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 .
Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/06/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 20-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-25 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Matsumoto et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca and further in view of Steiner et al disclose the disclose a method of operating an audio system in a room, the method comprising: determining occurrence of a noise field map determination triggering event based on determining that the room is unoccupied; generating, by a first audio device comprising a beamforming microphone array and based on determining the occurrence of the noise field map determination triggering event, a scanning beam to measure noise at a plurality of room locations of the room; generating a noise field map based on the measured noise at the plurality of room locations of the room; determining a selected location from the plurality of room locations of the room associated with an amount of stationary noise satisfying a criteria based on the noise field map; and modifying, based on the amount of stationary noise of the selected location of the room, an operation of a second audio device associated with the selected location of the room, wherein the second audio device comprises a speaker device and wherein modifying the operation of the second audio device comprises adjusting an output of the speaker device to compensate for the amount of stationary noise of the selected location of the room; but do not expressly disclose the limitation “further comprising: determining occurrence of a second noise field map determination triggering event; generating, by the first audio device and based on the second noise field map determination triggering event, a second scanning beam to measure updated stationary noise at the plurality of room locations of the room; and generating an updated noise field map based on the measured updated stationary noise at the plurality of room locations of the room.”
None of the prior art of record disclose in their entirety or in combination the claimed limitation “further comprising: determining occurrence of a second noise field map determination triggering event; generating, by the first audio device and based on the second noise field map determination triggering event, a second scanning beam to measure updated stationary noise at the plurality of room locations of the room; and generating an updated noise field map based on the measured updated stationary noise at the plurality of room locations of the room.”
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant's claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (US 2017/0019744 A1) in view of Philips (US 2018/0204432 A1) and further in view of Rosca et al (US 2014/0098964 A1) and further in view of Steiner (US 2013/0016847 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto et al disclose a method of operating an audio system in a room, the method comprising: generating, by a first audio device comprising a beamforming microphone array (Matsumoto et al; Para [0026]-[0027]; directivity control of microphone array interpreted as beamforming microphone array), determining a selected location of the room associated with an amount of noise satisfying a criteria, (Matsumoto et al; Para [0016][0043]) measure noise at a plurality of room locations of the room (Matsumoto et al; Para [0083]); generating a noise field map based on the measured noise at the plurality of room locations of the room (Matsumoto et al; Para [0083] voice heatmap at plurality of locations Fig 8), but do not expressly disclose determining occurrence of a noise field map determination triggering event based on determining that the room is unoccupied; and based on determining the occurrence of the noise field map determination triggering event; determining a selected location from the plurality of room locations of the room associated with an amount of stationary noise satisfying a criteria based on the noise field map; and modifying, based on the amount of stationary noise of the selected location of the room, an operation of a second audio device associated with the determined area of the room, wherein the second audio device comprises a speaker device and wherein modifying the operation of the second audio device comprises adjusting an output of the speaker device to compensate for the amount of stationary noise of the selected location of the room. However, Philips disclose a method wherein determining occurrence of a noise field map determination triggering event based on determining that the room is unoccupied (Philips; Para [0120]; [0122][0128]; monitoring in sleep mode determine occurrence of a noise level determination triggering event based on determining that the room is unoccupied); and based on determining the occurrence of the noise field map determination triggering event, to measure noise (Philips; Para [0120]; [0122]; [0125]; [0128]) determining a selected location from the plurality of room locations of the room associated with an amount of stationary noise satisfying a criteria based on the noise field map (Philips; Para [0120]) and modifying, based on the amount of stationary noise of the selected location of the room, an operation of a second audio device associated with the determined area of the room(Philips; Para [0134]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the acoustic monitoring taught by Philips as audio monitoring in the method taught by Matsumoto. The motivation to do so would have been to provide improved security without a specific user activation command (Philips; Para [0025]). Moreover, Rosca et al disclose a method comprising generating, by a second audio device comprising a beamforming array, a scanning beam to measure noise at a plurality of room locations (Rosca et al; Fig 2; Para [0071]) determining a selected location in the room associated with an amount of ambient noise satisfying a criteria (Rosca et al; Fig 2; Para [0071]; VL L M and H -very low; medium and high- level of signal). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the acoustic level detection taught by Rosca as audio level detection in the method taught by Matsumoto. The motivation to do so would have been to give more flexibility to the beampattern design (Rosca et al; Para [0051]). Furthermore, Steiner discloses a method comprising and modifying, based on the characterization of the noise of the selected location of the room, an operation of a second audio device associated with the determined area of the room, wherein the second audio device comprises a speaker (Steiner; Fig 2; sound sensor 4 and sound actuator interpreted as speaker; Para [0013]-[0014][0019]; [0031]; sound detected in a specific area) and wherein modifying the operation of the second audio device comprises adjusting an output of the speaker device to compensate for the amount of stationary noise of the selected location of the room (Steiner; Fig 2; Para [0012][0019]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the noise mitigation taught by Steiner to control the abnormal sound in the method taught by Matsumoto. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the effectiveness for sound suppression or sound masking (Steiner; Para [0017]).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al and further in view of Steiner et al disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein determining of the selected of the room associated with the amount of stationary noise satisfying the criteria comprises mapping (Matsumoto et al; Para [0016][0043]), by the beamforming microphone array (Matsumoto et al; Para [0101]; directivity control of audio array interpreted as beamforming microphone array), the plurality of room locations (Matsumoto et al; Fig 15; mapping of sound source in a plurality of areas of the room).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al and further in view of Steiner et al disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the selected location of the room associated with the amount of stationary noise satisfying the criteria occurs independent of any determination of any source of the noise (Matsumoto et al; Para [0016][0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al and further in view of Steiner et al disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein characterizing the noise of the selected location of the room comprises determining a spectral characteristic of the noise (Matsumoto et al; Para [0016][0043]; sound pressure magnitude interpreted as spectral characteristic of the sound source).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al and further in view of Steiner et al disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein the second audio device comprises a display device and modifying the operation of the second audio device comprises causing the display device to display an indication of a location of the selected location of the room (Matsumoto et al; Fig 15; Para [0070]; [0148]; voice heat map display location of abnormal noise).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al and further in view of Steiner et al disclose the method of Claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first audio device is different from the second audio device. However, Steiner discloses a method wherein the first audio device is different from the second audio device (Steiner; Fig 2; sound sensor 4 interpreted as microphone or first audio device and sound actuator interpreted as speaker interpreted as second audio device different from microphone; Para [0013]- [0014][0019]; [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the noise mitigation taught by Steiner to control the abnormal sound in the method taught by Matsumoto. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the effectiveness for sound suppression or sound masking (Steiner; Para [0017]).
Regarding claim 20, Matsumoto et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al and further in view of Steiner et al disclose the method of Claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising determining that the speaker device is in the selected location of the room. However, Steiner discloses a method further comprising determining that the speaker device is in the selected location of the room (Steiner; Fig 2; speaker 3 in determined area; Para [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the noise mitigation taught by Steiner to control the abnormal sound in the method taught by Matsumoto. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the effectiveness for sound suppression or sound masking (Steiner; Para [0017]).
Regarding claim 21, Matsumoto et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al and further in view of Steiner et al disclose the method of Claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein adjusting the output of the speaker device comprises increasing the output of the speaker device based on a level of the noise. However, Steiner discloses a method wherein adjusting the output of the speaker device comprises increasing the output of the speaker device based on a level of the noise (Steiner; Fig 2; Para [0012][0019]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the noise mitigation taught by Steiner to control the abnormal sound in the method taught by Matsumoto. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the effectiveness for sound suppression or sound masking (Steiner; Para [0017]).
Claim 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (US 2017/0019744 A1) in view of in view of Philips (US 2018/0204432 A1) and further in view of Rosca et al (US 2014/0098964 A1) and further in view of Steiner (US 2013/0016847 A1) and further in view of Athanas (US 2011/0274283 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al and further in view of Steiner et al disclose the method of Claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the second audio device comprises a digital signal processor and modifying the operation of the second audio device comprises causing the digital signal processor to apply a digital signal processing technique to the noise associated with the selected location of the room. However, Athanas disclose a method wherein the second audio device comprises a digital signal processor and modifying the operation of the second audio device comprises causing the digital signal processor to apply a digital signal processing technique to the noise associated with the selected location of the room (Athanas; Fig 4a; Para [0009]; digital signal processing module for noise cancellation determination). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the spectral characteristic taught by Athanas to control the noise in the method taught by Matsumoto in view of Steiner. The motivation to do so would have been to provide proper open air noise cancellation (Athanas; Para [0033]).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al and further in view of Steiner et al disclose the method of Claim 6, but do not expressly disclose wherein the digital signal processing technique comprises an active noise cancellation process. However, Athanas disclose a method wherein the digital signal processing technique comprises an active noise cancellation process (Athanas; Fig 4a; Para [0009]; digital signal processing module for noise cancellation determination). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the spectral characteristic taught by Athanas to control the noise in the method taught by Matsumoto in view of Steiner. The motivation to do so would have been to provide proper open air noise cancellation (Athanas; Para [0033]).
Claim(s) 11, 13, 16-17, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al (US 2018/0352364 A1) in view of Philips (US 2018/0204432 A1) and further in view of Rosca et al (US 2014/0098964 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Prasad et al disclose a method of operating an audio system, the method comprising: determining a first configuration of an audio device associated with a room, wherein the audio device comprises a speaker device(Prasad et al; Fig 3; Para [0064]; current status of noise masking interpreted as first configuration); and modifying, based on the selected location in the room, the first configuration of the audio device (Prasad et al; Fig 3; step 308; Para [0064]; maintain noise masking interpreted as first configuration) to a second, different configuration comprising adjusting an output of the speaker to compensate for the ambient noise of the selected location in the room (Prasad et al; Fig 3; step 314; Para [0064]; increase noise masking interpreted as second configuration); but do not expressly disclose determining that the room is unoccupied based on activity in the room; generating, by a second audio device comprising a beamforming array, and based on determining the room is unoccupied, a scanning beam to measure noise at a plurality of room locations; determining a selected location in the room associated with an amount of ambient noise exceeding a criteria. However, Philips disclose a method wherein determining that the room is unoccupied based on activity in the room (Philips; Para [0120]; [0122][0128]; monitoring in sleep mode determine occurrence of a noise level determination triggering event based on determining that the room is unoccupied); generating, by a second audio device comprising a microphone array, and based on determining the room is unoccupied, to measure noise at a plurality of room locations (Philips; Para [0120]; [0122]; [0125]; [0128]) determining a selected location in the room associated with an amount of ambient noise exceeding a criteria (Philips; Para [0128]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the acoustic monitoring taught by Philips as audio monitoring in the method taught by Matsumoto. The motivation to do so would have been to provide improved security without a specific user activation command (Philips; Para [0025]). Moreover, Rosca et al disclose a method comprising generating, by a second audio device comprising a beamforming array, a scanning beam to measure noise at a plurality of room locations (Rosca et al; Fig 2; Para [0071]) determining a selected location in the room associated with an amount of ambient noise satisfying a criteria (Rosca et al; Fig 2; Para [0071]; VL L M and H -very low; medium and high- level of signal). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the acoustic level detection taught by Rosca as audio level detection in the method taught by Matsumoto. The motivation to do so would have been to give more flexibility to the beampattern design (Rosca et al; Para [0051]).
Regarding claim 13, Prasad et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al disclose the method of Claim 11, wherein the first configuration of the audio device is not associated with any digital signal processing of the ambient noise (Prasad et al; Para [0064]; maintain noise masking interpreted as first configuration is not associated with digital processing) and the second, different configuration of the audio device is associated with a digital signal processing of the ambient noise (Prasad et al; Para [0064]; increased noise masking interpreted as second different configuration).
Regarding claim 16, Prasad et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al disclose the method of Claim 11, further comprising: generating a noise map of the room based on the noise at the plurality of room locations (Prasad et al; Para [0046]).
Regarding claim 17, Prasad et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al disclose the method of Claim 16, wherein the noise map of the room is created independent of identifying any source of any noise of the room (Prasad et al; Para [0046] map created with microphone signals not with identification of sound sources).
Regarding claim 22, Prasad et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al disclose the method of Claim 11, further comprising determining that the speaker device is in the selected location of the room (Prasad et al; Para [0045]).
Regarding claim 23, Prasad et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al disclose the method of Claim 11, wherein adjusting the output of the speaker comprises increasing the output of the speaker device based on a level of the ambient noise (Prasad et al; Para [0045]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al (US 2018/0352364 A1) in view of Philips (US 2018/0204432 A1) and further in view of Rosca et al (US 2014/0098964 A1) and further in view of Knode et al (US 2019/0173446 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Prasad et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al disclose the method of Claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first configuration of the audio device is associated with a first digital signal processing of the ambient noise and the second, different configuration of the audio device is associated with a second, different digital signal processing of the ambient noise. However, Knode et al disclose a method wherein the first configuration of the audio device is associated with a first digital signal processing of the ambient noise (Knode et al; Para [0019][0065]) different configuration of the audio device is associated with a second, different digital signal processing of the ambient noise (Knode et al; Para [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the spectral characteristic taught by Knode to control the noise in the method taught by Prasad. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce disturbance to other users in the space (Knode; Para [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Prasad et al in view of Philips and further in view of Rosca et al disclose the method of Claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first configuration of the audio device comprises a first mode of operation of the audio device and the second, different configuration comprises a second, different mode of operation of the audio device. However, Knode et al disclose a method wherein the first configuration of the audio device comprises a first mode of operation of the audio device (Knode et al; Para [0019][0065]) and the second, different configuration comprises a second, different mode of operation of the audio device (Knode et al; Para [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the spectral characteristic taught by Knode to control the noise in the method taught by Prasad. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce disturbance to other users in the space (Knode; Para [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights