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 .
This communication is responsive to application no. 18/783,927 filed on 03/05/2026.
3. Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are currently pending and has been examined. Claims 17-21 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDSs are considered.
The drawings filed on 07/25/2024 are noted.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 22, and 23 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.
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.
8. Claims 1, 21, 24, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitation of: “obtaining a first ambisonics signal representing a sound”.
The limitation of receiving from a user a request to place a wager on an event; and presenting for purchase to the user an option to cancel the wager in exchange for a refund amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-16 and 21-24 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a processor to upmixing the first ambisonics signal to perform both obtaining and upmixing steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer configured to simulate the effect of sound audio) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of deriving, based on upmixing the first ambisonics signal, a second ambisonics signal that has a higher quality representation of the sound than the first ambisonics signal. Thus, taken alone, the additional element fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-16 and 21-24 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
10. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-12, 15, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chon, Sanbae et al. (US PG PUB 2018/0091919).
As per claims 1, 3-4, 7-12, and 15, Chon discloses:
A method and device for processing an audio signal expressible as an ambisonics signal (see., abstract), comprsing:
Obtaining a first ambisonics signal representing a sound, upmixing the first ambisonics signal; and deriving, based on upmixing the first ambisonics signal, a second ambisonics signal that has a higher quality representation of the sound than the first ambisonics signal (see., paragraphs 0080, 0089, and 0127, in regard to the limitation of higher quality, the examiner broadly and reasonably interprets where the format converter converts a higher order ambisonics as taught by Chon as higher quality).
As per claim 21, Chon discloses:
One or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: obtaining a first ambisonics signal representing a sound; upmixing the first ambisonics signal; and deriving, based on upmixing the first ambisonics signal, a second ambisonics signal that has a higher quality representation of the sound than the first ambisonics signal (see., paragraphs 0080, 0089, and 0127, in regard to the limitation of higher quality, the examiner broadly and reasonably interprets where the format converter converts a higher order ambisonics as taught by Chon as higher quality).
As per claim 24, Chon discloses:
One or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: obtaining a first ambisonics signal representing a sound; upmixing the first ambisonics signal; and deriving, based on upmixing the first ambisonics signal, a second ambisonics signal that has a higher quality representation of the sound than the first ambisonics signal (see., paragraphs 0080, 0089, and 0127, in regard to the limitation of higher quality, the examiner broadly and reasonably interprets where the format converter converts a higher order ambisonics as taught by Chon as higher quality).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 5:30PM. Hoteler.
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, Hu Kang can be reached on 571 270 1344. 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.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights