CTNF 18/829,925 CTNF 88844 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. This office action is in response to applicant’s filing dated 9/10/2024, claims 21-40 are currently pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 07-05-01 AIA The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 40 describes a “computer readable medium” , Further, Applicant's specification, at paragraph [0040], fails to explicitly define the scope of “a computer readable medium”. Thus, in giving the term its plain meaning (see MPEP 2111.01), the claimed “computer readable medium” is considered to include data signals per se. Data signals per se are not statutory as they fail to fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention. As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer readable media excludes transitory data signals . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 21-22, 26, 31-32, 36, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiekata (US 20090141912 A1) hereinafter Hiekata in view of Stengel et al. (US 20210350550 A1) hereinafter Stengel . Regarding claim 21, Hiekata teaches an apparatus (“In an object sound extraction apparatus” in ¶[Abstract]) comprising: at least one processor (“the spectrum subtraction processing section 31, and the level detection/coefficient setting section 32 are realized, for example, by Digital Signal Processor (DSP), which is an example of a computer, a read-only memory (ROM) that stores a program implemented by the DSP” in ¶[0064]); and at least one memory storing instructions that (“a read-only memory (ROM) that stores a program implemented by the DSP” in ¶[0064]), when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: obtain at least two audio signals (“As illustrated in FIG. 1, the object sound extraction apparatus X1 includes an acoustic input device V1 that has microphones” in ¶[0057]); Hiekata further teaches determine, with respect to the at least two audio signals, an audio object part and an ambience audio part (“The sound source separation processing sections 10 (10-1 to 10-3) are provided for each combination of the main acoustic signal and the sub acoustic signals. On the basis of the combination of the main acoustic signal and the sub acoustic signals, a sound source separation processing is performed. In the sound source separation processing, an object sound separation signal that is a separation signal (identification signal of object sound) corresponding to the object sound and a reference sound separation signal (identification signal of reference sound) corresponding to the reference sounds (can be referred to as noises) that are the sounds other than the object sound are separated and generated (an example of the sound source separation section)” in ¶[0057]), Hiekata does not specifically disclose the apparatus further comprising obtain, via a network transport channel, an orientation of a user, nor does he specifically disclose that the determination is based, at least partially, on the orientation of the user however, Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Stengel for an apparatus to further comprise obtain, via a network transport channel, an orientation of a user (“can be rendered on content server 130, as may relate to orientation data received from headset 104, and transmitted over network 120 to client device 110 and ultimately VR headset 104” in ¶[0045]), that the determination is based, at least partially, on the orientation of the user, An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Hiekata with the teachings of Stengel for the benefit of improving the immersive audio experience of the user, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiekata with Stengel. Regarding claim 22, Hiekata as modified by Stengel teaches the apparatus of claim 21, Hiekata further teaches the apparatus further comprising wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: separate the at least two audio signals into the audio object part and the ambience audio part; and generate an audio object part audio signal based on a previous time level parameter (“the level detection/coefficient setting section 32 detects an average value or a total of signal values (signal values in frequency bins in the reference sound separation signals in the frequency domain) of the frequency spectrums in the individual reference sound separation signals, or a value obtained by normalizing the values by a predetermined reference value as the signal level” in ¶[0081]). Regarding claim 26, Hiekata as modified by Stengel teaches the apparatus of claim 21, Stengel further teaches the apparatus further comprising wherein the orientation of the user is received from a playback apparatus, wherein the apparatus is physically separate from the playback apparatus (“as may relate to orientation data received from headset 104, and transmitted over network 120 to client device 110 and ultimately VR headset 104” in ¶[0045]). Regarding claim 31, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the apparatus of rejected claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above). Regarding claim 32, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the apparatus of rejected claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 above). Regarding claim 36, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the apparatus of rejected claim 26 (see rejection of claim 26 above). Regarding claim 40, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the apparatus of rejected claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 23, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiekata (US 20090141912 A1) hereinafter Hiekata in view of Stengel et al. (US 20210350550 A1) hereinafter Stengel and further in view of Vilkamo et al. (GB 2584838 A) hereinafter Vilkamo . Regarding claim 23, Hiekata as modified by Stengel teaches the apparatus of claim 22, Hiekata as modified by Stengel does not specifically disclose the apparatus further comprising wherein generating the audio object part audio signal comprises the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine an object separation direction parameter; determine a focuser configuration based on the object separation direction parameter and the previous time level parameter; and apply the focuser configuration to the at least two audio signals to generate the audio object part audio signal however, Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Vilkamo for an apparatus to further comprise wherein generating the audio object part audio signal comprises the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine an object separation direction parameter ("The spatial audio signal and the processed spatial audio signal may comprise respective parametric spatial audio signals, wherein a parametric spatial audio signal may comprise one or more audio channels and spatial metadata, wherein the spatial metadata may comprise a respective direction indication" in Page 4, Lines 5-9); determine a focuser configuration based on the object separation direction parameter and the previous time level parameter ("compute, for one or more frequency sub-bands spectral adjustment factors based on the spatial metadata and the focus shape and focus amount;" in Page 4, Lines 12-13); and apply the focuser configuration to the at least two audio signals to generate the audio object part audio signal ("compute gain adjustment factors based on the respective audio channel direction indication, the focus shape and focus amount; apply the gain adjustment factors to the respective audio channels; and compose the processed spatial audio signal comprising the one or more processed multichannel loudspeaker audio channels and/or the one or more processed audio object channels" in Page 4, lines 25-30), An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Hiekata as modified by Stengel with the teachings of Vilkamo for the benefit of improving the accuracy of the output signal of the apparatus, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiekata as modified by Stengel with Vilkamo. Regarding claim 33, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the apparatus of rejected claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23 above) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 24-25, 27-30, 34-35, 37-39 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAR T HAMID whose telephone number is (571)272-1953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, Eastern time. 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. AMMAR T. HAMID Primary Examiner Art Unit 2695 /AMMAR T HAMID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/829,925 Page 2 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/829,925 Page 3 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/829,925 Page 4 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/829,925 Page 5 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/829,925 Page 6 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/829,925 Page 7 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/829,925 Page 8 Art Unit: 2695
Prosecution Insights