DETAILED ACTION
The current application had been transferred to Examiner Fan Tsang. Upon close review of the specification of the application, the pending claims and the prior art, new issues for the claims and new prior art references were discovered; please see the details of the new objections/rejections below. Examiner apologized for the delay of applying the new references to the application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(r)(3) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Figs 3-8 and 11 have lines to connect blocks but those lines failed to show the direction of movements. Arrow should be added to each of the line stated in the above figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8 and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
Regarding claim 4, line 3, “the noise reduction” lacks proper antecedent basis because no noise reduction was recited before.
Regarding claim 5, line 4, “the first sound receiving component” lacks antecedent basis. Lines 4-7, “the audio signal” also lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 6-8, they are rejected because they depend on the rejected claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, line 7, “the audio signal” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 21, line 1 “step” should be “steps” because multiple steps were recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 27, line 5, “the speaker assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 28, “the first sound” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 20-26 and 28-30, they are rejected because they depend on the rejected parent claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Lovitt et al. US 2020/0135163 (hereinafter Lovitt).
Regarding claim 1, Lovitt disclosed an active noise cancellation system (Figs.4-11) in a headset device (Figs.1 and 3) with speakers (108(a) and 108 (b), Fig.1) comprising a headset assembly (headset, Fig.1); a first sound receiving assembly (any one of multiple microphones 110, Fig.1) that is adjacent/close to a user’s ear when the headset is placed in the head of the user; a speaker assembly (speaker 108(a) in Fig.1 and its supporting physical and electrical elements) being on one side (i.e. left side, Fig.1) of the first sound receiving assembly (mic 110, Fig.1) ; wherein, the first sound receiving assembly receive ambient sound near the ear (see element 419, Fig.4) and provides the ambient sound to the speaker assembly for signal processing (see element 401, Fig.4 and para 0064-0065), the speaker assembly outputs a signal (see para 0068, 0070-75 ) processed ambient sound (see Fig.4-11 and para 68, 70-75 disclosed that some analyzed “noise” signal will be passed through to the user after reducing the level).
Regarding claim 11, the method steps recited are clearly performed by the system of Lovitt and see the embodiment of Lovitt stated in the rejection in claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103.
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. US Patent 10834494 (hereinafter Tong) in view of Darlington et al. U.S.2019/0037324 (hereinafter Darlington).
Regarding claim 1, Tong disclosed a headphone with a speaker in a headset device (Figs.1, 4 and 18) comprising a headset assembly; a first sound receiving assembly (either mic 103 or 107, Fig.4, ) that is adjacent/close to a user’s ear when the headset is placed in the head of the user; a speaker assembly (speaker 104 and the necessary elements such as 450, 207 and 201 in Fig.4) being on one side of the first sound receiving assembly; wherein, the first sound receiving assembly receive ambient sound (a mixed audio signal including noise received from mic 103 stated in Column 5, lines 1 and column 10, line 18 or the sound mixed audio signal received from mic 107 stated in Column 5, line 20-35 ) near the ear and provides the ambient sound to the speaker assembly for signal processing, the speaker assembly outputs a signal (talk-through sound or a leakage sound, column 5, line 45) processed ambient sound (see columns 5-6). However, Tong’s headset only has one speaker but the claims recited a headset/headphone with speakers. On the other hand, a headphone with two speakers was old and well known in the art and also shown in Darlington headphone in Fig.13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have audio processing method/system of Tong to implement in a regular headphone with two speakers of Darlington. This would provide the benefit of noise reduction feature to the two speakers headphone of Darlington so the user can have a better audio quality services.
Regarding claim 2, either mic 103 or mic 107 performed the claimed feature.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, see 207 and 450 of Fig.4 of Tong for the elimination unit, see column 25, lines 57-column 26, line 10 for the calibration unit and see column 6, line 33 for the feature/unit to generate the “a cancel audio signal” that reads on the claimed inversion unit.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, see the claimed gain adjustment unit (Limiter 412, Fig.4).
Regarding claim 5, see the removal of the first mixed audio signal or the second mixed audio signal in Tong’s column 12, lines 32-55.
Regarding claim 8, the elimination unit (207, Fig.4) is inherently controlled by a controlling unit.
Regarding claim 9, the ambient sound received from feedback mic 103 of Fig.4 combine with the noise and the audio from the speaker.
Regarding claim 10, see 107, Fig.4.
Regarding claim 11, Tong in view of Darlington stated in the rejection to claim 1 inherently performed the claimed steps of the claim and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as stated in claim 1. Also see Tong’s column 23 and Fig.14 for the claimed calibration signal processing (calibration function of the filter coefficient of Fig.14) and inversion signal processing (generating the fitting noise signal which is exactly opposite to inside noise for canceling out the inside noise in Column 23, line 31).
Regarding claim 12, see the feedforward microphone 107 in fig.4 and a second mixed audio signal in column 12, line 21.
Regarding claim 13-17, see Figs.14-17, 19, and column 23-27.
Regarding claim 18, see the Limiter 412 in Fig.4 for adjusting the gain to controlling the noise reduction.
Regarding claim 19, Darlington as combined with Tong used in the rejection in claim 1 clearly anticipate the claimed steps as well. Also, the claimed step of “eliminating the audio signal in the first capture signal” reads on the feature of Tong to generate a “cancel audio signal” on column 6, line 30-40 and the “echo-cancel audio signal” on column 10, lines 37-61 regarding elimination of the audio of interest signal being canceled out in the echo-cancel audio signal.
Regarding claim 20, see the feedforward microphone 107, Fig.4.
Regarding claims 21-25, see Figs.14-17 and 19, and column 23-27.
Regarding claim 26, see limiter 412 Fig. 4 of Tong.
Regarding claim 27, Darlington discloses a method/apparatus (Figs. 13, 15-16) for testing headphones such that the system comprising a measurement module (the headphone disclosed in Fig. 13 inherently have a measurement module since the headphone can perform active noise control, see para 0120) having an artificial head and a sound receiving assembly (microphone of the headphone), the headphone has two speakers. The headphone of Darlington inherently has the claimed sound output module, sound receiving module and detection assembly because these are the basic modules/structures in the headphone of Darlington to supporting the microphone/speakers of Darlington to detect sound and play sound.
What Darlington failed to disclose in that the detection assembly of the headphone outputs a first sound to the speaker and then receives the second sound at the microphone(s) corresponding to the first sound, and then calculating the transfer function between the first sound and the second sound.
However, Tong clear taught such feature in Column 20, lines 16-40 and Fig. 10. The claimed first sound reads on Tong’s first audio and the claimed second sound reads on the claimed mixed audio signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have audio processing method/system of Tong as disclosed in Column 5 to implement in a regular headphone with two speakers of Darlington. This would provide a better noise reduction feature in the two speakers headphone so the user can have a better audio services.
Regarding claim 28, Tong’s first sound is in audio range so it is inherently in the claimed range of 20Hz to 20kHz.
Regarding claim 29, both of Darlington and Tong speakers must have power amplification unit so the audio signal can be outputted with adequate power.
Regarding claim 30, all the filter parameters adjustment in Fig. 14-17 and 19 of Tong are controlled by software.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yu et al. US 2024/0257796 disclosed an audio processing method for noise-reduction earphone.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fan Tsang whose telephone number is (571)272-7547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/FAN S TSANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694