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) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (2014/0056431) in view of Clemow et al (WO2008/096125) and Kim (US2022/0059069).
Consider claim 1. Kano teaches an out-of-head localization processing device comprising: an input signal generation unit configured to add convolution signals and thereby generate an input signal, the convolution signals being obtained by respectively convolving spatial acoustic filters to a plurality of reproduced signals (fig 14, 40-1 to 40-3, para 0197, 0202); an inverse filter unit (w1-w3) configured to convolve an inverse filter to the input signal and to generate an output signal (e.g., output signal to speaker 7-1 to 7-3); an output unit configured to output the output signal to an ear of a user (speakers 7-1 to 7-3); a microphone (10-1 to 10-3, fig 14), configured to pick up the output signal output from the output unit and thereby acquire a sound pickup signal (i.e., the microphones located around the head of the viewer, para 0193, 0218); an adaptive control unit (LMS 30-1 to 30-3) configured to: calculate an error function based on the input signal and the sound pickup signal (see fig. 4, the LMS 30-1 to 30-3 received signals from 40-1 to 40-3 and 10-1 to 10-3); perform adaptive control so that the error function is minimized (it would have been obvious and well-known to one skilled in the art that the adaptive filter’s function is to minimize the error (e.g., unwanted residual signal picked up by microphone 10-1 through 10-3)) ; and a correction unit (e.g., LMS 30-1 to 30-3 control w1 to w3) configured to correct the inverse filter according to a result of the adaptive control.
Kano does not clearly teach a frequency analysis unit configured to perform frequency analysis on the input signal; the use of headphone or earphone; the use of microphone that being worn on the ear of the user; and changing an adaptation speed according to a signal level in a low frequency range of the frequency analysis, the input signal being a signal to which a predetermined filter coefficient has been convolved.
Clemow teaches a frequency analysis unit (see fig. 9-10, 101-106) configured to perform frequency analysis on the input signal (page 23, line 29 through page 24, line 6); the use of headphone or earphone (3); the use of microphone that being worn on the ear of the user (5); and changing an adaptation speed according gain (page 22, lines 22-34, slowly increase or decrease the filter gain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Clemow into the teachings of Kano in order to provide a system for adapting the electronic filter means of a feed-forward ambient noise-reduction system, the adjustments being constrained so that the filter response always falls within a desirable family of filter responses, thus avoiding the need to limit the bandwidth or compromise noise reduction performance to maintain stability (page 9, lines 21-26 of Clemow).
Kano in view of Clemow does not clearly teach changing an adaptation speed according to a signal level in a low frequency range of the frequency analysis, the input signal being a signal to which a predetermined filter coefficient has been convolved.
Kim teaches changing an adaptation speed according to a result of a low frequency range of the frequency analysis (para 18, Airborne noise, such as wind and road noise, dominate the vehicle interior noise in high-speed cruising conditions. Current passive wind noise solutions using, interlayer glass typically show benefits only in the frequency range above 1.5 kHz. Therefore, a high frequency ANC system covering the 300 Hz to 1000 Hz band of frequencies would be a unique and attractive solution for in-vehicle noise reduction; para 34, The process of adapting W that results in improved cancellation is referred to as convergence. Convergence refers to the convergence of the ANC algorithm, which is controlled by the step size that governs the rate of adaption for the given circumstances. This scaling factor dictates how fast the algorithm will converge to the desired level of cancellation by limiting magnitude change of the W-filters based on each incoming W-filter), the input signal being a signal to which a predetermined filter coefficient has been convolved (see fig.1, input x[n], adaptive filter 110, FFT 128, IFFT 134). Noted that Kim uses the terms high frequency in the range of 300 Hz to 1000 Hz. However, one skilled in the art would consider 300-500 Hz being low frequency range and 500-1000 Hz being mid frequency range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Kim into the teachings of Kano in view of Clemow, so that the destructively-interfering sound waves may be produced through a loudspeaker to combine with the undesired sound waves in an attempt to cancel the undesired noise. Combination of the destructively interfering sound waves and the undesired sound waves can eliminate or minimize perception of the undesired sound waves by one or more listeners within a listening space.
Consider claim 2, Clemow further teaches the adaptation speed is increased when the input signal has a high signal level (e.g., gain or amplitude) in a predetermined frequency range, and the adaptation speed is decreased when the input signal has a low signal level in the predetermined frequency range (page 21, line 31 through page 22, line 34, e.g., slowly increase or decrease the filter gain, or the gain of constrained adaptive filter 18 needs to be varied, or the gain of the constrained adaptive filter 18 is too low).
Consider claim 3, Clemow further teaches the correction unit: determines whether a difference between a correction amount in a last update of a filter coefficient of the inverse filter and a correction amount in a current update of the filter coefficient of the inverse filter is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., a threshold); and updates the filter coefficient of the inverse filter and transmits the updated filter coefficient to the inverse filter unit when a difference between the correction amounts is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (fig. 10, page 23, line 29 to page 25, line 3).
Consider claim 5, apparatus claim 1 includes all claimed limitations required by method claim 5; therefore, method claim 5 is rejected for the same reason as apparatus claim 1.
Consider claim 6, apparatus claim 1 includes all claimed limitations required by claim 6; therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same reason as apparatus claim 1. Kano further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to execute an out-of-head localization processing method (para 0023 of Kano).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (2014/0056431) in view of Clemow et al (WO2008/096125) and Kim (US2022/0059069) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rui et al (WO2022/132721).
Consider claim 4, Kano in view of Clemow and Kim does not teach a first down-sampling processing unit configured to down-sample the input signal with a down-sampling frequency; and a second down-sampling processing unit configured to down-sample the sound pickup signal with the down-sampling frequency, wherein the adaptive control unit performs processing based on down-sampled sound pickup signal and down-sampled input signal.
Rui teaches a first down-sampling processing unit configured to down-sample the input signal with a down-sampling frequency (fig. 2, a decimator 214 configured to down-sample the external noise signal x(n)); and a second down-sampling processing unit configured to down-sample the sound pickup signal with the down-sampling frequency (The residual error is down-sampled for processing by the ANC system 200 through decimator 276), wherein the adaptive control unit performs processing based on down-sampled sound pickup signal and down-sampled input signal (adaptation engine 280 receives signals from decimator 214 through filter 292, decimator 276, filter 278).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Rui into the teachings of Kano in view of Clemow and Kim in order to provide an ANC system that is configured to provide optimal noise cancellation for a particular environment and may not provide acceptable noise cancellation in other environments, such as varying environments as a person traverses a city.
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 DUC M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7503. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30AM-3:45PM.
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 M. 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.
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691