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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 02/20/2026. Claims 1-30 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13, 21, 23, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (U.S. 2009/0030693 A1).
Claim 1, Shaffer teaches:
A device (Shaffer, Fig. 1: 104, Paragraph [0009], Each end point 104 is a device that communicates with other end points 104.) comprising:
one or more processors (Shaffer, Figs. 1 and 2: 108, Paragraphs [0016-0018], The voice analyzer(s) 108 receives voice signals, performs signal processing, and determines whether the voice quality of the voice signals is degraded above a certain threshold, and then generates an alert to the speaker. The voice analyzer(s) 108 is/are functionally equivalent to a processor.) configured to:
obtain data associated with a voice transmission (Shaffer, Paragraph [0016], The voice receiver 202 receives voice signals.) during a communication session with a second device (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0009-0010], Users may communicate with each other in the voice communication system via one of the plurality of connections, e.g. RAN 106. The communications may be performed via the plurality of end points 104.);
analyze the data to generate a voice quality metric (Shaffer, Paragraph [0018], Voice signal analyzer 204, of voice analyzer 208, detects when voice signals are considered degraded, which is a voice quality metric.);
generate an indication to a user that indicates a manner in which the user should proceed with the communication session (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023], Feedback may be generated to the speaker, and only the speaker is notified during a conversation. The feedback may be in the form of a pre-recorded voice notification or different patterns of light, for example. The feedback is used for advising the speaker on how to position the microphone in an optical position, i.e. indicates a manner in which the user should proceed with the communication session.), based on a determination that the voice quality metric fails to satisfy a voice quality threshold (Shaffer, Paragraph [0018], When the voice signals violate a threshold or deviate from an acceptable range of input levels, the voice signals fail to satisfy a voice quality threshold.); and
display the indication as a prompt for the user (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023], The feedback may be in the form of illuminated signals or other multimedia methods, such as a display.).
Shaffer does not explicitly teach:
A prompt for the user to wait before resuming talking.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the indication to functionally cause the user to wait before resuming talking. For example, in the explicitly recited example of the speaker speaking too closely to the microphone (see Shaffer, Paragraph [0021]), the indication causes the user to adjust the microphone to be farther away. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the user may decide to resume speaking or stop speaking while adjusting the position of the microphone, however, the user would be motivated to wait due to the indication of voice quality degradation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the indication to cause the user to wait before resume talking.
Claim 2, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 1, wherein the indication includes an alert (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023], An audible and/or visual feedback is functionally equivalent to an alert.).
Claim 3, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 2, wherein the alert includes an audio alert, a visual alert, a haptic alert, or a combination thereof (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023], The feedback includes at least an audible and/or visual feedback.).
Claim 4, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 1, wherein the indication includes an instruction to inform the user of the manner in which the user should proceed (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023], The feedback is used for advising the speaker on how to position the microphone in an optical position, i.e. indicates a manner in which the user should proceed with the communication session.).
Claim 5, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 4, wherein the instruction includes an instruction associated with transmission of additional audio data from the device (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023], Instructions for the speaker on how to place the microphone and/or how to speak are equivalent to be associated with transmission of additional audio data from the device. As the speaker continues to speak, and makes modifications according to the feedback, e.g. increasing or decreasing his/her volume, the subsequently transmitted audio associated with his/her speaking is altered.).
Claim 6, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 4.
Shaffer does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the instruction includes an instruction for the user to delay transmission of additional audio data from the device.
However, Shaffer discloses that the alert may be generated to inform a user to move the microphone (see Shaffer, Paragraphs [0011] and [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the alert to functionally provide feedback to the user regarding the degradation of the voice quality and simultaneously instruct the user to make adjustments to the microphone in order to fix the degradation. By instructing the user to make adjustments, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the user could potentially delay transmission of additional audio data, i.e. stop speaking until the microphone is fixed, in order to correct the degradation. Such a modification would be up to the behavior of the user, but would not change the principal operation of the system as a whole.
Claim 7, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 4, wherein the instruction includes an instruction for the user to extend a period of nontransmission of audio data from the device (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0011] and [0023], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the user to effectively extend a period of nontransmission, i.e. a period in which the user refrains from speaking, until the user has corrected the placement of the microphone in order to restore voice quality.).
Claim 8, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 4, wherein the instruction is based on a type of user activity (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023], The type of user activity is speaking, wherein the user may adjust aspects of speaking, e.g. increasing or decreasing volume, as well as adjusting the placement of the microphone while speaking.).
Claim 9, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 8, wherein the type of user activity is a video call, a video game, or an audio call (Shaffer, Paragraph [0008], Example uses of the system are for mobile phone conversations and video conferencing, etc.).
Claim 13, Shaffer teaches:
The device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to analyze the data according to a noise metric (Shaffer, Paragraph [0018], The voice signal analyzer 204 determines the degradation of a voice signal based on too much noise present, e.g. from excessive breathing of the end user (see Shaffer, Paragraph [0011]).).
Shaffer does not explicitly teach:
A block error rate (BLER) metric or a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metric.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Shaffer to include a signal to noise ratio (SNR) when analyzing voice degradation due to the presence of noise (see Shaffer, Paragraph [0018]). For example, an excessive sound aspiration of the speaker would yield a different SNR than without the presence of excessive sound aspiration, which is indicative of a sound degradation. Therefore, such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 21, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to analyze the data according to a signal quality metric that does not require a reference signal (Shaffer, Paragraph [0018], Degradation is based on a comparison with the voice signals compared with a threshold or a range, which are not reference signals. The term “reference signal” is interpreted as a signal that is similar to and comparable with a signal, i.e. the voice signal.).
Claim 23, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 1, wherein the indication is based on the voice quality metric (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023], The feedback is generated based on a degradation of voice quality.).
Claim 26, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 1, further comprising a speaker configured to provide the indication via an audible signal (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023], The feedback may be played by the speaker’s output speaker, such as the user’s ear piece.).
Claim 28, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 1, further comprising a display device configured to provide the indication via a visual signal (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023], Other methods may be appreciated, including a display.).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (U.S. 2009/0030693 A1) in view of Fruth et al. (U.S. 2006/0221942 A1).
Claim 14, Shaffer teaches:
The device of claim 1.
Shaffer does not specifically teach:
Wherein the one or more processors are configured to analyze the data according to a packet delay metric.
Fruth teaches:
Wherein the one or more processors are configured to analyze the data according to a packet delay metric (Fruth, Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shaffer by integrating the teaching of an intelligent voice network monitoring, as taught by Fruth.
The motivation would be to identify modules within a communication channel that may be the source of the audio degradation in order to take corrective action prior to complete failure of the component or network (see Fruth, Paragraph [0042]).
Claim 15, Shaffer in view of Fruth further teaches:
The device of claim 14, wherein the packet delay metric includes a number of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmissions, a radio link control (RLC) retransmission metric, or an end-to-end packet delay metric (Fruth, Paragraph [0036], The network-level metrics may be collected for each level of the network, and therefore the packet delay metric is functionally equivalent to an end-to-end packet delay metric, which includes devices such as end-point VoIP network clients ( see Fruth, Paragraph [0027]).).
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (U.S. 2009/0030693 A1) in view of Krishnan et al. (U.S. 2016/0036564 A1).
Claim 16, Shaffer teaches:
The device of claim 1, wherein:
if the voice quality degradation exceeds a threshold, generate the indication to the user (Shaffer, Paragraphs [0021-0023]).
Shaffer does not specifically teach:
The voice quality metric includes a number of packet retransmissions;
the voice quality threshold corresponds a retransmission threshold; and
the one or more processors are configured to:
analyze the data to determine the number of packet retransmissions; and
if the number of packet retransmissions exceeds the retransmission threshold, generate the indication to the user.
Krishnan teaches:
The voice quality metric includes a number of packet retransmissions (Krishnan, Paragraph [0064]);
the voice quality threshold corresponds a retransmission threshold (Krishnan, Fig. 1: 112, Paragraph [0064]); and
the one or more processors are configured to:
analyze the data to determine the number of packet retransmissions (Krishnan, Paragraphs [0064-0066], The retransmission count 154 counts the number of retransmit messages sent by the analyzer 122.); and
if the number of packet retransmissions exceeds the retransmission threshold, storing the particular packet (Krishnan, Paragraph [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Shaffer by integrating the teaching of retransmission of packets, as taught by Krishnan.
The motivation would be to maintain a perceived quality of reconstructed speech (see Krishnan, Paragraph [0004]).
As per the step of if the number of packet retransmissions exceeds the retransmission threshold, generate the indication to the user, the retransmission threshold 112 in Krishnan is one example of a metric that is used to be potentially indicative of a degradation of audio quality (see Krishnan, Paragraph [0058]). Thus, in the combination of Shaffer in view of Krishnan, the degradation of audio quality, as taught by Krishnan, would be used to generate the feedback to the user, as taught by Shaffer.
Claim 17, Shaffer in view of Krishnan further teaches:
The device of claim 16, wherein the indication includes an alert to the user to adjust to a higher delay scenario (Krishnan, Paragraph [0066], In the combination of Shaffer in view of Krishnan, an indication of an audio degradation based on re-transmission effectively alerts the user of one aspect of the signal degradation, e.g. a roundtrip delay of 8 to 16 ms.).
Claim 18, Shaffer in view of Krishnan further teaches:
The device of claim 16, wherein the retransmission threshold is based at least on a number of packet retransmissions during a packet window (Krishnan, Paragraph [0064-0065], The retransmission count 154 compares the number of retransmissions during a particular time period with the retransmission threshold 112.).
Claim 20, Shaffer in view of Krishnan further teaches:
The device of claim 16, wherein the retransmission threshold varies based on a numerology associated with the communication session (Krishnan, Paragraph [0064-0065], The retransmission threshold 112 is set based on a retransmission count 154, which is an example of a numerology.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (U.S. 2009/0030693 A1) in view of Krishnan et al. (U.S. 2016/0036564 A1) in view of Rico Alvarino et al. (U.S. 2018/0034604 A1).
Claim 19, Shaffer in view of Krishnan further teaches:
The device of claim 18, wherein:
the packet window includes a quantity of most recently transmitted packets of a communication session (Krishnan, Paragraph [0064-0065]); and
the retransmission threshold is satisfied based on retransmission of a portion of the quantity of most recently transmitted packets (Krishnan, Paragraph [0064-0065], The retransmitted packets are the most recently transmitted packets that satisfy the retransmission threshold 112.).
Shaffer in view of Krishnan does not explicitly teach:
A 5G communication session.
Rico Alvarino teaches:
5G communication (Rico Alvarino, Paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Shaffer in view of Krishnan into the 5G network, as taught by Rico Alvarino.
The motivation would be to improve signal quality for future generations of networks, e.g. 5G and later (see Rico Alvarino, Paragraph [0060]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (U.S. 2009/0030693 A1) in view of El-Hennawey et al. (U.S. 2004/0071084 A1).
Claim 22, Shaffer teaches:
The device of claim 21.
Shaffer does not specifically teach:
Wherein the signal quality metric includes an auditory non-intrusive quality estimation metric.
El-Hennawey teaches:
Wherein the signal quality metric includes an auditory non-intrusive quality estimation metric (El-Hennawey, Paragraph [0008], The method of testing voice quality on an active call is done in a non-intrusive manner. The method utilizes a plurality of Quality of Service (QoS) metrics, which are thus equivalent to non-intrusive quality estimation metrics (see El-Hennawey, Paragraph [0021]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shaffer by integrating the teaching of real time voice quality levels, as taught by El-Hennawey.
The motivation would be to further maintain good performance of voice data transmission (see El-Hennawey, Paragraph [0003]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (U.S. 2009/0030693 A1) in view of Roach (U.S. 2010/0227598 A1).
Claim 24, Shaffer teaches:
The device of claim 1.
Shaffer does not specifically teach:
Wherein the data is associated with an over-the-top voice link.
Roach teaches:
Wherein the data is associated with an over-the-top voice link (Roach, Paragraph [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Shaffer with the remote origination technology, as taught by Roach.
The motivation would be to provide enhanced features and services to the user (see Roach, Paragraph [0015]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (U.S. 2009/0030693 A1) in view of Cutler et al. (U.S. 2018/0218727 A1).
Claim 25, Shaffer teaches:
The device of claim 1.
Shaffer does not specifically teach:
Wherein the data is associated with a text-to-speech voice data source.
Cutler teaches:
Wherein the data is associated with a text-to-speech voice data source (Cutler, Paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Shaffer by integrating the teaching of a text-to-speech transmission, as taught by Cutler.
The motivation would be to supplement poor quality voice communications with synthensized speech (see Cutler, Paragaraph [0004]).
Claims 27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (U.S. 2009/0030693 A1) in view of Boss et al. (U.S. 20080101557 A1).
Claim 27, Shaffer teaches:
The device of claim 1.
Shaffer does not specifically teach:
Further comprising a haptic device configured to provide the indication via a haptic signal.
Boss teaches:
Further comprising a haptic device configured to provide the indication via a haptic signal (Boss, Paragraph [0016], The phone 102 vibrates in response to detecting an audio problem.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shaffer by integrating the teaching of a notifying telephone, as taught by Boss.
The motivation would be to further inform the speaker of an audio problem with regards to the transmission of the audio signal to other participants in a conference call (see Boss, Paragraphs [0004-0006]).
Claim 29, Shaffer further teaches:
The device of claim 1.
Shaffer does not specifically teach:
Wherein the one or more processors are configured to communicate the indication from the device to the second device.
Boss teaches:
Communicate the indication from the device to the second device (Boss, Paragraph [0019], When audio problems are determined to be with other phones, e.g. phone 104, in communication with the first phone 102, the other phones are notified of the situation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Shaffer by integrating the teaching of a notifying telephone, as taught by Boss.
The motivation would be to further inform the speaker of an audio problem with regards to the transmission of the audio signal to other participants in a conference call (see Boss, Paragraphs [0004-0006]).
Claim 30, Shaffer in view of Boss further teaches:
The device of claim 29, wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the indication based on a second indication received from the second device (Boss, Paragraphs [0012-0015], The samples submitted by other phones, e.g. phone 104, are functionally equivalent to second indications received from second devices.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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 prior art teaches the use of round-trip delay metrics for analyzing perceptual voice quality (see El-Hennaway, Paragraph [0058]). El-Hennaway, however, teaches the use of test routines for determining the round-trip delay, in order to determine voice quality that is unperceivable to the user (see El-Hennaway, Paragraphs [0057-0058]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the round-trip delay analysis to further include an indication regarding the round-trip delay for the user. Additionally, the prior art does not teach the steps of analyzing the data to detect when the user has stopped talking during the communication session, and based on detecting that the user has stopped talking and that the round-trip delay metric fails to satisfy the round-trip delay threshold, display the indication as a prompt for the user to wait before resuming talking, wherein the indication is displayed for a duration that is based on the round-trip delay metric, as claimed by claim 10 of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p 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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686