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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on Dec 04, 2024 and April 14, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because of the following items:
Fig.6 shows number 112 identifying Transfer Function H(z). However, number 112 is used to designate Transfer Function P(z) in other figures. The same number should not be used to identify different items.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because of the following items:
Par 0045 through 0047 use the number 112 for Transfer Function P(z), while Par 0054 through 0057 use the number 112 for Transfer Function H(z). See also Drawing Objections above. The same number should not be used to identify different items.
Par 0010: Contains the phrase “generate the residual noise compensation signal based on the residual noise signal by applying a fixed or adaptive feedback, FB, filter to the ambient noise signal.” However, this does not appear to match the control system drawings shown in Fig.1, where the residual noise signal from microphone 103 appears to be applied to the FB filter at block 123. While the ambient noise signal from external microphone 101 seems to be applied to the FF filter at block 121.
Par 0044: Contains the phrase “in figure 1, the audio controller 120 may be further configured to generate the residual noise compensation signal YFB (n) based on the residual noise signal e(n) by applying a fixed or adaptive feedback, FB, filter 123 to the ambient noise signal x(n).” However, this does not appear to match the control system drawings shown in Fig.1, where FB filter 123 appears to be applied to the residual noise signal e(n), and does not appear to be applied to the ambient noise signal x(n).
Par 0056: Contains the phrase “and the internal microphone 130”. However, there does not seem to be an internal microphone designated as 130. Notably, the figures do show an internal microphone labelled as 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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.
Claim 4 is 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:
Claim 4 recites the phrase “generate the residual noise compensation signal based on the residual noise signal by applying a fixed or adaptive feedback filter to the ambient noise signal.”. As noted above under Specification Objections and Drawing Objections, Paragraphs 0010 and 0044 in the Specification, as well as Figure1 in the Drawings, all appear to indicate that a feedback filter FB, producing a residual noise compensation signal YFB(n), is not being applied to the ambient noise signal x(n). Instead, it appears that a feedback filter FB, producing a residual noise compensation signal YFB(n), is being applied to the residual noise signal e(n). See Drawings, Figure 1, Block 123 identifying Transfer Function WFB(z), with its input being the residual noise signal e(n).
For the purpose of further claim analysis, and in light of the Specification and Drawings, Claim 4 will be read as “generate the residual noise compensation signal based on the residual noise signal by applying a fixed or adaptive feedback filter to the residual noise signal.”
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.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hua (U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0020313 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hua teaches: Active noise reduction (ANR) headphones for generating a sound signal (Hua, Par 0001: “...audio processing for headphones...”; See also Hua, Par 0025: “...the feedback ANC...”) the ANR headphones comprising: a loudspeaker configured to be driven by a loudspeaker signal for generating the sound signal (Hua, Figs.6-8, Driver 608 driven by Summer 606); an external microphone configured to detect an ambient noise signal (Hua, Fig.8, External Microphone 602); an internal microphone configured to detect a residual noise signal (Hua, Fig.8, Internal Microphone 610); an acceleration sensor configured to generate an acceleration signal indicative of one or more accelerations experienced by the ANR headphones (Hua, Fig.8, Accelerometer 706); and a controller configured to generate the loudspeaker signal (Hua, Par 0044: “...digital audio processing described above can be implemented with one or more processors...”) based on a composite compensation signal (Hua, Fig.8, Summer 606 creates composite signal from multiple input signals.), wherein the composite compensation signal is a combination of an ambient noise compensation signal based on the ambient noise signal (Hua, Fig.8, Signal from Ext Microphone 602 to Summer 606), a residual noise compensation signal based on the residual noise signal (Hua, Fig.8, Signal from Internal Microphone 610 to Summer 606), and an acceleration compensation signal based on the acceleration signal (Hua, Fig.8, Signal from Accelerometer 706 to Summer 606).
Regarding claim 2, Hua teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to generate the loudspeaker signal based on the composite compensation signal and an audio input signal (Hua, Par 0002: “Headphones...are in popular use for listening to music, speech during a mobile phone call, or other audio... the user is acoustically cut off from the surrounding environment”; Par 0003 “Various versions of an audio processing system having headphones are presented herein...an audio processor is configured for a transparency effect, and for occlusion effect mitigation.” Hua’s headphones, being used for audio signals such as music, are here having the audio inputs combined with audio processing for implementation of acoustic transparency and mitigation of occlusion effects, which are associated with the transmission of those same audio signals through the headphones.).
Regarding claim 3, Hua teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to generate the ambient noise compensation signal based on the ambient noise signal by applying a fixed or adaptive ambient noise feedforward filter to the ambient noise signal (Hua, Fig.8, Filter 802 applied to signal from External Microphone 602).
Regarding claim 4, and in light of the 112(b) rejection indicated above, Hua teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to generate the residual noise compensation signal based on the residual noise signal by applying a fixed or adaptive feedback filter to the ambient noise signal (Hua, Fig.8, Filter 804 applied to signal from Internal Microphone 610).
Regarding claim 5, Hua teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to generate the acceleration compensation signal based on the acceleration signal by applying an acceleration feedforward (FF) filter to the acceleration signal (Hua, Fig.8, Filter 804 applied to signal from Accelerometer 706.).
Regarding claim 15, Hua teaches: A method for operating active noise reduction (ANR) headphones for generating a sound signal, (Hua, Par 0001: “...audio processing for headphones...”; See also Hua, Par 0025: “...the feedback ANC...”) the method comprising: driving a loudspeaker by a loudspeaker signal for generating the sound signal (Hua, Figs.6-8, Driver 608 driven by Summer 606); detecting an ambient noise signal by an external microphone (Hua, Fig.8, External Microphone 602); detecting a residual noise signal by an internal microphone (Hua, Fig.8, Internal Microphone 610); generating by an acceleration sensor an acceleration signal indicative of one or more accelerations experienced by the ANR headphones (Hua, Fig.8, Accelerometer 706); and generating the loudspeaker signal based on a composite compensation signal (Hua, Fig.8, Summer 606 creates composite signal from multiple input signals.), wherein the composite compensation signal is a combination of an ambient noise compensation signal based on the ambient noise signal (Hua, Fig.8, Signal from Ext Microphone 602 to Summer 606), a residual noise compensation signal based on the residual noise signal (Hua, Fig.8, Signal from Internal Microphone 610 to Summer 606), and an acceleration compensation signal based on the acceleration signal (Hua, Fig.8, Signal from Accelerometer 706 to Summer 606).
Regarding claim 16, Hua teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program code which causes a computer or a processor to perform the method of claim 15, when the program code is executed by the computer or the processor (Hua, Par 0044: “...digital audio processing described above can be implemented with one or more processors...a digital signal processor that is executing the appropriate software (instructions) that is stored in memory.”).
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 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.
Claims 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0020313 A1) in view of Fabry (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0328462 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hua teaches: ‘The ANR headphones of claim 5.
Hua is not relied upon herein to teach: wherein the acceleration FF filter is a fixed acceleration FF filter comprising a plurality of fixed filter coefficients and wherein the plurality of fixed filter coefficients of the fixed acceleration FF filter are based on a solution of the Wiener-Hopf equation.
Fabry teaches: wherein the acceleration FF filter is a fixed acceleration FF filter (Fabry, Par 0062: “The filter can be implemented as a time-invariant filter that is calculated once, uploaded to the headphone firmware and used in this form without any changes being made at runtime.”) comprising a plurality of fixed filter coefficients (Fabry, Par 0062: “...the filter coefficients...”) and wherein the plurality of fixed filter coefficients of the fixed acceleration FF filter are based on a solution of the Wiener-Hopf equation (Fabry, Par 0057: “The forward filter W(z) can be obtained, for example, by solving the Wiener-Hopf equation w=Ψ-1s′s′φs′p−h “; Note that filter coefficients can be obtained through a variety of mathematical equations, including the mathematical equation w=Ψ-1s′s′φs′p−h ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘wherein the acceleration FF filter is a fixed acceleration FF filter comprising a plurality of fixed filter coefficients and wherein the plurality of fixed filter coefficients of the fixed acceleration FF filter are based on a solution of the Wiener-Hopf equation’ in Hua’s invention as taught by Fabry’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be for the ability to select or design applicable filters (Fabry, Par 0056: “...select or design a filter which can be applied...”).
Regarding claim 7, Hua in view of Fabry teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 6.
Fabry teaches: wherein the plurality of fixed filter coefficients WACC of the fixed acceleration FF filter (Fabry, Par 0062: “The filter can be implemented as a time-invariant filter...”) are based on the following equation: WACC=Ψ-1ggϕhg, wherein Ψgg denotes an auto-correlation matrix for the impulse response of the communication channel between the loudspeaker and the internal microphone and ϕhg denotes a cross-correlation vector between the impulse response and the impulse response of the communication channel between the acceleration sensor and the internal microphone. (Fabry, Par 0062: “The filter can be...calculated...”; See also Fabry, Par 0057: “The forward filter W(z) can be obtained, for example, by solving the Wiener-Hopf equation w=Ψ-1s′s′φs′p−h “; Note that filter coefficients can be obtained through a variety of mathematical equations, including the mathematical equation WACC = Ψ-1ggϕhg.).
Regarding claim 8, Hua in view of Fabry teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 6.
Fabry teaches: further comprising a memory configured to store the plurality of fixed filter coefficients WACC of the fixed acceleration FF filter (Fabry, Par 0062: “...the filter coefficients of the digital filter 32 can be adjusted by the digital signal processor. The filter can be implemented as a time-invariant filter that is calculated once, uploaded to the headphone firmware...”).
Regarding claim 11, Hua teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 5.
Hua is not relied upon herein to teach: wherein the acceleration feedforward filter is an adaptive filter comprising a plurality of adaptive filter coefficients.
Fabry teaches: wherein the acceleration feedforward filter is an adaptive filter (Fabry, Par 0062: “An adaptive filter, which changes at runtime and adapts to the current circumstances, can also be used.”) comprising a plurality of adaptive filter coefficients (Fabry, Par 0062“...the filter coefficients...”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘wherein the acceleration feedforward filter is an adaptive filter comprising a plurality of adaptive filter coefficients’ in Hua’s invention as taught by Fabry’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be for the ability to select or design applicable filters (Fabry, Par 0056: “...select or design a filter which can be applied...”).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0020313 A1) in view of Fabry (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0328462 A1) in further view of Pan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0156213 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hua in view of Fabry teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 7.
Hua is not relied upon herein to teach: wherein the impulse response of the communication channel between the acceleration sensor and the internal microphone is based on measurements of the residual noise signal in response to one or more pre-determined accelerations of the ANR headphones.
Pan teaches: wherein the impulse response of the communication channel between the acceleration sensor and the internal microphone is based on measurements of the residual noise signal in response to one or more pre-determined accelerations of the ANR headphones (Pan, Par 0019: “The sensor may be either a microphone or an accelerometer.”; Pan, Par 0021: “Transfer functions from each sound transducer to the sensor location are measured and stored, and transfer functions from each sound transducer to the evaluation location are measured and stored.”; See also Pan, Par 0041: “Determining transfer functions from loudspeakers to sensors and/or to the ear(s) of a listener (i.e., the evaluation locations) is known in the art. For example, a filter can be synthesized that has a transfer function that matches the measured transfer function from one source to one position... A filter is then synthesized that has the same impulse response as the measured transfer function...”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘wherein the impulse response of the communication channel between the acceleration sensor and the internal microphone is based on measurements of the residual noise signal in response to one or more pre-determined accelerations of the ANR headphones’ in Hua’s modified invention as taught by Pan’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be for the ability to produce applicable filters between a variety of sound sources, such as speakers and accelerometer detected vibrations, versus a variety of sound sinks, such as microphones, acoustic sensors and accelerometers, and with each placed at different locations used for evaluation (Pan, Par 0041: “Such filters can be synthesized for each loudspeaker to each sensor and each evaluation location.”).
Regarding claim 10, Hua in view of Fabry teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 7.
Hua is not relied upon herein to teach: wherein the impulse response of the communication channel between the acceleration sensor and the internal microphone is based on measurements of the residual noise signal in response to one or more measured accelerations of the ANR headphones.
Pan teaches: wherein the impulse response of the communication channel between the acceleration sensor and the internal microphone is based on measurements of the residual noise signal in response to one or more measured accelerations of the ANR headphones (Pan, Par 0019: “The sensor may be either a microphone or an accelerometer.”; Pan, Par 0021: “Transfer functions from each sound transducer to the sensor location are measured and stored, and transfer functions from each sound transducer to the evaluation location are measured and stored.”; See also Pan, Par 0041: “Determining transfer functions from loudspeakers to sensors and/or to the ear(s) of a listener (i.e., the evaluation locations) is known in the art. For example, a filter can be synthesized that has a transfer function that matches the measured transfer function from one source to one position... A filter is then synthesized that has the same impulse response as the measured transfer function...”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘wherein the impulse response of the communication channel between the acceleration sensor and the internal microphone is based on measurements of the residual noise signal in response to one or more measured accelerations of the ANR headphones’ in Hua’s modified invention as taught by Pan’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be for the ability to produce applicable filters between a variety of sound sources, such as speakers and accelerometer detected vibrations, versus a variety of sound sinks, such as microphones, acoustic sensors and accelerometers, and with each placed at different locations used for evaluation (Pan, Par 0041: “Such filters can be synthesized for each loudspeaker to each sensor and each evaluation location.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0020313 A1) in view of Fabry (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0328462 A1) in further view of Christoph (U.S. Patent No. 10176795 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Hua in view of Fabry teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 11.
Hua is not relied upon herein to teach: wherein the controller is configured to determine the plurality of adaptive filter coefficients on the basis of a Filtered-x Least Mean Square, algorithm.
Christoph teaches: wherein the controller is configured to determine the plurality of adaptive filter coefficients on the basis of a Filtered-x Least Mean Square, algorithm (Christoph, Col 3, Ln 60-62: “...according to the Filtered X Least Mean Square (FXLMS) algorithm of the art updating of coefficients w of a matrix is basically achieved according to w(n+1)=w(n)+μ e(n) z(n)...”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘wherein the controller is configured to determine the plurality of adaptive filter coefficients on the basis of a Filtered-x Least Mean Square, algorithm’ in Hua’s modified invention as taught by Christoph’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be to have a standard and known algorithm of the art to update coefficients (Christoph, Col 3, Ln 61: “...algorithm of the art updating of coefficients...”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0020313 A1) in view of Fabry (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0328462 A1) in further view of Yasuda (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0259252 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hua in view of Fabry teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the plurality of adaptive filter coefficients.
Hua is not relied upon herein to teach: if the adjustments of the plurality of adaptive filter coefficients are within one or more pre-defined allowed ranges.
Yasuda teaches: if the adjustments of the plurality of adaptive filter coefficients are within one or more pre-defined allowed ranges (Yasuda, Par 0063: “...since control can start from a stable state by setting an initial value of the phase filter coefficient within the range which satisfies Inequality (15), control can be suppressed from being diverged and can be converged quickly.” Yasuda sets the initial values within allowed pre-determined ranges so that the controller can execute control of the coefficients while they are within their pre-determined and allowable ranges.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘if the adjustments of the plurality of adaptive filter coefficients are within one or more pre-defined allowed ranges’ in Hua’s modified invention as taught by Yasuda’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be to prevent the control from diverging and instead can converge quickly (Yasuda, Par 0063: “...control can be suppressed from being diverged and can be converged quickly...”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0020313 A1) in view of Shinmen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0095033 A1).
Regarding claim 14 Hua teaches: The ANR headphones of claim 1.
Hua is not relied upon herein to teach: wherein the ANR headphones further comprise an elastic housing configured to be inserted in the ear canal of a user.
Shinmen teaches: wherein the ANR headphones further comprise an elastic housing configured to be inserted in the ear canal of a user (Shinmen, Fig.2, Housing 210; Shinmen, Par 0070: “...forming the housing 210 by using the elastic or plastic silicone rubber and elastomer and the like...”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of ‘wherein the ANR headphones further comprise an elastic housing configured to be inserted in the ear canal of a user’ in Hua’s invention as taught by Shinmen’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would be to allow the ear piece to comfortably follow the shape of the ear canal (Shinmen, Par 0070: “a tip end of the housing 210 may also abut the inner wall of the ear canal and follow the shape of the ear canal...”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andres Lavin whose telephone number is 571-272-7628. The examiner can normally be reached.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards, can be reached on 571-270-7136. 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.
/Andres Lavin/
Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights