DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 refers to “a second extent” then states “wherein determining the second extend comprises”. The second mention should be spelled “extent” to match.
Claim 21 is objected in an analogous manner.
Claims 2-19 are objected as inheriting the problems as above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
An audio rendering apparatus in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “determining a first point (P1) within the first extent, wherein the first point is not completely occluded”, which is unclear. The wording is confusing, and appears to be missing some language. In order to make a determination whether a point is completely occluded, the point must be analyzed with respect to a listening position. It is suggested that applicant add some sort of context including some mention of a listener or listening position.
Claim 21 is rejected in an analogous manner.
Claims 2-19 are rejected as inheriting the problems as above.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 the claim is to a computer program which is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining points and areas of space based on certain criteria, and determining a first gain value for a first sample point.
Regarding claim 1, the determination limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, other than the recitation of a generically rendering the audio element using the first gain value, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining a first point (P1) within the first extent, wherein the first point is not completely occluded” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing an audio object and objects in a space and determining/observing that a first point on the audio element is not occluded. Similarly, determining the second extent and extent edge could include the user looking at the first point and determining/observing how far the point could be moved before becoming occluded. The step of dividing the second extent could be the user observing different portions of the second extent (including top/bottom or left/right). Finally determining a gain value for a first sample point would be the user looking at various points on the audio element and determining/observing if that point is occluded or not. If the point is not occluded the gain value would be close to unity, if occluded the value would be lower, possibly zero. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using the first gain value to render the audio element. Such is only recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception as extra-solution activity of outputting a result. 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 using the determined gain to render the audio element amounts to no more merely outputting a result and is considered extra-solution activity. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected in an analogous manner to claim 1, given the recited circuitry and apparatus are only nominally mentioned and are just conventional items used in a conventional manner.
Claims 2-18 are only further define the mental processes.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10-14, 16, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thail et al. (US 20200296533 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thail discloses a method (see at least figure 7 and figure 1) for rendering an audio element (river 10 of figure 1, river 210 of figure 2) associated with a first extent (the left hand side of river 10/210, 231 and 233 of figure 2), the method comprising:
determining a first point (25a) within the first extent, wherein the first point is not completely occluded (not completely occluded with respect to listener position 12A);
determining a second extent (231) for the audio element, wherein determining the second extend comprises using the first point to determine a first edge (starting with point 25a, progress along non-occluded points until finding an occluded point to find edge of 231, also see step 504 of figure 5) of the second extent;
after determining the second extent, dividing (areas around each point 25, see figure 2) the second extent into a set of one or more sub-areas (see figures 2 and 3B, see also paragraph [0028]), the set of sub-areas comprising a first sub-area (any area, all must be calculated);
determining (step 505 of figure 5) a first gain value for a first sample point of the first sub-area (any point of a given resolution, all must be calculated, see paragraphs [0022] to [0023], also see paragraphs [0030] and [0044]); and
using the first gain value to render the audio element paragraphs (step 506 of figure 5, [0057] to [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Thail discloses wherein there may be multiple occluding objects (paragraph [0044]). The rejection of claim 1 above finds the rightmost edge of the second extent (see above). Claim 7 is rejected in an analogous manner to claim 1, given multiple occluding objects and finding the leftmost edge of the second extent.
Regarding claim 10, Thail discloses wherein determining the first gain value for the first sample point of the first sub-area comprises:
for a virtual straight line extending from a listening position to the first sample point (see figure 1),
determining whether the virtual line passes through one or more objects (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 11, Thail discloses wherein the virtual line passes through at least a first object, and the step of determining the first gain value for the first sample point of the first sub-area further comprises:
obtaining first metadata associated with the first object (at least material, paragraphs [0030] and [0044]); and
determining the first gain value using the first metadata (paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Thail discloses wherein the virtual line further passes through a second object (paragraph [0044] discloses multiple objects), and the step of determining the first gain value for the first sample point of the first sub-area further comprises:
obtaining second metadata associated with the second object (paragraphs [0030] and [0044]); and
determining the first gain value further using the second metadata (paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Thail discloses wherein using the first gain value to render the audio element comprises using the first gain value to calculate a first accumulated gain value for the first sub-area and using the first accumulated gain value to render the audio element (see summing of paragraph [0056], in step 505 of figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Thail discloses wherein using the first accumulated gain value (paragraph [0058], may be multiplied by HRTF to create total filter) to render the audio element comprises modifying an audio signal (audio signal applied to HRTF, paragraph [0058]) associated with the first sub-area based on the first accumulated gain value to produce a modified audio signal and rendering the audio element using the modified audio signal (paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 16, Thail discloses further comprising calculating an overall gain factor (gov)(accumulated energies of paragraph [0058]), wherein using the first gain value to render the audio element comprises using the first gain value (see paragraphs [0022] to [0023], also see paragraphs [0030] and [0044]) and gov (paragraph [0058]) to render the audio element.
Regarding claim 19, Thail discloses a computer program (in 755 of figure 7) comprising instructions (in 755) which when executed by processing circuitry (730) of an audio rendering apparatus (700) causes the audio rendering apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (as above).
Claim 21 is rejected in an analogous manner to claim 1 given the audio rendering apparatus (figure 7 sound rendering system 700) of Thail.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 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, 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.
/DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights