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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-10, 12-24 and 26-27 are pending. Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18-24 and 26-27 are rejected; claim 17 is objected to.
Claims 11 and 25 are cancelled.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 13-15, 18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yen et al. (US 12,126,957 B1)(previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Yen discloses a headset (abstract and Fig.1, earbud 104) comprising:
at least one electro acoustic transducer (Fig.1, speakers 120); and at least one control circuit (Fig.1, processor 116 reads on the at least one control circuit as claimed which contains different components such as audio processing component 124, wind-detection component 128, mode-configuration component 126 and mode-modification component 130 as described in c17 ln 1-21) coupled with the at least one electro-acoustic transducer, the at least one control circuit configured to
detect an acoustic disturbance in environmental sound (c4, In 9-46, detect wind level in environmental noise), wherein the acoustic disturbance is characterized by a noise level in the environmental sound deviating from a noise threshold (c3, In 66-67, c4, In 1 and c12, In36-53, e.g., detect wind level greater than a threshold), and
disable an audio pass-through mode while the acoustic disturbance is detected (c4, In 9-46: “the techniques described below may modify operation of passthrough mode when passthrough mode is being operated in windy conditions. For instance, in response to detecting a sufficient level of wind, the wireless earbuds may attenuate (and/or disable) the passthrough mode”; c12 ln 54 – c13 ln 3: “in response to the wind-detection component 128 detecting a wind event, the mode-modification component 130 may attenuate (and/or disable) the passthrough mode”), wherein the audio pass-through mode is configured to be enabled or disabled via a user’s input (note: it is inherent that the user has to enter the user’s command at an interface coupled with the processor 116 which contains different components such as audio processing component 124, wind-detection component 128, mode-configuration component 126 and mode-modification component 130 as described in c17 ln 1-21), and wherein disabling the audio pass-through mode includes disabling commands from the interface ( see c11 ln 40-59 and c11 ln 10-20: “The mode-configuration component 126 may enable a user 102 or, potentially, applications operating on the mobile device 106 to enable one or more particular modes on the wireless earbuds 104. For example, the wireless earbuds may be configured to operate in different modes, such as an active-noise-control (ANC) mode, a passthrough mode, a sidetone mode, and/or the like, each of which may be turned on based on an input from the user or otherwise”).
Regarding amended claim 2, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one control circuit is configured to sample environmental sound on a periodic basis or a continuous basis (c10, In 33-35). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, since Yen can disable different operating modes such as the audio pass-through mode by a user turning the mode on or off, it is inherent that false triggering of the audio pass-through mode during high noise events by the control circuit is mitigated ( see c11 ln 40-59 and c11 ln 10-20: “The mode-configuration component 126 may enable a user 102 or, potentially, applications operating on the mobile device 106 to enable one or more particular modes on the wireless earbuds 104. For example, the wireless earbuds may be configured to operate in different modes, such as an active-noise-control (ANC) mode, a passthrough mode, a sidetone mode, and/or the like, each of which may be turned on based on an input from the user or otherwise”).
Regarding claim 3, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one control circuit is further configured to, sample the environmental sound after detecting the acoustic disturbance in the environmental sound, enable the audio pass-through mode in response to the environmental sound satisfying a threshold, and maintain disablement of the audio pass-through mode in response to the environmental sound deviating from the threshold (c4, In 27-32).
Regarding claim 5, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein the acoustic disturbance is detected by environmental sound exceeding the noise threshold as defined by a relative amount of noise in a period, wherein the relative amount of noise is defined by an increase in noise of approximately: a) 20 decibels (dB), approximately 25 dB, approximately 30 dB, approximately 35 dB, or approximately 40 dB in the period, or b) approximately 10 percent, approximately 15 percent, approximately 20 percent, approximately 25 percent, or approximately 30 percent in the period (c6, In 41-60).
Regarding claim 6, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one control circuit is further configured to filter voice signals from the environmental sound (c18, In 53-54).
Regarding claim 7, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one control circuit is configured to detect the acoustic disturbance in a limited frequency range of the environmental sound (c5, In 42-47).
Regarding amended claim 8, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein disabling the audio pass-through mode is further based on a detected current load on an ANR engine in the headset, wherein certain acoustic disturbances are registered by the ANR engine as electrically equivalent to a command at the interface (c7, In 21- 53). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Yen can disable different operating modes such as active noise reduction mode by a user turning the mode on or off, it is thus inherent that false triggering of the switching between ANR modes by the ANR engine during the acoustic disturbance by the control circuit is mitigated ( see c11 ln 40-59 and c11 ln 10-20: “The mode-configuration component 126 may enable a user 102 or, potentially, applications operating on the mobile device 106 to enable one or more particular modes on the wireless earbuds 104. For example, the wireless earbuds may be configured to operate in different modes, such as an active-noise-control (ANC) mode, a passthrough mode, a sidetone mode, and/or the like, each of which may be turned on based on an input from the user or otherwise”).
Regarding claim 9, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein the headset includes two earphones, and wherein the at least one control circuit is configured to verify the acoustic disturbance based on an acoustic characteristic of the environmental sound as detected at both of the two earphones, wherein the headset further includes a first set of ANR microphones at a first one of the two earphones and a second set of ANR microphones at a second one of the two earphones, wherein the at least one control circuit is coupled with both the first set of ANR microphones and the second set of ANR microphones (Fig.12, c29, In 43-67 and c30, In 1-5).
Regarding amended claim 10, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one control circuit is further configured to periodically or continuously sample the environmental sound and define an average noise characteristic for the environmental sound over a period, wherein the at least one control circuit is further configured to update the average noise characteristic on a rolling basis (c10, In 33-35) (c5, In 53-67 and c6, In 1-5), and wherein the threshold is specific to at least one of, a user of the headset, a population of users, a type of use environment for the headset (abstract, wind environment), or a type of vehicle in which the headset is operated.
Regarding claim 13, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein when activated, the at least one control circuit is configured to apply ANR to the environmental sound using at the at least one electro-acoustic transducer (c1, In 40-43).
Regarding claim 14, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein in audio pass-through mode the at least one control circuit is configured to reproduce the environmental sound as audio output at the electro-acoustic transducer, and wherein the acoustic disturbance is characterized by a non-linear response (c6, In 1-35) by the at least one control circuit to the environmental sound.
Regarding claim 15, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one control circuit is further configured to, enable adjustment of audio pass-through mode settings for the at least one control circuit via a user interface command, prompt a user of the headset for feedback about disabling the audio pass-through mode, and adjust ANR engine settings based on the feedback from the user (c11, In 40-67 and c12, In 1-9).
Regarding claim 18, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one control circuit is configured to analyze a signal from a feedback microphone for residual noise before enabling the audio pass-through mode after disabling the audio pass-through mode (c11, In 40-53).
Regarding amended method claims 22-23, they recite similar limitations as those of amended apparatus claims 1-2, Yen discloses the all limitations for the similar reasons as set forth in the rejection of amended apparatus claims 1 and 2.
Regarding amended claim 24, Yen discloses the headset of claim 1, note the discussion of apparatus claims 1 and 3 above, wherein the at least one control circuit is further configured to, sample the environmental sound after detecting the acoustic disturbance in the environmental sound, enable the audio pass-through mode in response to the environmental sound satisfying a threshold, and maintain disablement of the audio pass-through mode in response to the environmental sound deviating from the threshold (c4, In 27-32), wherein the acoustic disturbance is detected by environmental sound exceeding the noise threshold as defined by a nominal amount of noise, or a relative amount of noise in a period (c3, In 66-67, c4, In 1 and c12, In43-44, detect wind level greater than a threshold).
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 have claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al. 8. (US 12,126,957 B1) in view of Hui et al. (US 2022/0191603 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Yen discloses wherein the acoustic disturbance is detected by environmental sound exceeding the noise threshold as defined by a nominal amount of noise, wherein the nominal amount of noise. Yen does no teach it is equal to approximately 90 decibels (dB), approximately 95 dB, approximately 100 dB, approximately 105 dB, approximately 110 dB, approximately 115 dB, or approximately 120 dB. However, Hui teaches is equal to approximately 90 decibels (dB), approximately 95 dB, approximately 100 dB, approximately 105 dB, approximately 110 dB, approximately 115 dB, or approximately 120 dB (Hui, ||0006). The motivation to combine Hui with Yen is for limit exposure of wind noise level of 110 dB (Hui, ||0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention to implement in where the nominal amount of noise is about 110 dB as taught by Hui in Yen for limit exposure of wind noise level of 110 dB. It just used known technique to yield predictable result.
Claim(s) 12, 16, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al. (US 12,126,957 B1) in view of Kuzhiyil (US 2021/0409534 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Yen does not disclose that the user interface which the user’s command is entered at to disable the audio pass-through mode includes a touch interface which enables tap-based commands. However, Kuzhiyil teaches that touch interface which enables tap-based commands is well known in the art so that user can have a user-friendly interface to enter user’s command accurately with ease (Kuzhiyil, Fig.1, [0041], interface actuators 103 is a capacitive type touch interface which enables tap-based command). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention to use the well-known touch interface as an user interface in the audio device of Yen for the well-known benefit of having a user friendly interfacve for a user to enter user’s command accurately with ease (using well known technique to yield predictable result). The audio device of Yes as modified by Kuzhiyil would have had the touch interface for the user to enter user’s disabling commands to disable the audio pass-through mode if the user wishes to do so (note:Yen discloses the audio pass-through mode is configured to be enabled or disabled via a user’s input (note: it is inherent that the user has to enter the user’s command at an interface coupled with the processor 116 which contains different components such as audio processing component 124, wind-detection component 128, mode-configuration component 126 and mode-modification component 130 as described in c17 ln 1-21), and wherein disabling the audio pass-through mode includes disabling commands from the interface ( see c11 ln 40-59 and c11 ln 10-20: “The mode-configuration component 126 may enable a user 102 or, potentially, applications operating on the mobile device 106 to enable one or more particular modes on the wireless earbuds 104. For example, the wireless earbuds may be configured to operate in different modes, such as an active-noise-control (ANC) mode, a passthrough mode, a sidetone mode, and/or the like, each of which may be turned on based on an input from the user or otherwise”).
Regarding independent claim 26, note the discussion of the rejection of claims 1, 12 and 16, the device of Yen as modified by Kuzhiyil teaches all the limitations claimed since it contains similar limitations as claim 16 which contains all limitations from base claims 12 which contains all limitations from base claim 1.
Regarding claim 27 which depends on claim 26, since Yen can disable different operating modes such as the audio pass-through mode by a user turning the mode on or off, it is inherent that false triggering of the audio pass-through mode during high noise events by the control circuit is mitigated ( see c11 ln 40-59 and c11 ln 10-20: “The mode-configuration component 126 may enable a user 102 or, potentially, applications operating on the mobile device 106 to enable one or more particular modes on the wireless earbuds 104. For example, the wireless earbuds may be configured to operate in different modes, such as an active-noise-control (ANC) mode, a passthrough mode, a sidetone mode, and/or the like, each of which may be turned on based on an input from the user or otherwise”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al (US 12,126,957 B1) in view of Hoby et al. (US 2020/0320972 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 19, Yen does not teach wherein automatically based on a hysteresis factor. However, Hoby teaches automatically based on a hysteresis factor (Hoby, 038). The motivation to combine Hoby with Yen is for controlling noise cancellation by comparison level difference between sound levels (Hoby, [0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention to implement in where automatically based on a hysteresis factor as taught by Hoby in Yen for controlling noise cancellation by comparison level difference between sound levels. It just used known technique to yield predictable result.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al (US 12,126,957 B1) in view of Everman et al. (US 2024/0115201 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, Yen does not teach an aviation audio device in compliance with an aviation specific communication protocol. However, Everman teaches an aviation audio device in compliance with an aviation specific communication protocol (Everman, 055, headset with earcup incorporated in an aviation helmet). The motivation to combine Everman with Yen is for providing a self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBA) for an aviation headset (Everman, 057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention to implement in where an aviation audio device in compliance with an aviation-specific communication protocol as taught by Everman in Yen for providing a self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBA) for an aviation headset. It just used known technique to yield predictable result. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Yen can disable different operating modes such as the audio pass-through mode by a user turning the mode on or off, it is thus inherent that false triggering of the audio pass-through mode in the aviation audio device of Yen as modified by Everman is mitigated which inherently enhanced safety for the user of the aviation audio device ( see c11 ln 40-59 and c11 ln 10-20: “The mode-configuration component 126 may enable a user 102 or, potentially, applications operating on the mobile device 106 to enable one or more particular modes on the wireless earbuds 104. For example, the wireless earbuds may be configured to operate in different modes, such as an active-noise-control (ANC) mode, a passthrough mode, a sidetone mode, and/or the like, each of which may be turned on based on an input from the user or otherwise”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al (US 12,126,957 B1) in view of Andrea et al. (US 2010/0111345 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 21, Yen does not teach further including a boom microphone coupled with the at least one control circuit, wherein an input from the boom microphone is used to detect the acoustic disturbance, wherein the boom microphone input accounts for a pressure gradient between far field environmental sound and near-field environmental sound. However, Andrea teaches a boom microphone coupled with the at least one control circuit, wherein an input from the boom microphone is used to detect the acoustic disturbance, wherein the boom microphone input accounts for a pressure gradient between far field environmental sound and near-field environmental sound (Andrea, Fig.1, [0025). The motivation to combine Andrea with Yen is for its ability to pick up the voice signal adequately and provide a desirable signal to noise ratio (Andrea, ([0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention to implement in where further including a boom microphone coupled with the at least one control circuit, wherein an input from the boom microphone is used to detect the acoustic disturbance, wherein the boom microphone input accounts for a pressure gradient between far field environmental sound and near field environmental sound as taught by Andrea in Yen for its ability to pick up the voice signal adequately and provide a desirable signal to noise ratio.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12-24 and 26-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s main argument is that prior art Yen or Kuzhiyil fails to teach disabling the audio pass-through mode includes disabling commands from a user interface (note: this limitation was recited in original dependent claim 12 and has been added to currently amended independent claims 1, 22 and 26). Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive for the reason as set forth in the new ground rejection above: after further consideration on the prior art Yen, the Office found evidence that Yen discloses disabling the audio pass-through mode includes disabling commands from a user’s input (see rejection to amended claim 1 above: Yen discloses that the audio pass-through mode is configured to be enabled or disabled via a user’s input (note: it is inherent that the user has to enter the user’s command at an interface coupled with the processor 116 which contains different components such as audio processing component 124, wind-detection component 128, mode-configuration component 126 and mode-modification component 130 as described in c17 ln 1-21), and wherein disabling the audio pass-through mode includes disabling commands from the interface ( see c11 ln 40-59 and c11 ln 10-20: “The mode-configuration component 126 may enable a user 102 or, potentially, applications operating on the mobile device 106 to enable one or more particular modes on the wireless earbuds 104. For example, the wireless earbuds may be configured to operate in different modes, such as an active-noise-control (ANC) mode, a passthrough mode, a sidetone mode, and/or the like, each of which may be turned on based on an input from the user or otherwise”).
As set forth in the rejection above, although the currently amended claims 12 and 16 are still rejected by the combined teaching of Yen and Kuzhiyil, applicant’s argument regarding Kuzhiyil fails to teach “wherein the audio pass-through mode is configured to be enabled or disabled via a command at an interface coupled with the at least one control circuit, and wherein disabling the audio pass-through mode includes disabling commands from the interface” is moot because in the new ground rejection for claims 12 and 16, Kuzhiyil is relied on for teaching that touch interface which can enables tap-based command is well known in the art, it is not relied on for teaching “wherein the audio pass-through mode is configured to be enabled or disabled via a command at an interface coupled with the at least one control circuit, and wherein disabling the audio pass-through mode includes disabling commands from the interface”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Supervisory Patent Examiner VIVIAN CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7848. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am--5pm.
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.
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.
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695