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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 02/25/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-17 and 19-23 are pending. Claims 3, 11 and 18 have been presently cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-17 and 19-23 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 16, 17, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (European Pub. No. EP2186312B1) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0349549).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-4, Wu teaches a method, comprising:
receiving a downlink audio signal (abstract; fig.2,3; paragraphs 0003, 0007-0009, 0032);
determining whether a noise reduction should be performed for the downlink audio signal (fig.2,3; paragraphs 0003, 0007-0009, 0031, 0032); and
in response to a determination that the noise reduction should be performed, performing the noise reduction on the downlink audio signal to produce a noise reduced audio signal, and providing the noise reduced audio signal for output via a local loudspeaker (paragraphs 0002, 0021) (fig.2,3; paragraphs 0002-0009, 0031, 0032) (Note; in paragraphs 0007-009, Wu teaches that the echo canceller can include a double talk detector that detects whether uplink audio is present on the uplink signal path, detects whether downlink audio is present on a downlink signal path, and generates a double talk flag based at least on the noise classifier, whether uplink audio is present on the uplink signal path and whether downlink audio is present on the downlink signal path. The echo canceller also can include a non-linear processing that processes the double talk flag, the noise classifier and an uplink signal to generate an output signal having reduced echo. Since the double talk flag is processed, both of the uplink and downlink audio signals are processed by the echo canceller to generate the output having a reduced echo (see also paragraph 0032).).
However, Wu does not specifically teach determining, based at least in part on a switch configured for a listener at a local loudspeaker to disable or enable noise reduction. Liu teaches determining, based at least in part on a switch configured for a listener at a local loudspeaker to disable or enable noise reduction (abstract; fig.2-4; paragraphs 0006, 0015-0017, 0020). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to incorporate the feature of determining, based at least in part on a switch configured for a listener at a local loudspeaker to disable or enable noise reduction in Wu’s invention as taught by Liu. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to efficiently control the communication with noise reduction function using a switch.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 17, Wu teaches wherein the downlink audio signal is generated at a microphone of another device and is received during a telephony call from the other device via a network (paragraph 0002).
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Wu teaches device, comprising: a memory (paragraph 56); and at least one processor (paragraphs 32, 37, 57).
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches wherein the device is a phone or headphone, and further comprises a receiver configured to receive an audio signal from a downlink in a telephony call (paragraph 0002).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Wu teaches non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor (paragraphs 32, 37, 56, 57).
Regarding claim 21, Wu does not specifically teach wherein: the determining is further based on an automated switch, and a user selection indicated by the switch overrides an automated selection indicated by the automated switch. Liu teaches wherein: the determining is further based on an automated switch, and a user selection indicated by the switch overrides an automated selection indicated by the automated switch (abstract; fig.2-4; paragraphs 0006, 0015-0017, 0020). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to incorporate the feature of wherein: the determining is further based on an automated switch, and a user selection indicated by the switch overrides an automated selection indicated by the automated switch in Wu’s invention as taught by Liu. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to allow the user efficiently control the communication with noise reduction function using a switch.
Regarding claim 22, Wu teaches the noise reduction during a telephony call (paragraph 0002).
However, Wu does not specifically teach wherein the switch includes a physical switch configured to allow the listener to enable or disable the noise reduction. Liu teaches wherein the switch includes a physical switch configured to allow the listener to enable or disable the noise reduction (abstract; fig.2-4; paragraphs 0006, 0015-0017, 0020). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu to incorporate the feature of wherein the switch includes a physical switch configured to allow the listener to enable or disable the noise reduction in Wu’s invention as taught by Liu. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to allow the user efficiently control the communication with noise reduction function using a switch.
Claims 4, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (European Pub. No. EP2186312B1) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0349549) further in view of Deole et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068287).
Regarding claim 4, 12 and 19, Wu in view of Liu does not specifically teach the determining that the noise reduction should be performed is based on one or more switches controlling downlink noise reduction including a software switch configured to disable or enable the noise reduction, and the software switch based on a preprocessing of the downlink audio signal. Deole teaches the determining that the noise reduction should be performed is based on one or more switches controlling downlink noise reduction including a software switch configured to disable or enable the noise reduction, and the software switch based on a preprocessing of the downlink audio signal (fig.6A; paragraph 0073). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Liu to incorporate the feature of the determining that the noise reduction should be performed is based on one or more switches controlling downlink noise reduction including a software switch configured to disable or enable the noise reduction, and the software switch based on a preprocessing of the downlink audio signal in Wu’s invention in view of Liu’s invention as taught by Deole. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide proper information about the noise of the participating members.
Claims 5, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (European Pub. No. EP2186312B1) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0349549) further in view of Lenke et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,776,073).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 20, Wu in view of Liu does not specifically teach in response to a determination that the noise reduction should not be performed, foregoing the performing of the noise reduction on the downlink audio signal, and providing the received downlink audio signal without the noise reduction for output via a local loudspeaker. Lenke teaches in response to a determination that the noise reduction should not be performed, foregoing the performing of the noise reduction on the downlink audio signal, and providing the received downlink audio signal without the noise reduction for output via a local loudspeaker (abstract; fig.4, 5; col. 7, lines 29-51, col.8, lines 5-23, col.13, lines 1-10). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Liu to incorporate the feature of in response to a determination that the noise reduction should not be performed, foregoing the performing of the noise reduction on the downlink audio signal, and providing the received downlink audio signal without the noise reduction for output via a local loudspeaker in Wu’s invention in view of Liu’s invention as taught by Lenke. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to efficiently control the communication without noise reduction function of the participating members in the conference.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (European Pub. No. EP2186312B1) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0349549) further in view of BESSETTE et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 1659626 A).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Wu in view of Liu does not specifically teach wherein applying the noise reduction further comprises: post-processing the noise reduced audio signal before output via the local loudspeaker. BESSETTE teaches wherein applying the noise reduction further comprises: post-processing the noise reduced audio signal before output via the local loudspeaker (second paragraph of page 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Liu to incorporate the feature of wherein applying the noise reduction further comprises: post-processing the noise reduced audio signal before output via the local loudspeaker in Wu’s invention in view of Liu’s invention as taught by BESSETTE. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide enhancing the frequency band.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (European Pub. No. EP2186312B1) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0349549) further in view of Ma et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0107929).
Regarding claim 23, Wu in view of Liu does not specifically teach wherein: the switch is controlled based at least in part on an estimated noise level in the downlink audio signal and the determination is based in part on the estimated noise level. MA teaches wherein: the switch is controlled based at least in part on an inter-cell interference level [i.e., noise level] in the downlink audio signal and the determination is based in part on the noise level (paragraphs 0005, 0075) Whereas examiner takes an official notice that an estimated noise level is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of Liu to incorporate the feature of wherein: the switch is controlled based at least in part on an estimated noise level in the downlink audio signal and the determination is based in part on the estimated noise level in Wu’s invention in view of Liu’s invention as taught by MA. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide control of a switch based on an estimated noise level conveniently.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14 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.
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 MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights