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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The language “adaptive filter” as set forth in claim 18 without providing how or what causes this filter to be adaptive with be considered for art purposes as any general filter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (US 11,736,853 B2) in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,747,026 B1) and Snyder (US 10,805,740 B1).
Re claim 1: Jain et al. teaches a sound transmission device (figure 1A, comprising:
a first sound transmitter (42) and a second sound transmitter (44); and
a supporting structure (temple structure 40) configured to carry the first sound transmitter and the second sound transmitter. Jain et al. does not specifically teach that the supporting structure includes a first sound hole corresponding to the first sound transmitter and a second sound hole corresponding to the second sound transmitter; the first sound hole and the second sound hole are configured to introduce external sounds of the sound transmission device to the first sound transmitter and the second sound transmitter, respectively. Zhang et al. teaches in a similar environment to use sound holes to introduce external sounds to sound transmitter(s); see figures 3 and 4 along with column 7, lines 14-20 allowing external sounds to be conveyed to the internally placed microphone. It would have been obvious before the filing of the invention to incorporate such sound holes as taught by Zhang et al. into the arrangement of Jain et al. to predictably allow external sounds to be conveyed to the microphones. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention. Jain et al. also teaches that the supporting structure is configured such that the first sound hole and the second sound hole are arranged on two sides of a baffle, respectively. Note in Jain et al. the acoustic device is placed on a user’s head such that one microphone (42, 44) would be located on each side of an ear auricle of the user. The auricle satisfies the claimed baffle as set forth; especially in view of applicants’ own specification teaching that an ear auricle is equivalent to a baffle, paragraph [0110]. This combination does not teach sensitivity differences between the transmitters that are not larger than 3 dB. Snyder teaches in a similar environment to use transmitters having equal sensitivities (column 7, lines 40-41) to help in the ability to spatially characterize the source of a voice. This equal sensitivity use satisfies the claimed “not larger than 3 dB”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the rat before the filling of the invention to incorporate transmitters with equal sensitivities (Snydner) into the arrangement of Jain et al. (US 11,736,853 B2) in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,747,026 B1) as combined to predictably help in the ability to spatially characterize the source of a voice. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 11: the claimed sensitivity difference of “not larger than 1 dB” is satisfied by the use of transmitters with equal sensitivities taught in Snyder
Re claim 12: note in Jain et al., microphone 42 will be arranged closer to a mouth of a user than microphone 44 when the device is placed on a user’s head.
Re claim 19: As seen from the arrangement depicted in figure 3 of Jain et al. and as discussed in column 9, lines 31+, one or more microphones can be placed in an area (320) on one side of an auricle with the baffle being that structure of the arm located between the microphones
Re claim 20: note in Jain et al. in view of Zhang et al. as applied when the device is placed upon a user’s head sound holes would be arranged on the front side and the rear side of the auricle
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (US 11,736,853 B2) in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,747,026 B1) as applied to claims 1, 11-12, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Gonsalves (US 2019/0021472 A1).
Re claims 2-4: The teachings of Jain et al. (US 11,736,853 B2) in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,747,026 B1) and Snyder (US 10,805,740 B1) are discussed above and incorporated herein. Additionally note in Jain et al. the spacing between microphones is at least the width of a user’s ear, see contour (65) that rest on a user’s ear with microphones on each side of the contour to improve the perception of sounds. Jain et al. does not teach spacings of “not less than 1 cm”, claim 2, “not larger than 12 cm”, claim 3 and “not larger than 8 cm”, claim 4. Gonsalves teaches that the average with of a person’s ear is less than 8cm, paragraph [0011]. Given this teaching it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to obviously predict that the contour section (65) of Jain et al. would be sized to fit an averaged size ear and microphones (42) and (44) would have a spacing of something equal to or greater than 8 cm so that the microphones would be placed on respective sides of a person’s ear and specifically “not less than 1 cm”, claim 2, “not larger than 12 cm”, claim 3 and “not larger than 8 cm”, claim 4 as set forth; to predictably allow the device to be used by most persons with an averaged sized ear; the combination of microphones of which improving the perception of sounds for the user of the device. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claims 5-7: The teachings of Jain et al. (US 11,736,853 B2) in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,747,026 B1) and Snyder (US 10,805,740 B1) are discussed above and incorporated herein. Additionally note in Jain et al. the spacing between microphones is at least the width of a user’s ear, see contour (65) that rest on a user’s ear with microphones on each side of the contour to improve the perception of sounds. Jain et al. does not teach a ratio of distance of “not less than .2, claim 5, “not larger than 4”, claim 3 and “not larger than 2”, claim 7. Gonsalves teaches that the average width of a person’s ear is less than 8 cm with a height less than 10 cm, paragraph [0011]. As previously discussed, Jain et al. teaches that the microphones (42 and 44) are spaced at least by a distance greater that the width of an ear to predictably allow the device to be used by most persons with an averaged sized ear; the combination of microphones of which improving the perception of sounds for the user of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to place the microphones in relation to an average ear (baffle) with the baffle having an average height as taught in Gonsalves such that the ratio of the distance between the microphones sound holes (minimum distance of microphones spaced at least the width of the ear) to the height of the baffle (height of the ear) being ratio r=8/10=.8 satisfying each of the ratios set forth in claims 5-7 to predictably allow the device to be used by most persons with an averaged sized ear; the combination of microphones of which improving the perception of sounds for the user of the device. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (US 11,736,853 B2) in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,747,026 B1) as applied to claims 1, 11-12, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Sipkema et al. (US 2009/0252360 A1).
Re claim 8: The teachings of Jain et al. (US 11,736,853 B2) in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,747,026 B1) and Snyder (US 10,805,740 B1) are discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach the use of non-directional sound transmitters (microphones). Sipkema et al. teaches in a similar environment to use non-directional microphones (omni-directional microphone) so that sound can be detected from more than one direction, paragraphs [0016-0017]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the directional microphones in Jain et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Snyder as applied with non-directional microphones as taught by Sipkema et al. to predictably allow for sounds to be detected from more than one direction. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 9: in Jain et al. discussed above the microphones used appear to be of the same type (directional). Sipkema et al. teaches in a similar environment to use non-directional microphones (omni-directional microphone) so that sound can be detected from more than one direction, paragraphs [0016-0017]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace each directional microphone in Jain et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Snyder as applied with same type of non-directional microphones as taught by Sipkema et al. to predictably allow for sounds to be detected from more than one direction. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 13, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (US 11,736,853 B2) in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,747,026 B1) as applied to claims 1, 11-12, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2015/0163602 A1)
Re claim 13: The teachings of Jain et al. (US 11,736,853 B2) in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,747,026 B1) and Snyder (US 10,805,740 B1) are discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach to process sound signals from the sound transmitters (microphones) to increase a signal-to noise ratio within a specific frequency band. Pederson et al. teaches in a similar environment to process sound signals from the sound transmitters (14 and 14’) in specific frequency bands (by use of filter banks, paragraph [0056]) to increase a signal to noise ratio of the device (by the use of circuitry (16) including circuitry (40) by reducing the noise, paragraph [0061] along with paragraph [0099]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such circuitry taught in Pedersen et al. into the arrangement of Jain et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Snyder as applied to predictably provide a means for increasing a signal-to-noise ratio of a device. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 17: note the use of a filter bank as discussed above satisfies the claimed one or more filters as set forth
Re claim 18: the claimed adaptive filter, without providing any specifics of what makes the filter adaptive, is considered satisfied the filter(s) used in the filter bank, paragraph [0056] of Pedersen et al. as for reasons discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed sound transmission device including in combination those features of claim 13/1 wherein the controller is also configured to subtract the sound received by the first sound transmitter and the sound received by the second sound transmitter to obtain a signal that reflects a voice of a user as set forth in claim 14 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed sound transmission device including in combination those features of claim 13/1 wherein the specific frequency band is not greater than 5 kHz (claim 15) or wherein the upper frequency limit of the specific frequency band is about 2 kHz (claim 16) is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488.
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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 1/16/26