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 .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed December 18, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are still pending in this application. Claims 3, 7, 13, and 17 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0329474 A1) in view of Janse et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0026437 A1, hereinafter "Janse") in view of Hansen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0222990 A1, hereinafter "Hansen"), and further in view of Hera et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0047383 A1, hereinafter "Hera").
Regarding Claim 1, Ura teaches a low complexity howling suppression method (howling suppression operation, Paras. [0045] - [0056]) for a portable karaoke system (the method and system can be incorporated in a karaoke apparatus, Para. [0116]), the method comprising the steps of:
capturing, by at least one microphone, an input signal which comprises a source signal and an acoustic feedback (microphone is used to capture input signal and into input terminal 101, Fig. 1, Para. [0047]; the input signal will comprise of a source signal and an acoustic feedback since the method suppress howling under an acoustic feedback loop environment, Para. [0026]);
and then feeding to an output signal after being amplified (input signal is fed into howling suppression unit 106 and is then output to the output terminal 108 connected to an amplifier, Para. [0049]);
playing back, by [[a]] the loudspeaker, the output signal which is propagated through environment (the method is useful as a howling suppression device or the like which suppresses, in various electroacoustic apparatuses which include a microphone and a speaker, howling which is caused by acoustic coupling that occurs between the speaker and the microphone, Para. [0127]; for a karaoke apparatus disclosed in Para. [0116] the output to the output terminal 108 connected to an amplifier disclosed in Para. [0049] will be played back by a loudspeaker and propagated through the environment);
estimating the acoustic feedback using at least one infinite impulse response (IIR) filter (howling detection unit 105 estimates howling [acoustic feedback] with a band division unit 401 using filter bank made up infinite impulse response (IIR) filters, band level calculation unit 402 and howling determination unit 403, Fig. 6, Paras. [0081]-[0086]); and
cancelling out the estimated acoustic feedback from the input signal (howling suppression unit 106 suppresses the howling [acoustic feedback] using the signal components input from the A/D converter 102 and the delay unit 103 respectively, Para. [0049]).
Ura fails to explicitly teach decorrelating a loudspeaker signal of a loudspeaker from the input signal;
compressing and equalizing, in an electro-acoustic path, the input signal;
estimating the acoustic feedback by modeling, using at least one infinite impulse response (IIR) filter, an environmental transfer function.
However, Janse teaches decorrelating a loudspeaker signal of a loudspeaker from the input signal (decorrelator 9 decorrelates loudspeaker signal from the input signal, Fig. 1, Paras. [0033] and [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the howling suppression method (as taught by Ura) to include the decorrelating the loudspeaker signal from the input signal (as taught by Janse). Doing so will ensure perceptual quality remains good and helps keep the total system stable in situations where the acoustic path is suddenly changed (Janse Para. [0033]).
However, Hansen teaches compressing and equalizing, in an electro-acoustic path, the input signal (a loudspeaker system LSS with an input unit IU providing an electric input audio signal eIN based on input signal IN, an equalization unit EQ which receives normalized input audio signal Ein2, and comprises a further intermediate processing unit OP2, a digital to analogue converter DAC, and an amplifier unit AMP between the equalization unit EQ and the speaker unit SPK. The processing unit OP2 is configured to provide optional further processing of the equalized audio input signal eINeq (e.g. to apply digital gain, noise reduction or compression, if relevant) and to provide processed digital output signal dO, Fig. 1B, Para. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the howling suppression (as taught by Ura in view of Janse) to include compressing and equalizing the input signal (as taught by Hansen). Doing so will enable attenuating the normalized input signal to a varying degree depending on frequency and volume level and mode of operation (Hansen Para. [0074]).
However, Hera teaches modeling, using at least one infinite impulse response (IIR) filter, an environmental transfer function (second fixed filter 202 consisting of an infinite impulse response filter models an environmental transfer function between electro-acoustic transducer 112 and microphone 118, Fig. 2, Paras. [0009], [0012], [0033], and [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify howling suppression method estimating acoustic feedback using infinite response filter (as taught by Ura in view of Janse, and further in view of Hansen) to include modeling an environmental transfer function using an infinite impulse response filter (as taught by Hera). Doing so will improve computational efficient and reduces processing load due to the infinite response filter using fewer coefficients.
Regarding Claim 2, Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera teach wherein the acoustic feedback comprises howling generated in a closed signal loop caused by acoustic coupling between the loudspeaker and the at least one microphone (Ura, the method is useful as a howling suppression device or the like which suppresses, in various electroacoustic apparatuses which include a microphone and a speaker, howling which is caused by acoustic coupling that occurs between the speaker and the microphone, Para. [0127]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera teach wherein relative position of the at least one microphone and the loudspeaker is fixed (Hera, microphone 118 and loudspeaker 112 are mounted at fixed positions, Figs. 1 and 2, Paras. [0026] and [0027]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ura in view of Jansen in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera teach wherein decorrelating the output signal from the input signal can be implemented by frequency shifting the input signal (Janse, decorrelator 9 is embodied as a frequency shifter, Para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 11, it is similarly rejected as Claim 1. The portable karaoke system with howling suppression can be found in Ura (Paras. [0040] - [0044], and Para. [0116]).
Regarding Claim 12, it is similarly rejected as Claim 2. The portable karaoke system with howling suppression can be found in Ura (Paras. [0040] - [0044], and Para. [0116]).
Regarding Claim 14, it is similarly rejected as Claim 4. The portable karaoke system with howling suppression can be found in Ura (Paras. [0040] - [0044], and Para. [0116]).
Regarding Claim 18, it is similarly rejected as Claim 8. The portable karaoke system with howling suppression can be found in Ura (Paras. [0040] - [0044], and Para. [0116]).
4. Claim(s) 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0329474 A1) in view of Janse et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0026437 A1, hereinafter "Janse") in view of Hansen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0222990 A1, hereinafter "Hansen") in view of Hera et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0047383 A1, hereinafter "Hera"), and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0293103 A1, hereinafter "Park").
Regarding Claim 5, Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera fail to explicitly teach wherein modeling the environmental transfer function comprises measuring and estimating the environmental transfer function offline and approximating the environmental transfer function.
However, Park teaches wherein modeling the environmental transfer function comprises measuring and estimating the environmental transfer function offline (modeling the environmental transfer function of path P1 between microphone MV10 and loudspeaker LS10 can be estimated offline, Fig. 11C, Para. [0156]) and approximating the environmental transfer function (the offline environmental transfer function can be used for an adaptive implementation [approximating] of the environmental transfer function, Para. [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify howling suppression method (as taught by Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera) to include modeling an environmental transfer function offline (as taught by Park). Doing so will enable the use of adaptive compensation to cope with variations in acoustic load in the perceived frequency response of the path (Park Para. [0158]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ura in view of Jansen in view of Hansen in view of Hera, and further in view of Park teaches wherein approximating the environmental transfer function (Park, teaches the offline environmental transfer function can be used for an adaptive implementation [approximating] of the environmental transfer function, Para. [0157]) can be performed by multi-band IIR filters (Ura, teaches the band division unit 401 uses multi-band IIR filters, Fig. 6, Para. [0084]).
Regarding Claim 15, it is similarly rejected as Claim 5. The portable karaoke system with howling suppression can be found in Ura (Paras. [0040] - [0044], and Para. [0116]).
Regarding Claim 16, it is similarly rejected as Claim 6. The portable karaoke system with howling suppression can be found in Ura (Paras. [0040] - [0044], and Para. [0116]).
5. Claim(s) 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0329474 A1) in view of Janse et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0026437 A1, hereinafter "Janse") in view of Hansen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0222990 A1, hereinafter "Hansen") in view of Hera et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0047383 A1, hereinafter "Hera"), and further in view of Ansai et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0373362 A1, hereinafter "Ansai").
Regarding Claim 9, Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera fail to explicitly teach further comprising the step of arranging the at least one microphone in different directivities as a microphone array for beamforming.
However, Ansai teaches further comprising the step of arranging the at least one microphone in different directivities as a microphone array for beamforming (microphone 300 comprising a plurality of microphone clusters 302a,b, 304a,b, 306a,b arranged in nested pairs 302, 304, 306, respectively, along a first axis 308 (e.g., x-axis) of the microphone 300, Fig. 3, Para. [0043]; appropriate beamforming techniques can form a unidirectional or cardioid polar pattern pointed toward the end of each axis, or a total of four polar patterns pointing in four different planar directions, to maximize pickup all around the microphone 300, Para. [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify howling suppression method (as taught by Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera) to include microphone array for beamforming (as taught by Ansai). Doing so will maximize pickup all around the microphone (Ansai Para. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen in view of Hera, and further in view of Ansai teach wherein the microphone array forms a cardioid directivity pattern (microphone 300 comprising a plurality of microphone clusters 302a,b, 304a,b, 306a,b arranged in nested pairs 302, 304, 306, respectively, along a first axis 308 (e.g., x-axis) of the microphone 300, Fig. 3, Para. [0043]; appropriate beamforming techniques can form a unidirectional or cardioid polar pattern pointed toward the end of each axis, or a total of four polar patterns pointing in four different planar directions, to maximize pickup all around the microphone 300, Para. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 19, it is similarly rejected as Claim 9. The portable karaoke system with howling suppression can be found in Ura (Paras. [0040] - [0044], and Para. [0116]).
Regarding Claim 20, it is similarly rejected as Claim 10. The portable karaoke system with howling suppression can be found in Ura (Paras. [0040] - [0044], and Para. [0116]).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 11, applicant argues (see applicant’s remark, pages 5-7), Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite the limitation “decorrelating a loudspeaker signal of a loudspeaker from the input signal” and Janse would have to disclose decorrelating a loudspeaker signal of the loudspeaker from the input signal, and compressing and equalizing, in an electro-acoustic path, the input signal, and then feeding to an output signal after being amplified. Importantly, Janse contains no such teaching. Instead, Janse merely discloses decorrelating an adaptive filter's residual signal from the filter's input signal. However, Janse does not disclose decorrelating a loudspeaker signal of the loudspeaker from any other signal, let alone decorrelating a loudspeaker signal of the loudspeaker from the microphone signal, or compressing and equalizing the input signal, and then feeding to an output signal after being amplified, as required by the amended claim language. In view of at least these distinctions, Applicant submits that Janse cannot be properly interpreted as teaching or suggesting the above limitations of claim 1.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Janse teaches decorrelating a loudspeaker signal of the loudspeaker from the input signal (as shown in Fig. 1 and discussed in Para. [0033], decorrelator 9 decorrelates the loudspeaker 3 signal x(n) from microphone 2 input signal, both of which are inputs to the adaptive filter 4.
Furthermore, Para. [0057] of Janse (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0026437 A1) discloses the details of decorrelator 9 in reference to the decorrelator taught in Janse (U.S. Pat. No. 5,748,751 A, see Abstract) and which is included in Janse (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0026437 A1) by reference.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Independent Claims 1 and 11 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera.
The combinations of the teachings of Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera render independent Claims 1 and 11 obvious.
The rejections of Claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera are maintained.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, and 18 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera.
The rejections of Claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera are maintained.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, and 18 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera.
The rejections of Claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen, and further in view of Hera are maintained.
Dependent Claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen in view of Hera, and further in view of Park.
The rejections of Claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen in view of Hera, and further in view of Park are maintained.
Dependent Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen in view of Hera, and further in view of Ansai.
The rejections of Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ura in view of Janse in view of Hansen in view of Hera, and further in view of Ansai are maintained.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Janse (U.S. Pat. No. 5,748,751 A) teaches a decorrelator for decorrelating the signal coming from the microphone and the signal transmitted by the loudspeaker.
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIMEZIE E BEKEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7.30-5.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/CHIMEZIE EZERIWE BEKEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691