DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 06/23/2026.
Claims 8, 18-27, 32 and 34 are non-elected.
Claims 1-7 and 30 are elected.
Claim 3 is amended.
Claims 8-29 and 31-35 are cancelled.
Claims 36-41 are new.
Claims 1-7, 30 and 36-41 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 30 and 36-41 have been examined.
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 .
Restriction/Election Acknowledgement
Applicant's election claims 1-7 and 30 in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged. There were no grounds made for the traversal; “If applicant wishes to traverse the restriction requirement, the reply must also include a traversal with specific reasons why applicant believes the restriction requirement is in error. The absence of any statement indicating whether the requirement to restrict is traversed or the failure to provide reasons for traverse will be treated as an election without traverse. See 37 CFR 1.111 and MPEP § 818.01. Therefore, Applicant's election of claims 1-7 and 30 will be treated as an election without traverse. Claims 8, 18-27, 32 and 34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group(s).
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 1-7, 30 and 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method, and claim 30 is directed to an article of manufacture.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “obtaining … parameter… selecting… model… and rendering the audio element….” The recited limitations fall within a mental process. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does currently recite an additional elements or combination of additional elements but the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For example, “rendering the audio element…” is not an additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. According to the disclosure(¶ 106, 109, 112), “ implementation of audio renderer 104 for producing sound for the XR scene…. a processing unit 403 coupled (directly or indirectly) to audio render 104 for producing output audio signals (e.g., a left audio signal 481 for a left speaker and a right audio signal 482 for a right speaker as shown)… As shown in FIG. 7, apparatus 700 may comprise: processing circuitry (PC) 702, which may include one or more processors (P) 755 (e.g., one or more general purpose microprocessors and/or one or more other processors”. The disclosure provides rendering as producing sound, and the proposed functions can be performed by a general-purpose processor. Therefore, producing sound is not an additional element but rather a step that can be performed by a generic computing device.
Accordingly, even in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “obtaining … parameter… selecting… model… and rendering the audio element….” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of a mental process as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 36-41 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable. As such, these elements do not provide significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 36-41 are also rejected.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 30 and 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mason et al. (US 20200275233/11128978) (“Mason”).
Regarding claims 1 and 30, Mason discloses obtaining a distance gain model rendering parameter associated with the volumetric audio element, the obtained distance gain model rendering parameter having a value (Abstract; ¶ 3, 34, 43, 124-135, 265-67, 320-338; claim 10);
Mason – “audio object” may refer to a stream of audio object signals and associated audio object metadata. The metadata may indicate at least the position of the audio object… Input audio received by the method includes at least one audio object and associated metadata. The associated metadata indicates at least a location of the audio object. The metadata further indicates that the audio object is to be rendered with divergence, and may also indicate a degree of divergence (divergence parameter, divergence value) d and a distance measure D. (¶ 3, 338)
based on the value of the distance gain model rendering parameter, selecting a distance gain model from a set of two or more candidate distance gain models; and (¶ 17-25, 125-135, 192-195, 262-266, 326-352);
Mason -a set of rendering gains for mapping (e.g., panning) the audio object and the two additional audio objects to the one or more speaker feeds is determined. …A divergence value of 0 indicates that all energy will be provided by the original object. In this case, gv will be equal to 0 and gd will be equal to 1, regardless of the value of p(θ). Conversely, a divergence value of indicates that all energy will be provided by the virtual objects…If equation [8] is enforced for p=1, the panning would be categorized as an amplitude preserving panning. If equation [8] is enforced for p=2, the panning would be power preserving panning. (¶ 333, 340, 342)
rendering the volumetric audio element using the selected distance gain model (Abstract; ¶ 34-47, 103, 104, 192-195, 288-295; claim 17);
Mason - a rendering unit configured to render the audio object and the two additional audio objects to two or more speaker feeds in accordance with the determined weight factors. (claim 17)
Regarding claims 2 and 36, Mason discloses wherein the value of the distance gain model rendering parameter was set based on an analysis of the two or more audio signals associated with the volumetric audio element (Abstract; ¶ 17-25, 125-135, 192-195, 262-266, 326-352).
Regarding claims 3 and 37, Mason discloses wherein the method further comprises: producing a spatial audio value, S, based on the analysis of the two or more audio signals; determining whether S satisfies a condition; and setting the distance gain model rendering parameter to the value as a result of determining that S satisfies the condition (Abstract; ¶ 3, 25, 93-113).
Regarding claims 4 and 38, Mason discloses wherein S indicates a spatial sparseness of the volumetric audio element (Abstract; ¶ 94-97, 101-106, 293).
Regarding claims 5 and 39, Mason discloses wherein obtaining the distance gain model rendering parameter comprises obtaining metadata for the volumetric audio element, and the metadata comprises i) an audio element identifier that identifies the audio element and ii) the distance gain model rendering parameter (Abstract; ¶ 293, 308-323).
Regarding claims 6 and 40, Mason discloses wherein the metadata further comprises a first diffuseness parameter indicating whether or not the metadata further includes a second diffuseness parameter (¶ 153-160, 257-265, 405-409).
Regarding claims 7 and 41, Mason discloses wherein the metadata further comprises a diffuseness parameter indicating a diffuseness of the volumetric audio element (¶ 153-160, 257-265, 405-409).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang (US 20160150345) teaches controlling sound based on the relative distance between a sound object and the user.
Lehtiniemi et al (US 10165386) teaches the VR, spatial audio.
Laaksonen (US 9980078) teaches rendering audio object based on locational conflict.
Breebaart et al. (US 20160192105) teaches rendering audio and diffused audio objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights