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 .
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 7, 8 and 28 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 subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed “estimate respective signals for at least a first position and a second positions” is vague and definite because it is unclear what “respective signals” are being referred to.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase “a difference between the background noise … and anti-noise…” recited on lines 7-8 and similar phrase recited on lines 13-14 are vague and indefinite and confusing. A virtual microphone detects acoustic sound which includes background noise acoustic sound and anti-noise acoustic sound. When multiple acoustic sound interact with each other, they are summed together, not subtract from each other. This is the inherent physical characteristic when two sound waves interact with each other in air. The claimed “a difference” does not match the inherent physical characteristic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 11, 12, 15-21, 24, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malka et al. (published as US 20190051283 A1, hereafter Malka) in view of Zafeiropoulos (published as US 20190035380 A1, hereafter Zafeiropoulos).
Regarding claim 1, Malka discloses a noise reduction system for actively compensating background noise generated by a noise source (engine 103, e.g.) in a noise reduction area (area occupied by ears, virtual location or head of the passenger) in a passenger transport area of a vehicle (shown in Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a controller (computer 107) comprising hardware ([0037]-[0038]);
a reference sensor (105) for detecting the background noise of the noise source;
a sound generator (110) for generating anti-noise for superimposing the anti-noise with the background noise in the noise reduction area for active reduction of the background noise ([0043], e.g.); and
a monitor-microphone array having a plurality of monitor microphones, the monitor-microphone array (106s in Fig. 1, 502 in Fig. 5, 602 in Fig. 6, [0034], [0071], [0073]) being disposed adjacent to the noise reduction area (area occupied by virtual microphone, head of the passenger) and being configured to pick up background noise emitted by the noise source and anti-noise emitted by the sound generator (equation 1, [0055]);
wherein a virtual sensing algorithm is implemented in the controller, the controller being configured to:
estimate an error signal at a position (V in Fig. 1) of a virtual microphone (equation 3, [0057]), wherein the virtual microphone is located in the noise reduction area (area occupied by the virtual microphone or head of the passenger) and the error signal is indicative of a combination of the background noise and the anti-noise at the position of the virtual microphone;
generate an anti-noise signal (by 302 in Fig. 3) for driving the sound generator (110) in that it generates the anti-noise;
determine an average error signal ([0053], [0062]), which that is indicative of a combination of the background noise and the anti-noise in a predetermined area (area occupied by the virtual microphone is predetermined in order to determine transfer functions TF1 and TF3, see step 202 in Fig. 2 and process in Fig. 4, [0046] and [0064]) of the noise reduction area comprising more than one position in the noise reduction area (an area inherently includes more than one position within the area).
Malka fails to show “update parameters being used in generation of the anti-noise signal based on the average error signal to minimize the average error signal”. Malka teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0062] a general adaption for controlling anti-noise signal to be driven by the speakers (110s). One skilled in the art would have expected that any well known technique in ANC art could be used without generating any unexpected result. In the same field of endeavor, Zafeiropoulos teaches a plurality of microphones (109) are located adjacent to the noise reduction area (area of the ear 107/108) in a car ([0026], headrest 101). Virtual error microphone signal (ev(n) shown in Figs. 2 and 3) is being utilized by an adaptive algorithm for updating the parameter (in 204) for generating the speaker feed ([0017]-[0020], [0023]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Malka in view of Zafeiropoulos by adjusting the parameter of the anti-noise unit that generating anti-noise signals for the speakers in order to ensure that the generated anti-noise signals (by 302 in Fig. 3 of Malka) taking the virtual error signal into consideration and ensure that the noise be minimized at the virtual location.
Regarding claim 2, the claimed first and second positions reads on the positions of the two ears ([0062]).
Regarding claim 3, Malka fails to explicitly show an arithmetic average. However, arithmetic average is a common way and well known method for calculating the average in a straight forward fashion. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Malka and Zafeiropoulos by using arithmetic average for calculating the virtual error because it is considered a matter design preference.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed weight reads on 1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Malka and Zafeiropoulos meets the claimed features. Zafeiropoulos teaches detecting at least one of a position and orientation of the head (camera 401, 402, [0024]), the main position reads on position between the two virtual microphone positions as the average is being calculated, overweight reads on 1.
Regarding claim 6, Malka teaches that the controller is further configured to:
estimate (by 312 in Fig. 3) a first shifted anti-noise signal (324), which is indicative of the anti-noise at a physical position of one (106) of the monitor microphones of the monitor microphone array;
determine (by 320) a residual signal (326), which is a difference between a monitor signal (322), of the monitor microphone (106) being located at said physical position, and the first shifted anti-noise signal (324) at the physical position of the monitor microphone;
estimate (by 314) a shifted residual signal (328), which is the residual signal (326) shifted to the position of the virtual microphone;
estimate (by 310) a second shifted anti-noise signal (330), which is indicative of the anti-noise at the position of the virtual microphone ([0040]); and
estimate (by 332) the error signal (V) for the position of the virtual microphone by addition of the shifted residual signal (328) and the second shifted anti-noise signal (330).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Malka teaches a plurality of positions ([0062]).
Regarding claim 12, the claimed direct monitor microphone reads on another error microphone 106 (see Fig. 3) when calculating the average error signal. The rest of the step is the same as shown in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed direction monitor microphone reads on microphone 106 in Malka and the average is calculated based on signal from microphone 106.
Claims 15-21, 24 and 25 correspond to claims 1-8, 11 and 12 discussed above.
Claim 28 corresponds claim 1 above.
Claims 14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malka and Zafeiropoulos as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Bastyr (US011664007B1).
Regarding claim 14, Malka fails to show a bandpass filter. However, Malka teaches that noise cancellation is performed up to 200 Hz ([0081]). As one skilled in the art would have expected that a general microphone could detect acoustic wave with frequency substantially higher than 200 Hz. Bastyr teaches, for ANC, a bandpass filter (350, 352) is being implemented before the input for anti-noise unit (326). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Malka and Zafeiropoulos in view of Bastyr by incorporating a bandpass filter defining the noise cancellation range in order to efficiently process the detected noise signal in the range that is intended for noise cancellation only.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 15 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12475874 (hereafter patent ‘874). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of patent ‘874 recites each and every limitation in claims 1, 15 and 28 and is more specific.
Claims 1-8, 11, 14-21, 24, 27 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12475874 (patent ‘874) in view of Malka.
Regarding claim 1, patent ‘874 fails to recite that an average error is a indicative of a combination of the background noise and anti-noise in a predetermined area of the noise reduction area. In the same field of endeavor, Malka also teaches ANC with multiple virtual locations. An average error signal is determined by taking average of multiple virtual signal, wherein each virtual signal is an indicative of the background noise and anti-noise at a predetermined area for the corresponding virtual signal ([0062]). By doing so, the effectiveness of the anti-noise is maximized at the virtual locations. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify patent ‘874 in view of Malka for this benefit.
Regarding claim 2, with the combination of patent ’874 and Malka as discussed above, the claimed virtual microphone at a first position and another virtual microphone at a second position is met.
Regarding claim 3, patent ‘874 fails to explicitly state arithmetic average which inherently includes weight of 1. However, arithmetic average is a common way and well known method for calculating the average in a straight forward fashion. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of patent ‘874 and Malka by using arithmetic average for calculating the virtual error because it is considered a matter design preference.
Claim 4 is met by claim 3 of patent ‘874.
Claim 5 is met by claim 4 of patent ‘874.
Claims 6-7 are met by claim 5 of patent ‘874 and discussion with respect to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, although patent ‘874 fails to recite determining and estimating respective signal for all of the plurality of positions, it would have been obvious to do so when the all of the plurality of positions includes the positions for calculating the average.
Claim 11 is met by claim 6 of patent ‘874.
Claim 14 is met by claim 7 of patent ‘874.
Claims 15-21, 24 and 27 correspond to claims 1-8, 11 and 14 discussed above.
Claim 28 corresponds to claim 1 discussed above.
Claims 1-4, 15-18 and 28 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/220956 (reference application; hereafter application ‘956).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 15, 16 and 28, application ‘956 fails to recite that an average error signal indicative of a combination of the background noise and the anti-noise in a predetermined area of the noise reduction area. However, a virtual microphone position is not a random position in ANC art. In the same field of endeavor, Malka teaches ANC system for reducing noise at the ears of passenger. Since it is difficult to place an error microphone at passenger’s ear in a car, the virtual position is set/predetermined at the position of the user’s ear, not at a seat back, for example. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify application ‘956 by specifying the predetermined position of each of the two virtual microphone positions in order to minimize noise at the position where the physical microphone cannot be mounted.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 17 and 18, application ‘956 fails to explicitly state arithmetic average which inherently includes weight of 1 or weighted average. However, arithmetic average or weighted average is a common way and well known method for calculating the average in a straight forward fashion. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify application ‘983 by using arithmetic average or weighted average for calculating the virtual error because it is considered a matter design preference.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 15-18 and 28 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12267653 (hereafter patent ‘653) in view of Malka.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 15, 16 and 28, patent ‘653 fails to recite that an average error signal indicative of a combination of the background noise and the anti-noise in a predetermined area of the noise reduction area. However, a virtual microphone position is not a random position in ANC art. In the same field of endeavor, Malka teaches ANC system for reducing noise at the ears of passenger. Since it is difficult to place an error microphone at passenger’s ear in a car, the virtual position is set/predetermined at the position of the user’s ear, not at a seat back, for example. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify patent ‘653 by specifying the predetermined position of each of the two virtual microphone positions in order to minimize noise at the position where the physical microphone cannot be mounted.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 17 and 18, patent ‘653 fails to explicitly state arithmetic average which inherently includes weight of 1 or weighted average. However, arithmetic average or weighted average is a common way and well known method for calculating the average in a straight forward fashion. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify patent ‘653 by using arithmetic average or weighted average for calculating the virtual error because it is considered a matter design preference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13, 23 and 26 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of double patenting rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p. 15, applicant argued that Malka does not disclose determining an average error signal indicative of a combination of a background noise and multiple anti-noise. The office disagrees. The claimed limitation “determine an average error signal, which that is indicative of a combination of the background noise and the anti-noise in a predetermined area of the noise reduction area comprising more than one position in the noise reduction area” does not specify that a position in the claimed “more than one position” is directly related to an error signal, or is directly related to an average error signal. The claimed limitation defines that a predetermined area of the noise reduction area comprising more than one position in the noise reduction area. An area inherently is a space with lots of points/positions. Malka further discloses an average error signal (“(V) may be averaged…’’ in [0062]), which that is indicative of a combination of the background noise (noise of engine, e.g.) and the anti-noise (from the speaker) in a predetermined area (the predetermined location of V) of the noise reduction area (cabin of a car as shown in Fig. 1). Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 6, signals from multiple microphones (602) indicates a combination of engine noise and anti-noise ([0073]). Furthermore, the ordinary meaning of the word “average” is taking average of at least 2 values. Thus, V, may be averaged ([0062]) or “weighed average” ([0053]) as disclosed in Malka, includes detected error at multiple locations, wherein each location includes the combination of engine noise and anti-noise.
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 PING LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/PING LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695