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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 10/29/2024.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Signed copies of Applicant’s IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 7/3/2024 are noted.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
The claims are drawn to process, apparatus and CRM categories.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Representative Claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea:
Claim 1: “A computer-implemented method for generating reverb on an audio signal in a video game environment during gameplay, the method comprising: receiving virtual camera data from a virtual camera arranged in the video game environment during gameplay, wherein the virtual camera data comprises depth buffer data; processing the virtual camera data to determine one or more features of the video game environment that influence reverb on an audio signal within the video game environment; processing the depth buffer data to determine a distance of the one or more features from the virtual camera; and generating reverb on an audio signal based on the determined distance of the one or more features of the video game environment from the virtual camera.”
The italicized limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG1, “certain methods of organizing human activity”, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The claims are drawn to managing audio effects (reverb) in a video game. The claims require receiving camera depth data, determining features affecting reverb, determining feature distance and generating reverb on audio signals. This process of managing reverb and audio effects is managing interactions between video game players in a gaming session.
Additionally, video games are social activities. Managing audio for video games also falls within the social activity category. The generation of audio signals for realistic video gaming represents following rules or instructions, e.g., following rules representing distance data correlated to realistic reverb output data.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations drawn to a data processing system with memory, (a GUI).
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional computer implementation.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract process. However, these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, see for instance U.S. Pub. No.: 2020/0228911 A1 showing the conventionality of video and audio data processing for gaming applications. Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they only recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit precedent controls2:
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter wherein the claim recites a processing program that is not claimed as embodied in a non-transitory storage medium. Because Applicant's disclosure is not limited solely to tangible embodiments, the claimed subject matter, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be a carrier wave comprising of instructions and is, therefore, non-statutory. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage media, particularly when the specification is silent. (See MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2).
To overcome this type of rejection, the claims need to be amended to include only the physical computer storage media unassociated with any intangible or non-functional transmission media. Examiner suggests adding the word -- non-transitory -- to the claim. Other word choices will be considered but the one proposed shall overcome the rejection. Appropriate attention is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 & 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ballard et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2017/0171685 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 16 & 17: Ballard discloses a computer-implemented method, system and CRM with instructions for generating reverb on an audio signal in a video game environment during gameplay, (Abstract, Fig. 1, ¶ 55), the method comprising: receiving virtual camera data from a virtual camera, (¶¶ 56, 64, 109), arranged in the video game environment during gameplay, (¶¶ 22-24), wherein the virtual camera data comprises depth buffer data, (¶¶ 109, 112), wherein ; processing the virtual camera data to determine one or more features of the video game environment that influence reverb on an audio signal within the video game environment, (Figs. 4-6 and related descriptions); processing the depth buffer data to determine a distance of the one or more features from the virtual camera, (¶¶ 23-25); and generating reverb on an audio signal based on the determined distance of the one or more features of the video game environment from the virtual camera, (Fig. 13A and related descriptions).
Regarding Claim 2: Ballard discloses wherein the one or more features comprise a feature of a surface within the video game environment, (¶ 76, Fig. 13B).
Regarding Claim 3: Ballard discloses wherein the feature of a surface comprises one or more of: a position of the surface within the video game environment; a dimension of the surface; or the acoustic reflectivity of the surface, (e.g., ¶¶ 76, 78, 86).
Regarding Claim 11: Ballard discloses wherein the reverb in the video game environment is calculated from a perspective of a player character, (Figs. 4-6 and related descriptions).
Regarding Claim 12: Ballard discloses wherein generating the reverb on the audio signal comprises: increasing the reverb if the one or more features indicate a presence of an increased number of sound-reflective surfaces within the video game environment; or decreasing the reverb if the one or more features indicate the presence of a reduced number of sound-reflective surfaces within the video game environment, (e.g., ¶¶ 23, 25, 26, 32.)
Regarding Claim 13: Ballard discloses wherein generating the reverb comprises inputting the one or more features into a parametric reverb engine, (Figs. 7, 10, 19 and related description).
Regarding Claim 14: Ballard discloses processing the virtual camera data to determine a presence of one or more walls or ceilings within the virtual environment; and adjusting the generated reverb based on the determined presence of one or more walls or ceilings, (¶¶ 22, 24, 25).
Regarding Claim 15: Ballard discloses repeatedly receiving and processing virtual camera data during gameplay to vary the reverb applied to the audio signal during gameplay, (e.g., Fig. 18 and related descriptions.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2017/0171685 A1) in view of U.S. Pub. No.: 2019/0028829 A1 (hereafter “the ’829 reference”).
Ballard discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not make explicit a plurality of cameras providing a 360-degree field of view, each with a different orientation, directed outward, arranged perpendicular to represent 6 cartesian directions, a primary camera with a player line of sight having a higher resolution than the other cameras and the cameras having depth and image buffers as recited by these claims.
In a related invention, the ‘829 reference teaches an audio system teaching or suggesting each of these features. For example, see e.g., the ‘829 reference, Abstract, ¶¶ 34, 45-47, 62, 66. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have provided the imaging systems suggested by the ‘829 reference in Ballard’s system for several reasons including increasing audio spatialization accuracy.
A person of ordinary skill would recognize that providing for example, cameras with a 360-degree field of view, increases accuracy. It is also noted that the claimed depth and camera buffers are merely memory structures, both of which are shown and/or rendered obvious by the ‘829 reference’s disclosure of memory devices facilitating processing of camera and depth/distance data. Likewise, arranging cameras perpendicular as claimed to capture the 6 cartesian directions is purely a design consideration that accomplishes the same outcome as the prior art, namely, to maximize capturing a 360 degree field of view.3 Finally, designating a particular camera as higher resolution compared to the remaining cameras is likely purely a design consideration that accomplishes the same outcome as the prior art, namely, to maximize realistic audio spatialization in closest/most direct proximity to the target, which happens to be the user (the ‘829 reference explicitly suggests higher resolution imaging including x-ray).
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See MPEP 2106
2: Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015)
3 See Applicant’s Specifications, ¶¶ 16-19.