DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/02/2025.
Claims 1- 15 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/02/2025. Claims 1 – 11 and 14 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1 – 15 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
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 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogaz (US 2017/0221336).
As to claim 1, Ogaz discloses an apparatus for speech and/or hearing therapy and/or stimulation (Abstract), characterized in that it comprises at least one input sensor (sensors including a traditional air microphone, sensor which collect body vibrations associated with a user’s voice and other sensors including biometric/mechanical motion sensors, Fig.1C, 136, 144, Fig.3, 342, Fig.4A,342A and 342C, Fig.5,520; [0099] [0113] [0119] [0136] [0152 – 0156] [0160 - 0168]); at least one processing means (Fig.3, 304 and Fig.4A, 304A, 204B and 304C; [0099] [0119] [0137] [0152] [0153]) and a feedback means (interface comprising a visual indicator, speaker and a motion generator, Fig.1C, 152 and Fig.4A, 412A-C, [0113] [0115] [0119] [0136] [0137] [0152] [0153]), wherein the input sensor is configured to obtain a signal from a user (user’s voice or speech, [0154] [0244]), the signal being one of an audio signal ([0154]), pressure signal, proximity signal, or signal transmitted from a mobile device application, wherein a first processing means (processor, Fig.3, 304 and Fig.4A, 304a) is configured to convert a first input signal into an electronic signal (The processor of the feedback device receives user voice information – voice/speech signal- and analyzes it to determine if it matches a profile associated with a rule. An electrical signal- alert- is provided based on the rule. Since the voice input signal is different from the alert output signal and using BRI, the voice signal is converted into the alert signal, [0099 – 0102] [0104 – 0106] [0108 – 0110] [0119] [0123 – 0126] [0131] [0137] [0141]; claim 22) corresponding to a visual element to be displayed to the user (An alert comprises a visual/text message [0141]), and wherein the feedback means comprises at least one first feedback element (display, [0017] [0018] [0053] [0057]), and the first feedback element is configured to visually present the converted first input signal in real-time (Alerts are provided to a user to notify a user when collected voice characteristics or behaviors, such as voice volume or speech cadence, which deviate from normal profile occur… Alert’s include speak louder messages when a user is speaking abnormally, [0011] [0039] [0040] [0045 - 0047] [0141]), through one or more visual elements ([0141]; claim 22), such that the visual presentation of the converted first input signal appears to be synchronized with the signal obtained by the input sensor (The recited limitation beginning with “such that” is broadly, reasonably interpreted as an intended result of the real-time presentation step limitation. Real-time presentation of a converted signal implies that there is little delay between signal reception/conversion and presentation. Therefore, the limitation beginning with “such that” fails to further limit the interpretation of the real-time presentation step. Paragraphs 141 and claim 22 of Ogaz read on real-time presentation as cited above).
As to claim 12, Ogaz discloses a system for speech and hearing therapy and stimulation (Abstract), characterized in that it comprises a plurality of independent apparatuses (A feedback system has a plurality of feedback devices since a diagnostic communications module receives data from a number of feedback devices, [0119] [0133] [0134])(Fig.4A, 136A and 144A; [0152 – 0154]), wherein an independent apparatus comprises the following: at least one input sensor (sensors including a traditional air microphone, sensor which collect body vibrations associated with a user’s voice and other sensors including biometric/mechanical motion sensors, Fig.1C, 136, 144, Fig.3, 342, Fig.4A,342A and 342C, Fig.5,520; [0099] [0113] [0119] [0136] [0152 – 0156] [0160 - 0168]); at least one processing means (Fig.3, 304 and Fig.4A, 304A, 204B and 304C; [0099] [0119] [0137] [0152] [0153]) and a feedback means (interface comprising a visual indicator, speaker and a motion generator, Fig.1C, 152 and Fig.4A, 412A-C, [0113] [0115] [0119] [0136] [0137] [0152] [0153]), wherein the input sensor is configured to obtain a signal from a user (user’s voice or speech, [0154] [0244]), the signal being one of an audio signal ([0154]), pressure signal, proximity signal, or signal transmitted from a mobile device application, wherein a first processing means (processor, Fig.3, 304 and Fig.4A, 304a) is configured to convert a first input signal into an electronic signal (The processor of the feedback device receives user voice information – voice/speech signal- and analyzes it to determine if it matches a profile associated with a rule. An electrical signal- alert- is provided based on the rule. Since the voice input signal is different from the alert output signal and using BRI, the voice signal is converted into the alert signal, [0099 – 0102] [0104 – 0106] [0108 – 0110] [0119] [0123 – 0126] [0131] [0137] [0141]; claim 22) corresponding to a visual element to be displayed to the user (An alert comprises a visual/text message [0141]), and wherein the feedback means comprises at least one first feedback element (display, [0017] [0018] [0053] [0057]), and the first feedback element is configured to visually present the converted first input signal in real-time (Alerts are provided to a user to notify a user when collected voice characteristics or behaviors, such as voice volume or speech cadence, which deviate from normal profile occur… Alert’s include speak louder messages when a user is speaking abnormally, [0011] [0039] [0040] [0045 - 0047] [0141]), through one or more visual elements ([0141]; claim 22), such that the visual presentation of the converted first input signal appears to be synchronized with the signal obtained by the input sensor (The recited limitation beginning with “such that” is broadly, reasonably interpreted as an intended result of the real-time presentation step limitation. Real-time presentation of a converted signal implies that there is little delay between signal reception/conversion and presentation. Therefore, the limitation beginning with “such that” fails to further limit the interpretation of the real-time presentation step. Paragraphs 141 and claim 22 of Ogaz read on real-time presentation as cited above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaz (US 2017/0221336) in view of Oplinger et al. (US 2020/0344560) (“Oplinger”).
For claim 2, Ogaz further discloses, wherein the input sensor is a microphone (Fig.1C, 136, 144, Fig.3, 342, Fig.4A,342A and 342C, Fig.5,520; [0099] [0113] [0119] [0136] [0152 – 0156] [0160 - 0165]) configured to capture at last one parameter of a voice signal ([0012] [0131]), the at least one parameter comprising pitch or sound level of the voice signal ([0012] [0131]). Yet, Ogaz fails to teach that the at least one visual element to be presented comprises at least one of colour or brightness.
However, Oplinger discloses a system for generating and providing an output to instruct a user of signal processing device about signal input to the signal processing device (Abstract; [0008]), comprising the following: speech of a person speaking is analyzed by a processer ([0067]); an instruction is provided to a speaker to adjust their speech, wherein the instruction is provided by a light (LED) color ([0052] [0066] [0067] [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve Ogaz’s invention in the same way that Oplinger’s invention has been improved to achieve the following, predictable results for the purpose of effectively providing feedback to a user based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the at least one visual (Ogaz, LED light, [0115]) element to be presented comprises at least one of color or brightness.
For claim 4, Ogaz further discloses, wherein the input sensor and the feedback means are provided within an enclosure (Ogaz, [0098] [0110] [0153]).
For claim 5, Ogaz further discloses, wherein the enclosure is configured to provide a haptic feedback which is felt by the user on the outside of the enclosure (Ogaz, [0016 – 0018] [0098] [0110] [0153]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaz (US 2017/0221336) in view of Turcott et al. (US 2018/0301140) (“Turcott”).
For claim 3, Ogaz further discloses a second feedback element (motion (vibration) generator, [0153]), wherein the first input signal is converted in to an electronic signal (alert) corresponding to a haptic element to be reproduced by the second feedback element ([0008 -0010] [0110] [0153]), wherein the second feedback element is configured to provide haptic feedback to the user, the haptic feedback Real-time presentation(e.g. haptic) of a converted signal implies that there is little delay between signal reception/conversion and presentation. Therefore, the limitation beginning with “such that” fails to further limit the interpretation of the real-time presentation step. Paragraphs 141 and claim 22 of Ogaz read on real-time presentation as cited above).
Yet, Ogaz fails to teach that haptic signal is generated by a second processing means.
However, Turcott discloses a haptic communication device (Abstract), wherein a processing means (haptic signal generator, Fig.12C, 1222) converts an input signal into an electrical signal which is provided to a haptic element (haptic device, Fig.12C 1224) ([0348] [0381]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve Ogaz’s invention in the same way that Turcott’s invention has been improved to achieve the following, predictable results for the or the purpose of effectively providing feedback to multiple categories of users based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the apparatus further comprises a second processing means to generate the signal (haptic) which is reproduced by the second feedback (haptic) element.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaz (US 2017/0221336) in view of Yang et al. (US 2012/0188180) (“Yang”) and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2014/0267990)(“Moon”).
For claim 6, Ogaz fails to teach the following, wherein the enclosure comprises a top part and a lateral grasping part for a user to grasp, the top part being provided above the lateral grasping part, wherein and the first feedback element is provided such that the visual element is viewable in the top part and the second feedback element is provided such that the haptic feedback is felt in the lateral grasping part.
However, Yang discloses an electronic apparatus with haptic feedback and a method for providing haptic feedback (Abstract), comprising a device (portable device, [0027]) with an enclosure comprising a top part (Fig.1, 110) and a lateral grasping part suitable for a user to grab (area including the actuation unit beneath the display, Fig,1.120), the top part being provided above the lateral grasping part (Fig.1, 110 and 120), wherein a haptic feedback element (Fig.1,120) is provided such that the haptic feedback is felt in the lateral grasping part (vibration is perceivable on part of the apparatus, wherein the grasping part is part of the enclosure, [0027] [0028]).
Additionally, Moon discloses an electronic device having a display (Abstract), comprising a status element (LED indicator; [0029]) which is located in the top part of an enclosure (Fig.1, 106 and Fig.2, 106) and provides a visual elemental which is viewable in the top part ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filings to improve the Ogaz’s invention in the same way that Yang’s invention has been improved to achieve the following predictable results for the purpose of effectively providing feedback to a user based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the device’s (portable device, Ogaz, [0098] [0159]) enclosure further comprises a top part and a lateral grasping part suitable for a user to grasp, the top part being provided above the lateral grasping part, wherein and the second feedback element is provided such that the haptic feedback is mostly felt in the lateral grasping part.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve the invention disclosed by the combination of Ogaz and Yang in the same way that Moon’s invention has been improved to achieve the following predictable results for the purpose of effectively providing feedback to a user based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the first feedback element is further provided such that the visual element is viewable in the top part.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaz (US 2017/0221336) in view of Kim et al. (US 11,079,913) (“Kim”).
For claim 7, Ogaz fails to teach, wherein the first feedback element comprises a multi-coloured panel having a front surface configured to represent a visual element comprised of a plurality of coloured lights.
However, Kim discloses a system and method for providing user interfaces for displaying visual indicators (Abstract), wherein a feedback element (visual indicator which indicates the volume, pitch, and/or tone of a voice input) comprises a multi-coloured panel having a font surface (Fig.11C, 1102) able to represent a plurality of coloured lights, wherein a visual element is configured to present the at least one visual element through the changing of the lights (column 87 lines 12 – 33; column 89 lines 35 – column 90 line 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve Ogaz’s invention in the same way that Kim’s invention has been improved to achieve the following predictable results for the purpose of providing feedback to a user to improve a user’s speech in real-time for the purpose of effectively providing feedback to a user based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the first feedback element further comprises a multi-coloured panel having a front surface configured to represent a plurality of coloured lights (Ogaz, plurality of LEDs, [0115]), wherein the visual elements are configured to present the at least one visual element through the changing of the lights.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaz (US 2017/0221336) in view of Kim et al. (US 11,079,913) (“Kim”) and further in view of Kavanagh et al. (US 2017/0294138) (“Kavanagh”).
For claim 8, the combination of Ogaz and Kim further discloses adapting the intensity of the plurality of lights (Ogaz, [0115]) (Kim, The brightness of the plurality of lights is increased/decreased based on volume and/or pitch of the voice input, column 89 lines 35 – column 90 line 20); and a light is located in a specific position of a surface (Ogaz, [0115]) (Kim, The display is a single LED., Fig.5I; column 39 lines 28 – 53) . Yet, the combination of Ogaz and Kim fails to teach the following: turning the plurality of lights on and off; changing the colour of the plurality of the lights; adapting the intensity and frequency of the changing of colour or turning on and off of the lights; and turning a light on and off or changing the colour of a light in a specific position of the surface.
However, Kavanagh discloses a system for performing speech improvement, comprising the following to alert a user that their speech deviates from a baseline: a light is flashed (turned on/off); the color of a light is changed ([0038]); and the intensity and frequency of the turning on and off of lights is adapted ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve the invention disclosed by the combination of Ogaz and Kim in the same way that Kavanagh’s invention has been improved to achieve the following, predictable results for the purpose of effectively providing feedback to a user based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the plurality of lights are further turned on and off; the colour of the plurality of the lights are further changed; the intensity and frequency of the changing of colour or turning on and off of the lights is further adapted; and the light in the specific position of the surface is further turned on and off or the colour changed.
For claim 9, Ogaz and Kim further disclose, wherein the visual element is a changing pattern-synchronized with the signal obtained by the input sensor (Ogaz, [0115]) (Kim, The pattern of lights is changed based on volume and/or pitch of the voice input., column 89 lines 35- column 90 line 20).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaz (US 2017/0221336) in view of Kim et al. (US 11,079,913) (“Kim”) and further in view of Lin (US 2012/0295763).
For claim 10, the combination of Ogaz and Kim fails to teach further comprising a mat and a second device equipped with proximity sensor able to sense an impact provided on the mat or the proximity of a person in relation to the second sensor and provide a second signal, the processing means further comprising impact or proximity processing means which are configured to convert said second signal such that to at least one parameter of the second signal, such as frequency and intensity, corresponds a visual element to be reproduced, such as colour and brightness.
However, Lin discloses a trampoline with a feedback system (Abstract), comprising the following: a jumping mat (trampoline, Fig.1, 14; [0018] [0019] [0021]) and a second device (sensor system, Fig.1,18a-18h) equipped with proximity sensor (Fig.1, 18a-18h; [0018]) to sense an impact provided on a mat ([0018] [0019]) and provide a second signal ([0018] [0024 – 0028]); and processing means (Fig.1, 20 and 30; [0029]), the processing means further comprising proximity processing means which are configured to convert said second signal such that to at least one parameter of the second signal, such as frequency (any bouncing detected by the sensors) and intensity (one sensor emits a signal that is substantially stronger than the others) correspond a visual element to be reproduced (feedback system includes a visual transducer that emits a light in response to the electrical signals from the sensors 18a-18h, [0033]), such as colour (a variety of colors are emitted based on the signals from the sensors, [0033]).
Moreover, the combination of Ogaz and Kim further discloses wherein the brightness a visual element is determined based on a parameter of a signal (Kim, wherein the brightness of visual content (lights) is changed based on the pitch of voice content (Fig.11C, 1102 and column 83 lines 59 – column 84 line 11; column 89 lines 50 – column 90 line 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the invention disclosed by the combination of Ogaz and Kim with the Lin’s trampoline feedback system for the purpose of providing a feedback system to improve user behavior across multiple modalities (auditory, kinesthetic, etc.): a device associated with the apparatus (Ogaz, feedback device, Fig.2, 108; [0119 – 0121]) further comprises a mat and a second device equipped with proximity sensor able to sense an impact provided on the mat or the proximity of a person in relation to the second sensor and provide a second signal (Ogaz, [0122]), the processing means further comprising impact or proximity processing means which are configured to convert said second signal such that to at least one parameter of the second signal, such as frequency and intensity, corresponds to a visual element to be reproduced, such as colour and brightness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaz (US 2017/0221336) in view of Ernst et al. (US 2016/0148558) (“Ernst”).
For claim 11, Ogaz fails to teach wherein the processing means are provided in a printed circuit board, the printed circuit board further comprising at least one input and at least one output, the input and the output being electrically connected to the processing means, the input sensor and the feedback means being provided on the printed circuit board or electrically connected to the at least one input and the at least one output, respectively.
However, Ernst discloses a personal display system (Abstract) comprising the following: processing means (Fig.1, 14 and 32) provided in a printed circuit board ([0034]), the printed circuit board further comprising at least one input (receiving connection to information device, Fig.1, 38; [0037] [0038]) and at least one output (transmitting connection to information device, Fig.1, 38; [0037] [0038]), the input and the output being electrically connected to the processing ([0034 – 0038]), a voice interface ([0036]) and feedback means (haptic feedback means, [0032]) being provided on the printed circuit board ([0034]] [0036] [0037]) or electrically connected to the at least one input and the at least one output, respectively.
Additionally, Ogaz discloses that a microphone is a voice interface ([0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Ogaz’s teachings with Ernst’s teachings so that the apparatus further comprises the following or the purpose of effectively providing feedback to a user based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the processing means are further provided in a printed circuit board, the printed circuit board further comprising at least one input and at least one output, the input and the output being electrically connected to the processing, the microphone and the feedback means being provided on the printed circuit board or electrically connected to the at least one input and the at least one output, respectively.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaz (US 2017/0221336) in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0064002) (“Kim”) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 11,079,913) (“Kim2”).
For claim 13, Ogaz further discloses wherein each apparatus comprises at least one microphone ([0113] [0114] [0153] [0154] [0160]), wherein the at least one microphone measures intensity of voice signal ([0100]). Yet, Ogaz fails to teach the following: the brightness of each first feedback element of a same apparatus is adapted based on the intensity of the voice signal as measured by the microphone of the same apparatus is dependent of the distance from a voice source emitted in the vicinity of the apparatuses and thereby of the respective microphones, thereby providing a visual representation of voice propagation through a space in which the apparatuses are arranged.
However, Kim discloses an electronic device (wearable device, [0049]), wherein the intensity of a voice signal that is measured by the electronic device’s microphones is dependent on the distance from a voice source (speaker) in the vicinity of the electronic device (The intensity of a sound of voices is measured by a number of microphones. The intensity of the sound is correlated to the distance of the speaker, [0121 – 0129]). Furthermore, Kim discloses that a plurality of these electronic devices are arranged in proximity to receive and process sound (Fig.33, [0252] [0253]).
Moreover, Kim2 discloses a system and method for providing user interfaces for displaying visual indicators (Abstract), wherein the brightness of a feedback element (lights) of an apparatus is adapted based on the intensity (volume) of a voice signal as measured by a microphone of the apparatus (Fig.11C, 1102 and column 83 lines 59 – column 84 line 11; column 89 lines 50 – column 90 line 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve Ogaz’s invention in the same that Kim’s invention has been improved to achieve the following predictable results for the purpose of effectively providing feedback to a user based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the intensity of a voice signal measured by the at least one microphone of the plurality of apparatuses (Ogaz, wearable devices, [0098] [0110]), which are further arranged in proximity to each other, is dependent on the distance from a voice source emitted in the vicinity of the apparatuses and thereby of the respective microphones
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve the invention disclosed by the combination of Ogaz and Kim in the same way that Kim2’s invention has been improved to achieve the following, predictable results for the purpose of effectively providing feedback to a user based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the brightness of each first feedback element of a same apparatus is adapted based on the intensity of the voice signal as measured by the microphone of the same apparatus, such that the intensity of light associated with an apparatus is dependent of the distance, thereby providing a visual representation of voice propagation through a space in which the apparatuses are arranged (The number of apparatuses are arranged in any formation, including in proximity) .
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaz (US 2017/0221336) in view of Lin et al. (US 2016/0275960) (“Lin”) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 11,079,913) (“Kim2”).
For claim 14, Ogaz further discloses wherein a single apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses comprises a microphone ([0113] [0114] [0153] [0154] [0160]) and each apparatus comprises communication means ([0136] [0144] [0154]), wherein the microphone measures intensity of voice signal ([0100]). Yet, Ogaz fails to teach the following: the brightness of each first feedback element of a same apparatus is adapted based on the intensity of the voice signal as measured by the microphone of the single apparatus comprising a microphone and an expected distance between apparatuses, such that the intensity of light associated with an apparatus is related to the measured voice signal and an expected distance from a voice source emitted in the vicinity of the apparatuses, thereby providing a visual representation of voice propagation through a space in which the apparatuses are arranged.
However, Lin discloses a voice enhancement system (Abstract), comprising the following: the system comprises a plurality of apparatuses comprising a microphone and communications means which are arranged in proximity to each other([0038] [0040] [0046]); and an input signal is enhanced (noise reduced) based on an intensity of a voice signal as measured by a microphone and an expected distance between apparatuses, such that the enhanced input signal associated with an apparatus is related to the measured voice signal and an expected distance from a voice source emitted in the vicinity of the apparatuses (The expected distances are used to determine the position of the source, [0039] [0043]). Furthermore, the enhanced signal is transmitted to and processed (e.g. output) by each of the apparatuses ([0043]).
Additionally, Kim discloses a system and method for providing user interfaces for displaying visual indicators (Abstract), wherein the brightness of a feedback element (lights) of an apparatus is adapted based on the intensity (volume) of a voice signal as measured by a microphone of the apparatus (Fig.11C, 1102 and column 83 lines 59 – column 84 line 11; column 89 lines 50 – column 90 line 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve Ogaz’s invention in the same that Lin’s invention has been improved to achieve the following predictable results for the purpose of effectively providing feedback to a user based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the plurality of devices are further arranged in proximity to each other; the signal received from the user (input signal) is further enhanced (noise reduction) based on an intensity of a voice signal as measured by a microphone and an expected distance between apparatuses, such that the enhanced input signal associated with an apparatus is related to the measured voice signal and an expected distance from a voice source emitted in the vicinity of the apparatuses
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve the invention disclosed by the combination of Ogaz and Lin in the same way that Kim2’s invention has been improved to achieve the following predictable results for the purpose of effectively providing feedback to a user based on a user’s speech (Ogaz, [0002 – 0007]): the brightness of each first feedback element of a same apparatus is adapted based on the enhanced signal, such that the intensity of light associated with an apparatus is related to the measured voice signal and an expected distance from a voice source emitted in the vicinity of the apparatuses, thereby providing a visual representation of voice propagation through a space in which the apparatuses are arranged (Each of the apparatuses receive the enhanced signal).
For claim 15, Lin further disclose wherein the communication means are wireless means (Lin,[0038] [0040]) and the expected distance is determined through the exchange of one or more wireless signals between the communication means of the single apparatus comprising a microphone and the communication means of each of the other apparatuses (Lin, [0040]), thereby obtaining a signal strength indicator (Lin, attenuation of the intensity of the acoustic signal) associated with each of the other apparatuses and therefrom the expected distances each apparatus and the voice source emitted in the vicinity of the apparatuses (Lin, [0040] [0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1- 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONIA L GAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/SONIA L GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657