the virtual scene more closely matches the playback space . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure over Robinson et al. ( hereafter Robinson, AU 2016202227 A1 ) since his teaching ( System and Method for Adaptive Audio Signal Generation, Coding and Rendering, System 100, Fig. 1 ) is useable with object-based applications ( e.g., multimedia, video games, simulators, see Robinson, ¶ 0006 ) and further teaches rendering technologies such as binaural rendering, panning ( maybe VBAP ), Ambisonics, etc. ( Robinson, ¶ 0007 ) . Embodiments of the adaptive audio system include a hybrid spatial description approach that includes a complex, multi-point sources (e.g., stadium crowd, ambiance) using an egocentric reference, plus an allocentric, model-based sound description to efficiently enable increased spatial resolution and scalability (¶ 0064 , Line 8-11 ). Adaptive audio: channel-based and/or object-based audio signals plus metadata that renders the audio signals based on the playback environment (¶ 0054 ). The codec 108 combines traditional channel-based audio data with associated metadata to produce audio objects that facilitate the creation and delivery of audio that is adapted and optimized for rendering and playback in environments that maybe different from the mixing environment (¶ 0057 ). Robinson teaches “metadata elements… associated with each … object-based monophonic audio stream to further indicate a spatial distortion threshold” and that metadata element indicates a spatial distortion threshold which determines if a respective sound component will be rendered by the speaker nearest the playback location ( see Robinson , ¶ 0015, and ¶ 0016 and Table 12 ). This suggests that the “spatial distortion threshold” is a type of tolerance that further modifies the intended location for the audio element. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADIP PODDER whose telephone number is (571) 272-8543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am- 7 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/interviewpracticeIf attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7547. 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. /PRADIP C. PODDER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2694 /FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 2 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 3 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 4 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 5 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 6 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 7 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 8 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 9 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 10 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 11 Art Unit: 2694 Application/Control Number: 18/762,424 Page 12 Art Unit: 2694
Prosecution Insights