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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 12, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davi (US 20180254033).
Regarding claim 1, Davi teaches a method for controlling noise for a human subject, comprising: receiving an acoustic signal by the human subject through a headphone (headphone, Davi, figure 1), the acoustic signal comprising a noise signal (noise, [0022]); generating a cancellation signal based on a hearing target curve that is related to acoustic magnitude and frequency (optimize a profile for a specific target, [0018]); and applying the cancellation signal to the acoustic signal such that the noise signal is attenuated (loading settings into noise reduction system, [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, Davi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the hearing target curve comprises a relationship between noise attenuation in decibel (dB) and acoustic frequency (noise spectrum with dB and Hz, Davi, fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Davi teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the acoustic frequency is in a range from 250 Hz to 8000 Hz (1 KHz, Davi, [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Davi teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining, based on a hearing perception curve, a sound intensity hearing level that corresponds to a neutral response for the human subject; and computing the noise attenuation based on a difference between the sound intensity hearing level and a noise level (noise reduction (24) should match hearing sensitivity (equal loudness curves) to noise in a way that does not call attention to noise components that otherwise would be benign. The active noise reduction (25) performance would be tailored to get the optimum match (27) to hearing sensitivity and perceived annoyance level, [0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Davi teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring the acoustic signal such that the acoustic signal travels along a primary path and evolves into a residual signal (acoustic waves entering the headphone are eventually picked up as residual error signal in the internal microphone, Davi, fig 1; sound leaking through the housing, [0039]); and performing superposition of the residual signal and the cancellation signal to generate an error signal (sound leaking through the housing plus inverted signals, Davi, [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Davi teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: measuring the error signal (internal microphone, [0039]); computing a difference between the acoustic signal and the error signal; and comparing the difference and the cancellation signal (sounds are amplified filtered and delayed in the sound processing section (8) to match the sound leaking through the housing, [0039]).
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Davi teaches the system of claim 15, further comprising:a primary path configured to transmit the acoustic signal such that the acoustic signal evolves into a residual signal (acoustic waves entering the headphone are eventually picked up as residual error signal in the internal microphone, Davi, fig 1; sound leaking through the housing, [0039]); and a secondary path configured to transmit the cancellation signal, wherein superposition operation is performed for the residual signal and the cancellation signal at an intersection of the primary path and a secondary path such that an error signal is generated (sound leaking through the housing plus inverted signals, Davi, [0039], fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, Davi teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the headphone comprises: a reference microphone configured to measure the acoustic signal (external microphone 1, [0039], fig 1); and an error microphone configured to measure the error signal (internal microphone 2, [0039], fig 1).
Regarding claim 18, Davi teaches the system of claim 17, further comprising an adaptive filter disposed on the secondary path (auto-adaptive means, Davi, [0015]).
Regarding claim 19, Davi teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the computer device is configured to compute a difference between the acoustic signal and the error signal (internal microphone, [0039]); and compare the difference and the cancellation signal (sounds are amplified filtered and delayed in the sound processing section (8) to match the sound leaking through the housing, [0039]).
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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi.
Regarding claim 5, Davi teaches the method of claim 4.
Although Davi does further comprising: determining the neutral response by performing a power function curve fitting yi= a(xib) + c, where y is an ith mean perception rating, xi is an ith intensity level, a, b, c are coefficients, it would have been obvious to use such metrics as obvious designer’s preference to obtain a neutral response as disclosed by Davi (Davi, [0047]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi and Awiszus (US 20190175961).
Regarding claim 6, Davi teaches the method of claim 4.
Although Davi further comprising performing a clustering algorithm on a plurality of human subjects, Awiszus teaches a clustering algorithm (Awiszus, [0075]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a clustering algorithm since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Regarding claim 7, Davi and Awiszus teach the method of claim 6, wherein the clustering algorithm comprises an agglomerative hierarchical algorithm (decision tree algorithm is hierarchical, Awiszus, [0075]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi and Awiszus, and Wiss (US 20210306772).
Regarding claim 8, Davi and Awiszus teach the method of claim 6.
Although Davi and Awiszus teach do not teach the method further comprising performing electroencephalography test on the plurality of human subjects to obtain neural response of the plurality of human subjects in response to sound stimuli, Wiss teaches a hearing device with electroencephalography (Wiss, [0050]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a hearing device with electroencephalography since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi and Awiszus, Wiss, and Gilron (US 20240122525).
Regarding claim 9, Davi, Awiszus, and Wiss teach the method of claim 8
Although Davi, Awiszus, and Wiss do not explicitly teach the method further comprising: recording data measured by the electroencephalography test; re-referencing the data to obtain re-referenced data; filtering the re-referenced data to obtain filtered data; and determining a search window to identify a first peak P1, a second peak P2, and a trough point N1, Gilron teaches electroencephalography (Gilron, [0041]) while finding a first peak, a second peak, and a trough (Gilron, [0043]) and it would have been obvious to incorporate in the system of Davi, Awiszus, and Wiss since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Regarding claim 10, Davi, Awiszus, Wiss, and Gilron teach the method of claim 9, further comprising performing baseline correction on the filtered data (features may include a relative magnitude of a peak or trough in the average evoked response, Gilron, [0015]; relative measure takes into account a presumed baseline).
Regarding claim 11, Davi, Awiszus, Wiss, and Gilron teach the method of claim 10, further comprising averaging the filtered data in the search window (average evoked response, Gilron, [0015]).
Claim(s) 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi and Veselinovic (US 20230245638).
Regarding claim 14, Davi teaches the method of claim 13.
Although Davi does not teach further comprising: if the difference and the cancellation signal is greater than a threshold, tuning at least one parameter of an adaptive filter, Veselinovic teaches adapting the parameters of the adaptive filter accordingly, until the error signal is below the threshold (Veselinovic, [0023]) and it would have been obvious to incorporate in the system of Davi since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kile Blair whose telephone number is (571)270-3544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 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.
/KILE O BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691