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 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seefeldt (US 9307340 B2, hereinafter “Seefeldt”) in view of Ohta (US 20090232318 A1, hereinafter “Ohta”) (Ohta is included as an additional reference in this rejection due to the applicant’s challenge to the official notice).
Regarding claim 1, Seefeldt teaches A method for optimizing audio equalization settings based on a specific make and model of loudspeaker being used in an audio distribution system, comprising: (see col. 2 line 24-31: applying corrective filtering, e.g., equalization filtering directly in a portable media device at least to correct for, e.g., equalize for the overall system comprising the portable media device and the playback system to which it is attached.)
generating a loudspeaker test signal; (see col. 2 line 58 - col. 3 line 9: calibration signals being played back on the particular playback system)
transmitting the loudspeaker test signal to a loudspeaker unit under test (LUUT); (see col. 2 line 58 - col. 3 line 9, col. 5 line 56 - col. 6 line 4: calibration signals being played back on the particular playback system which includes a loudspeaker)
receiving an acoustic signal from the LUUT by a microphone located at a test location, the microphone generating an electrical loudspeaker test signal response converting the loudspeaker test signal response to a digitized loudspeaker test signal response; (see col. 3 line 17-49, col. 6 line 35-57: configured to record a sound field resulting from one or more pre-defined calibration signals being played back on the particular playback system, the recording using the microphone and convert to digital audio signals)
generating a spectral plot of the digitized loudspeaker test signal response for the LUUT; (see col. 15 line 16-30: alter the playback system's loudspeaker's frequency response)
comparing the spectral plot of the LUUT to spectral plots of known loudspeakers, wherein spectral plots of known loudspeakers are precomputed and stored for comparison, and matching the spectral plot of the LUUT to a spectral plot of a first make and model of a known loudspeaker; (see col. 15 line 16-51: the playback system's loudspeaker's frequency response is matched to the target frequency response, which is a known plot that is precomputed/measured. Comparing the spectral plots is not explicitly mentioned, but matching the plots cannot be achieved without a prior step of comparison, therefore it is inherent that the frequency responses are first compared.)
And obtaining a set of equalizer settings for the first make and model of the known loudspeaker, wherein the step of comparing comprises:(a) selecting a first set of predetermined frequencies; (see col. 13 line 38-45: portable media device 121 implements a variable set of gain controls according to respective gain parameters for a pre-defined number of frequency bands. A set of gain settings is stored as a corrective filter profile 258 of corrective filter profiles collection 257 and is usable to implement a particular set of one or more corrective filters for a particular playback system.)
(b) obtaining a first set of amplitude values at each frequency in the first set of predetermined frequencies for the received loudspeaker test signal response; (see col. 17 line 36-57: In one embodiment the calibration signal is made up of a sum of distinct frequency tones of known amplitudes at a pre-defined number of distinct frequencies.)
(c) obtaining a first set of known amplitude values at each of the frequencies in the first set of predetermined frequencies for a first known loudspeaker: (see col. 17 line 36-57: distinct frequency tones of known amplitudes)
(d) obtaining an absolute value of a difference in amplitude values at each of the frequencies in the first set of predetermined frequencies between the received loudspeaker test signal and the first known loudspeaker, and then summing together all of the obtained absolute values of differences in amplitude values; (see col. 17 line 36-57: In one embodiment the calibration signal is made up of a sum of distinct frequency tones of known amplitudes at a pre-defined number of distinct frequencies.) Obtaining the absolute value is not explicitly mentioned, but it in order to calculate the sum of differences in amplitude values, you must take the absolute value, therefore it is inherent in calculating the sum, the absolute value is obtained prior. (like a Fourier Transform)
(e) performing steps (c) and (d) for a plurality of other known loudspeakers; and (see col. 17 line 36-57: corrective filter profile stored for or in the portable media device 121 for the particular playback system and listening environment.)
(f) the obtained set of equalizer settings for the matching loudspeaker are used for the loudspeaker unit under test. (see col. 18 line 1-13: from the transform, the recorded sound field to match the target reference spectrum for the particular playback system.)
Seefeldt is silent to determining a lowest value of the summed values of the differences in amplitude values, and wherein the known loudspeaker with the lowest summed difference in amplitude values is identified as a matching loudspeaker to the loudspeaker unit under test.
Ohta teaches determining a lowest value of the summed values of the differences in amplitude values, and wherein the known loudspeaker with the lowest summed difference in amplitude values is identified as a matching loudspeaker to the loudspeaker unit under test. (see [0041]: determining the square sum of the amplitude at its minimum in order to match and correct the speaker output.)
Seefeldt and Ohta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of loudspeaker equalization profile for improved audio output. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Ohta to Seefeldt in order to correct and improve speaker output.
Regarding claim 2, Seefeldt teaches transmitting the obtained set of equalizer settings for the first make and model of the known loudspeaker to an equalizer, wherein the equalizer is part of the audio distribution system; and processing audio data received by the audio distribution system using the obtained set of equalizer settings. (see claim 1: equalize for playback from the portable media device via the first playback system in the first listening arrangement, the calculating being carried out on the portable media device or on a remote processing system coupled to the portable media device and carrying out the pre-storing of the filter data for the calculated first set of one or more corrective filters for the first listening arrangement that includes the first playback system.)
Regarding claim 3-4, the claimed limitations are a system claim directly corresponding to the method claims 1-2; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 1-2 as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 06, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6-7 of applicant’s remarks, Applicant mainly argues that the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the cited references do not explicitly disclose the claimed “obtaining the absolute value.” However, the rejection does not rely on an explicit teaching of the limitation, but rather on inherency. As pointed out in the rejection above, Seefeldt teaches (d) obtaining an absolute value of a difference in amplitude values at each of the frequencies in the first set of predetermined frequencies between the received loudspeaker test signal and the first known loudspeaker, and then summing together all of the obtained absolute values of differences in amplitude values; (see col. 17 line 36-57: In one embodiment the calibration signal is made up of a sum of distinct frequency tones of known amplitudes at a pre-defined number of distinct frequencies.) Obtaining the absolute value is not explicitly mentioned, but it in order to calculate the sum of differences in amplitude values, you must take the absolute value, therefore it is inherent in calculating the sum, the absolute value is obtained prior (like a Fourier Transform). As taught by Seefeldt, calculating the sum differences in amplitude values, it necessarily and inevitably results in obtaining an absolute value . Thus, the claimed limitation is inherent in the prior art combination and need not be expressly recognized by the references.
See MPEP § 2113; Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
On page 7-8 of applicant’s remarks, applicant further challenges the official notice statement which states the limitations of claim 1 of “determining a lowest value of the summed values of the differences in amplitude values, and wherein the known loudspeaker with the lowest summed difference in amplitude values is identified as a matching loudspeaker to the loudspeaker unit under test” is a well-known in the art, and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have included these limitations. Thus, the Examiner is providing such a prior art reference as set forth below in response to applicant’s request to show by evidential document:
Ohta (US 20090232318 A1) teaches determining a lowest value of the summed values of the differences in amplitude values, and wherein the known loudspeaker with the lowest summed difference in amplitude values is identified as a matching loudspeaker to the loudspeaker unit under test. (see [0041]: determining the square sum of the amplitude at its minimum in order to match and correct the speaker output.)
On page 9 of applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the art of record fails to disclose the obtained set of equalizer settings for the matching loudspeaker are used for the loudspeaker unit under test. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Seefeldt clearly teaches the obtained set of equalizer settings for the matching loudspeaker are used for the loudspeaker unit under test. (see col. 18 line 1-13: from the transform, the recorded sound field to match the target reference spectrum for the particular playback system.) The corrective filter necessarily includes spectral adjustment parameters, such as frequency gain/filter values, which correspond to equalizer settings because equalizer settings are used to adjust spectral content of an audio signal in the same manner, and thus Seefeldt clearly teaches this limitation.
On page 10 of applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the art of record fails to disclose the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 4 and independent claim 3. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above Seefeldt clearly teaches transmitting the obtained set of equalizer settings for the first make and model of the known loudspeaker to an equalizer, wherein the equalizer is part of the audio distribution system; and processing audio data received by the audio distribution system using the obtained set of equalizer settings. (see claim 1: equalize for playback from the portable media device via the first playback system in the first listening arrangement, the calculating being carried out on the portable media device or on a remote processing system coupled to the portable media device and carrying out the pre-storing of the filter data for the calculated first set of one or more corrective filters for the first listening arrangement that includes the first playback system.)
Regarding claim 3-4, the claimed limitations are a system claim directly corresponding to the method claims 1-2; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 1-2 as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/JASON R KURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights