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 the Applicant’s communication filed on 05/12/2026. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5677987 (Seki).
Regarding claim 13, Seki teaches “A method (Col. 9 lines 9 – 10: FIG. 12 shows a block diagram of a howling suppressor in a seventh embodiment) comprising:
processing, at an audio processor, audio received via a receiver to generate processed audio (FIG 12 (also shown below with the Examiner’s annotations) and col. 9 lines 14 – 15: Gain control means 13 (“an audio processor”) for controlling the gain of the signal. Col. 5 lines 6 – 8: The input terminal 1 is connected to an external microphone (not shown) (see FIG. 1).);
searching, via a microphonic detection engine (comprising components 7 – 12 in FIG 12, also marked as such in the sketch below), for microphonic noise in the processed audio according to one or more predetermined microphonic parameters (operation of howling detector 8 is disclosed in col. 5 line 56 – col. 6 line 27 and FIG 5. Briefly, the FFT analysis result memory 841 stores analysis results L1~L2048 sent from the fast Fourier transform unit 7. These values are extracted one by one and sequentially compared with one another until the maximum LPEAK indicating the maximum of the analysis results L1 ~ L2048 and the peak frequency value fPEAK indicating the frequency number corresponding to the maximum LPEAK are finally stored in the maximum register 845. The maximum LPEAK finally stored in the maximum register 845 is sent to the second comparator 848 and compared with a preset threshold stored in the threshold register 847. If the maximum LPEAK is larger than the threshold (this threshold being “one or more predetermined microphonic parameters” and the fact that the maximum detected LPEAK being larger than the preset threshold means presence of howling which is one of the indications of the “ microphonic noise”), the peak frequency switch 849 is actuated by the second comparator 848 so that the peak frequency value fPEAK finally stored in the maximum register 845 is sent to the coefficient selection means 9 through the peak frequency switch 849. Alternative embodiments of the howling detector 8 are shown in FIG 6, 8 and 9 with corresponding description);
when the microphonic noise is detected: outputting, via the microphonic detection engine, a microphonic indicator to a microphonic compensation engine (combination of notch filter group 3 with corresponding coefficient memory group 4 represent “a microphonic compensation engine”. Col. 6 lines 49 – 55: The coefficient selection means 9 selects a coefficient of the notch filter having the center frequency fm corresponding to the peak frequency from the coefficient memory 10 in accordance with the inputted peak frequency value fPEAK (“when the microphonic noise is detected”). The selected coefficient (“a microphonic indicator”) is transferred to the coefficient memory 41 connected to the first notch filter 31, which is part of the “microphonic compensation engine”);
receiving, at the microphonic compensation engine, the microphonic indicator (implicit: the coefficient memory 41 connected to the first notch filter 31 receives selected coefficient);
responsively compensating, via the microphonic compensation engine, for the microphonic noise in further audio received via the receiver (Col. 6 lines 51 – 63: the first notch filter 31, configured as a biquad digital filter as shown in FIG. 3, exhibits the frequency characteristic shown in FIG. 4, so that the input signal can pass through the group of notch filters 3 and the howling frequency component of the input signal can be attenuated. If new howling occurs subsequently, the coefficients of the second notch filter 32 to the last notch filter 3m are sequentially set in a similar manner to suppress all howlings.), prior to processing of the further audio by the audio processor (as may be seen from FIG 12, the position of the filter group 3 is prior to the gain control means 13 (“the audio processor”));
processing, via the audio processor, compensated further audio from the microphonic compensation engine to generate compensated processed further audio (the gain control means 13 is down the line from the filter group 3. Col. 9 lines 14 – 17: Gain control means 13 for controlling the gain of the output signal of the group of notch filters 3 is provided between the group of notch filters 3 and the D/A converter 5); and
outputting, via the microphonic detection engine, the compensated processed further audio to a speaker (as shown in the sketch below, input to “the microphonic detection engine” and, therefore, its position is between the gain control means 13 and the speaker connected to the output terminal 6. Therefore, “the compensated processed further audio” is output to the speaker),
wherein, on an audio path from the receiver to the speaker, the microphonic compensation engine is between the receiver and the audio processor, and the microphonic detection engine is between the audio processor and the speaker (as shown in the sketch below, the signal from the microphone arrives at the input of “the microphonic compensation engine” comprising filter group 3 and coefficient memory group 4, then from its output it arrives at “the audio processor” implemented as gain control means 13, from the output of which the signal arrives at the input of “the microphonic detection engine” and then arrives at the speaker, as the claim requires).”
PNG
media_image1.png
859
1285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Seki teaches “wherein the microphonic indicator is indicative of a range, of a plurality of ranges, in which a level of the microphonic noise is located, and the method further comprises: compensating for the microphonic noise in the audio received via the receiver according to the range (in the rejection of claim 13 above, “the microphonic indicator” was mapped to the selected coefficient to be transferred to the coefficient memory 41 connected to the first notch filter 31 from the coefficient selection means 9. Col. 6 lines 56 – 63: As a result, the first notch filter 31 exhibits the frequency characteristic shown in FIG. 4, so that the input signal can pass through the group of notch filters 3 and the howling frequency component of the input signal can be attenuated. If new howling occurs subsequently, the coefficients of the second notch filter 32 to the last notch filter 3m are sequentially set in a similar manner to suppress all howlings. This means that since each howling occurs at a specific frequency, as shown in FIG 7 (“in which a level of the microphonic noise is located”), plurality of coefficients for the plurality of notch filters are “indicative of a range, of a plurality of ranges in which a level of the microphonic noise is located”, where the “plurality of ranges” is the total frequency range of the signal arriving at the Fast Fourier Transform 7 divided by the number of frequency bins (2048, see col. 5 lines 62 – 65). Since Seki is explicit that all howlings are suppressed, as explained above, this represents “compensating for the microphonic noise in the audio received via the receiver according to the range” indicated by the plurality of coefficients for the plurality of notch filters).”
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, 6, 7, 11 – 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130136276 (Chacko) in view of US 5677987 (Seki).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Chacko teaches “A device (shown in FIG 2 with corresponding description) comprising:
a speaker (speaker 220 in FIG 2); a receiver (paragraph 0022: a receiver (RX) 202 that can receive a communication signal); an audio processor (paragraph 0025: comprising baseband processor 214 cooperatively connected to an audio processor 218) configured to: process audio received via the receiver; and output processed audio to the speaker (paragraph 0025: The audio processor 218 can be substantially equivalent to the audio processor 110 of FIG. 1. Paragraph 0020: An audio processor 110 facilitates the reception and playing acoustic signals. The audio processor receives an audio signal from the baseband processor 104 in digital form. The audio processor converts the digital audio signal to an analog signal and applies amplification to the analog audio signal and applies the amplified audio analog signal to an audio transducer, such as a low audio transducer 122 or a high audio transducer 124.)…”
While Chacko teaches suppressing microphonic feedback in radio receivers (see abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0017, 0018, 0020 and 0025), Chacko does not disclose such details of the structure as “a microphonic detection engine; and a microphonic compensation engine, the microphonic detection engine configured to: search for microphonic noise in the processed audio according to one or more predetermined microphonic parameters; and when the microphonic noise is detected: output a microphonic indicator to the microphonic compensation engine to cause the microphonic compensation engine to compensate for the microphonic noise in the audio; the microphonic compensation engine configured to: receive the microphonic indicator; and responsively compensate for the microphonic noise in further audio received via the receiver, prior to processing of the further audio by the audio processor, wherein the audio processor is configured to process compensated further audio from the microphonic compensation engine to generate compensated processed further audio; wherein the microphonic detection engine is configured to output the compensated processed further audio to the speaker; and wherein, on an audio path from the receiver to the speaker, the microphonic compensation engine is between the receiver and the audio processor, and the microphonic detection engine is between the audio processor and the speaker.”
In paragraph 0005, Chacko states that as devices become smaller, the microphonics problem can continue to increase. Accordingly, a smaller device can go unstable at high volumes which causes a howling effect in the audio signal as a result of receiver audio regeneration.
In similar art, Seki teaches in FIG. 12 with corresponding description a howling suppressor (see col. 9 lines 9 – 10). Particularly, Seki teaches “a microphonic detection engine; and a microphonic compensation engine, the microphonic detection engine configured to: search for microphonic noise in the processed audio according to one or more predetermined microphonic parameters; and when the microphonic noise is detected: output a microphonic indicator to the microphonic compensation engine to cause the microphonic compensation engine to compensate for the microphonic noise in the audio; the microphonic compensation engine configured to: receive the microphonic indicator; and responsively compensate for the microphonic noise in further audio received via the receiver, prior to processing of the further audio by the audio processor, wherein the audio processor is configured to process compensated further audio from the microphonic compensation engine to generate compensated processed further audio; wherein the microphonic detection engine is configured to output the compensated processed further audio to the speaker; and wherein, on an audio path from the receiver to the speaker, the microphonic compensation engine is between the receiver and the audio processor, and the microphonic detection engine is between the audio processor and the speaker” as explained in the rejection of claim 13 in the previous section, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Seki structure and method of howling suppression, in the device of Chacko. Doing so would have been merely substitution of one type of processing circuitry for another with predictable results and the court stated in KSR, "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)). Doing so would have also allowed to provide an improved feedback detector and suppressor which can stably detect howling under a relatively large background noise and suppress it (see Seki, col. 2 lines 20 – 23).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Chacko in combination with Seki teaches “wherein the microphonic indicator is indicative of a range, of a plurality of ranges, in which a level of the microphonic noise is located, and the microphonic compensation engine is further configured to: compensate for the microphonic noise in the audio received via the receiver according to the range (in the rejection of claim 13 above in the previous section, “the microphonic indicator” was mapped in Seki to the selected coefficient to be transferred to the coefficient memory 41 connected to the first notch filter 31 from the coefficient selection means 9. Seki, Col. 6 lines 56 – 63: As a result, the first notch filter 31 exhibits the frequency characteristic shown in FIG. 4, so that the input signal can pass through the group of notch filters 3 and the howling frequency component of the input signal can be attenuated. If new howling occurs subsequently, the coefficients of the second notch filter 32 to the last notch filter 3m are sequentially set in a similar manner to suppress all howlings. This means that since each howling occurs at a specific frequency, as shown in FIG 7 (“in which a level of the microphonic noise is located”), plurality of coefficients for the plurality of notch filters are “indicative of a range, of a plurality of ranges in which a level of the microphonic noise is located”, where the “plurality of ranges” is the total frequency range of the signal arriving at the Fast Fourier Transform 7 divided by the number of frequency bins (2048, see col. 5 lines 62 – 65). Since Seki is explicit that all howlings are suppressed, as explained above, this represents “compensating for the microphonic noise in the audio received via the receiver according to the range” indicated by the plurality of coefficients for the plurality of much filters).”
Regarding claim 7, Chacko in combination with Seki teaches “wherein the microphonic compensation engine is further configured to compensate for the microphonic noise in the audio at least partially based on the one or more predetermined microphonic parameters (operation of howling detector 8 is disclosed in Seki’s col. 5 line 56 – col. 6 line 27 and FIG 5. The maximum LPEAK finally stored in the maximum register 845 is sent to the second comparator 848 and compared with a preset threshold stored in the threshold register 847. If the maximum LPEAK is larger than the threshold (this preset threshold being “the one or more predetermined microphonic parameters”), the peak frequency switch 849 is actuated by the second comparator 848 so that the peak frequency value fPEAK finally stored in the maximum register 845 is sent to the coefficient selection means 9 through the peak frequency switch 849. Since howling suppression is based on the determined LPEAK being larger than the preset threshold, it is thus based on “the one or more predetermined microphonic parameters”).”
Regarding claim 11, Chacko in combination with Seki teaches or fairly suggests “further comprising a digital signal processor (DSP) (Chacko, paragraph 0034: one or more generic or specialized processors (or "processing devices") such as microprocessors, digital signal processors) and an applications processor (Chacko, paragraph 0019: The communication device 100 can further include a main or application processor 106), wherein the audio processor is implemented at the DSP (in Seki, the gain control means 13 (corresponds to “the audio processor” of instant claim) is implemented in the digital domain, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to implement it as part of DSP (already disclosed by Chacko) simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being usage of a processor already present in the system, thus reducing the need for any additional components.), and wherein the microphonic detection engine and the microphonic compensation engine are implemented at one or more of the DSP (although not explicitly disclosed by Seki, digital signal processor is disclosed by Chacko. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to implement the recited components as part of DSP simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being usage of a processor already present in the system, thus reducing the need for any additional components.) and the applications processor.”
Regarding claim 12, Chacko teaches “further comprising one or more of a land mobile radio (LMR), a digital mobile radio (DMR), a two-way radio (Chacko, paragraph 0003: a two-way handheld radio unit), and first responder radio.”
Claims 2, 8 – 10, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130136276 (Chacko) in view of US 5677987 (Seki) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20170201836 (Hui).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Chacko teaches “further comprising a transmitter (Chacko, paragraph 0018: The RF section 102 receives baseband signals from a baseband processor 104, and transmits them at radio frequencies.), wherein the microphonic detection engine is further configured to: continue to search for the microphonic noise in compensated processed audio (In the system of Seki, the detection and suppression of the howling is performed continuously, which corresponds to the limitations “continue to search for the microphonic noise in compensated processed audio” since input to the Fast Fourier Transform 7 and subsequent detector 8 is at the output of the gain control means 13, representing “compensated processed audio”)…”
Seki and Chacko do not disclose “when the microphonic noise in the compensated processed audio continues to be detected or is no longer detected, provide, via the transmitter, to an external communication device, a respective notification thereof.”
Hui also teaches mitigation of the acoustic feedback by leveraging a dynamic range controller and a howling detector, thus being in the same art.
Additionally, Hui teaches “wherein the microphonic detection engine (paragraph 0046: The howling detector 208) is further configured to: continue to search for the microphonic noise in compensated processed audio (paragraph 0046: The howling detector 208 can be employed after the DRC 206, and the DRC 206 can be employed after the amplifier 204. When the microphone 202 receives a sound signal, the amplifier 204 can amplify the sound signal. However, the DRC 206 can constrain the output signal of the amplifier 204 to a certain amplitude to restrict the howling sound to a certain decibel level to protect a user's hearing from damage. In other words, it is the “compensated processed audio” which is fed into the howling detector 208, which means that the howling detector 208 searches for the “microphonic noise in compensated processed audio”); and, when the microphonic noise in the compensated processed audio continues to be detected or is no longer detected, provide, via the transmitter, to an external communication device, a respective notification thereof (paragraph 0047: the howling detector 208 can provide a warning signal via the status indicator 212 to inform the user that the howling protection mode has been activated. For example, the status indicator 212 could send a message to a mobile device (“an external communication device”), thereby alerting the user.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Hui howling indication transmitted to an external device, in the system of combined Chacko and Seki’s system. Doing so would have allowed to implement notification to a user of whether the howling is or is not detected.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Chacko in combination with Seki teaches “wherein the microphonic compensation engine is further configured to, when the microphonic detection engine continues to detect microphonic noise in the processed audio after the microphonic compensation engine compensates for the microphonic noise in the audio…” “…continue to compensate for the microphonic noise in the audio received via the receiver, prior to processing of the audio by the audio processor (please see explanation of operation of Seki’s system in the rejection of claim 13 above, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference. In the system of Seki, the detection and suppression of the howling is performed continuously, which corresponds to the limitations “when the microphonic detection engine continues to detect microphonic noise in the processed audio after the microphonic compensation engine compensates for the microphonic noise in the audio” and “continue to compensate for the microphonic noise in the audio received via the receiver”).”
Seki and Chacko do not disclose “reduce volume of sound emitted by the speaker”.
Hui also teaches mitigation of the acoustic feedback by leveraging a dynamic range controller and a howling detector, thus being in the same art.
Additionally, Hui teaches “reduce volume of sound emitted by the speaker (paragraph 0046: the DRC (dynamic range controller) 206 can constrain the output signal of the amplifier 204 to a certain amplitude (“reduces volume of sound emitted by the speaker”) to restrict the howling sound to a certain decibel level to protect a user's hearing from damage. Par. 0040: a speaker of the apparatus can output a second acoustic signal in accordance with the constrained amplitude.)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Hui amplifier volume control to reduce the amount of howling, in the system of combined Chacko and Seki’s system. Doing so would have allowed to implement an additional method of howling control thus increasing the effectiveness of the system.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Chacko in combination with Seki teaches “wherein the microphonic detection engine and the microphonic compensation engine continue to respectively detect and compensate for the microphonic noise in a feedback loop (please see explanation of operation of Seki’s system in the rejection of claim 13 above, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference.)…”
Seki and Chacko do not disclose “with each instance of the feedback loop where the microphonic noise continues to be detected, the microphonic compensation engine reduces volume of sound emitted by the speaker until the microphonic noise is no longer detected.”
Hui also teaches mitigation of the acoustic feedback by leveraging a dynamic range controller and a howling detector, thus being in the same art.
Additionally, Hui teaches “with each instance of the feedback loop where the microphonic noise continues to be detected, the microphonic compensation engine reduces volume of sound emitted by the speaker until the microphonic noise is no longer detected (paragraph 0046: the DRC (dynamic range controller) 206 can constrain the output signal of the amplifier 204 to a certain amplitude (“reduces volume of sound emitted by the speaker”) to restrict the howling sound to a certain decibel level to protect a user's hearing from damage. When the howling sound occurs and is detected by the howling detector 208, the howling detector 208 can mute the speaker 210 by setting an amplification gain to zero. It is implicit that when the gain is zero, there is no output from the amplifier which would mean that “the microphonic noise is no longer detected”).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Hui amplifier volume control to reduce the amount of howling, in the system of combined Chacko and Seki’s system. Doing so would have allowed to implement an additional method of howling control thus increasing the effectiveness of the system.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Chacko in combination with Seki teaches “wherein the microphonic detection engine and the microphonic compensation engine continue to respectively detect and compensate for the microphonic noise in a feedback loop (please see explanation of operation of Seki’s system in the rejection of claim 13 above, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference.)…”
Seki and Chacko do not disclose “with each instance of the feedback loop where the microphonic noise continues to be detected, the microphonic compensation engine reduces volume of sound emitted by the speaker until a predetermined minimum volume is reached.”
Hui also teaches mitigation of the acoustic feedback by leveraging a dynamic range controller and a howling detector, thus being in the same art.
Additionally, Hui teaches “with each instance of the feedback loop where the microphonic noise continues to be detected, the microphonic compensation engine reduces volume of sound emitted by the speaker until a predetermined minimum volume is reached (Par. 0040: a speaker of the apparatus can output a second acoustic signal in accordance with the constrained amplitude. Paragraph 0046: the DRC (dynamic range controller) 206 can constrain the output signal of the amplifier 204 to a certain amplitude (“reduces volume of sound emitted by the speaker” to “a predetermined minimum volume”) to restrict the howling sound to a certain decibel level to protect a user's hearing from damage. When the howling sound occurs and is detected by the howling detector 208, the howling detector 208 can mute the speaker 210 by setting an amplification gain to zero. It is implicit that when the gain is zero, there is no output from the amplifier. In this case, “a predetermined minimum volume” equals to zero).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Hui amplifier volume control to reduce the amount of howling, in the system of combined Chacko and Seki’s system. Doing so would have allowed to implement an additional method of howling control thus increasing the effectiveness of the system.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130136276 (Chacko) in view of US 5677987 (Seki) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of JP 2006166375 (Yamakawa) (references are given according to English translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Chacko in combination with Seki does not teach “wherein the one or more predetermined microphonic parameters are indicative of one or more predetermined microphonic audio data sets combined with one or more clean audio samples.”
Yamakawa also teaches howling suppression system. Particularly, Yamakawa teaches “search for microphonic noise in the processed audio according to one or more predetermined microphonic parameters (as in claim 1), wherein the one or more predetermined microphonic parameters are indicative of one or more predetermined microphonic audio data sets (paragraphs 0031 and 0034: The waveform analysis unit 8 performs FFT on the signal y(k) input from the microphone 1 to obtain a signal Y(f). Furthermore, the peak frequency is detected from the FFTed signal Y(f). Paragraph 0035: When a peak frequency is detected and continues for a predetermined time or longer, sine waveform data corresponding to the detected peak frequency is read out from the waveform storage unit 9, which is a storage device (s5). Thereafter, the cross-correlation function is calculated (s6). Therefore, if the value of the cross-correlation function with a sine waveform is large, it can be determined that the signal is due to howling, and if the value of the cross-correlation function is small, it can be determined that the signal is not due to howling. In other words, the waveform storage unit 9 contains “one or more predetermined microphonic parameters are indicative of one or more predetermined microphonic audio data sets” with which the actual waveform from the microphone is compared).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize, in the system of Chacko and Seki, disclosed by Yamakawa method and system based on comparing with predetermined microphonic audio data set since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Doing so would have also provided an additional method of identification of howling condition based on the value of the cross-correlation function.
With respect to the requirement that the predetermined microphonic audio data sets are “combined with one or more clean audio samples”, the Applicant’s own specification in paragraph in paragraph 0043 states that clean audio samples represent audio output by audio processor 206 when no audio signal is being received at the receiver. In other words, “clean audio samples” represent complete silence.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that complete silence would likely result in the audio samples being at or close to the zero level and thus would not make any meaningful difference (and thus would not contain any patentable significance) whether they are combined or not with the audio samples of howling, since the howling sound represents result of a positive feedback and the amplitude or value of these audio samples are incomparably larger than the value of audio samples representing complete silence.
Claims 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5677987 (Seki) as applied to claim 13 above in section 6 above, and further in view of US 20170201836 (Hui).
Regarding claims 14, 19 and 20, these claims are rejected in view of Hui because of the same reasons as explained in the rejection of same claims in section 10 above, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5677987 (Seki) as applied to claim 13 above in section 6 above, and further in view of JP 2006166375 (Yamakawa).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected in view of Yamakawa because of the same reasons as explained in the rejection of same claim in section 11 above, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference.
Claims 4, 5, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130136276 (Chacko) in view of US 5677987 (Seki), or alternatively, in additional view of WO 2022217978 (Pan) (references are given according to English translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Chacko in combination with Seki teaches or fairly suggests “search for microphonic noise in the processed audio according to the one or more predetermined microphonic parameters that are at least partially range based (Seki, col. 5 lines 56 – 66: the detector 8 (in FIG 5) comprises an FFT analysis result memory 841, selection means 843, a first comparator 844, a maximum register 845, a threshold register 847, a second comparator 848 and a peak frequency switch 849. The FFT analysis result memory 841 stores analysis results L1 ~ L2048 sent from the fast Fourier transform unit 7. For example, when the fast Fourier transform 7 conducts a 4096-point fast Fourier transform unit, power values of 2048-point frequency components are stored in the FFT analysis result memory 841. The analysis results L1 ~ L2048 stored in the FFT analysis result memory 841 are supplied to the selection means 843. These values are extracted one by one and sequentially compared with one another until the maximum LPEAK indicating the maximum of the analysis results L1 ~ L2048 and the peak frequency value fPEAK indicating the frequency number corresponding to the maximum LPEAK are finally stored in the maximum register 845. The maximum LPEAK finally stored in the maximum register 845 is sent to the second comparator 848 and compared with a preset threshold stored in the threshold register 847, corresponding to the claimed “the one or more predetermined microphonic parameters”. In other words, it is inherent that FFT 7 and detector 8 in FIG 12 (also shown in detail in FIG 5, 6, 8 or 9) perform analysis and detection of howling (“searching for microphonic noise”) within a certain frequency range between the frequency bins L1 and L2048, and this preset threshold is used within this frequency range.);
determine one or more of: a level of the microphonic noise; and a range, of a plurality of ranges, in which the level of the microphonic noise is located (Seki, col. 6 lines 19 – 27: The maximum LPEAK finally stored in the maximum register 845 (corresponds to “determining one or more of: a level of the microphonic noise”) is sent to the second comparator 848 and compared with a preset threshold stored in the threshold register 847. If the maximum LPEAK is larger than the threshold, the peak frequency switch 849 is actuated by the second comparator 848 so that the peak frequency value fPEAK finally stored in the maximum register 845 (corresponds to “determining one or more of: … a range … in which the level of the microphonic noise is located” as shown in FIG 7 with respect to PEAK located within the range surrounding frequency n (such as between n-1 and n+1)) is sent to the coefficient selection means 9 through the peak frequency switch 849. Col. 6 lines 56 – 63: If new howling occurs subsequently, the coefficients of the second notch filter 32 to the last notch filter 3m are sequentially set in a similar manner to suppress all howlings. This means that additional howling frequencies are identified at different frequencies which corresponds to the claimed “a plurality of ranges”.); and
generate the microphonic indicator to indicate one or more of the level and the range of the microphonic noise (in the rejection of claim 13 above, “the microphonic indicator” was mapped to the selected coefficient to be transferred to the coefficient memory 41 connected to the first notch filter 31 from the coefficient selection means 9. Seki, col. 6 lines 56 – 63: As a result, the first notch filter 31 exhibits the frequency characteristic shown in FIG. 4, so that the input signal can pass through the group of notch filters 3 and the howling frequency component of the input signal can be attenuated. Col. 5 lines 46 – 48: As a result, a bell shape frequency characteristic having an attenuation peak at the center frequency fm is produced. In other words, since these selected coefficients result in specific filter characteristic centered at the howling frequency (“the range”), these selected coefficients are generated (“generating the microphonic indicator”) “to indicate one or more … the range of the microphonic noise.” The same would apply for the disclosed in col. 6 lines 56 – 63 case if additional howling occurs at other frequencies subsequently, the coefficients of the second notch filter 32 to the last notch filter 3m are sequentially set in a similar manner to suppress all howlings, which means that additional ranges are indicated in similar manner. These coefficients for the notch filters (“the microphonic indicator”) at least implicitly also indicate “the level” “of the microphonic noise” at the determined frequency(ies) as being higher than the preset threshold (otherwise there would be no need for any coefficients), which is sufficient to meet this limitation.).”
Additionally or alternatively, Pan also teaches a method and apparatus for suppressing howling (see par. 0001). Similar to the operation of the device of Seki, in step 302, Pan’s device acquires the spectrum signal corresponding to the first signal (par. 0040). Also, similar to the operation of the device of Seki, in step 304 (see par. 0054 – 0056 ), Pan’s device determines the howling spectrum component in the spectrum signal based on the howling detection threshold. If the spectral amplitude corresponding to the first frequency point is greater than the howling detection threshold, then the first spectral component is determined to be the howling spectral component, and the first frequency point is any one or more frequency points of the spectral signal. By comparing the howling detection threshold with the spectral amplitudes corresponding to all frequency points, the howling spectral components can be determined. This method is beneficial for simultaneously detecting howling at multiple frequency points or broadband howling. Next, in step 305 (see paragraphs 0060 – 0065), Pan’s device determines the suppression parameters based on the howling detection threshold and the spectral amplitude corresponding to the howling spectral component. Lastly, in step 306, Pan’s device (see par. 0070 – 0071) performs filtering on the spectrum signal based on the suppression parameter.
In other words, in Pan’s device, the filtering is performed also based on the amplitude of the howling signal so that the suppression parameter must necessarily include indication of the howling amplitude.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Pan usage of howling amplitude to devise suppression parameters for the filters, in the system of Chacko and Seki. Doing so would have allowed to more accurately filter out howling (see Pan, paragraph 0069).
In the device of combined Chacko, Seki and Pan’s disclosures, in addition to indicating the frequency range through the coefficients for the notch filters (“the microphonic indicator”), it would also indicate the howling amplitude (“the level”), as disclosed by Pan, as part of the suppression parameter for the filter to perform more accurate filtering of the howling.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Chacko in combination with Seki teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the microphonic indicator is indicative of a level of the microphonic noise (in the rejection of claim 13 above, “the microphonic indicator” was mapped to the selected coefficient to be transferred to the coefficient memory 41 connected to the first notch filter 31 from the coefficient selection means 9. Seki, col. 6 lines 56 – 63: As a result, the first notch filter 31 exhibits the frequency characteristic shown in FIG. 4, so that the input signal can pass through the group of notch filters 3 and the howling frequency component of the input signal can be attenuated. These selected coefficients for the notch filters (“the microphonic indicator”) result in specific filter characteristic centered at the howling frequency and thus at least implicitly indicate “the level of the microphonic noise” at the determined frequency as being higher than the preset threshold (otherwise there would be no need for any coefficients), which is sufficient to meet this limitation), and
the microphonic compensation engine is further configured to: compensate for the microphonic noise in the audio received via the receiver according to the level (since these selected coefficients result in the notch filter exhibiting such characteristic as to attenuate the howling frequency component (“compensate for the microphonic noise in the audio received via the receiver”), it only happens when “the level” of the howling component LPEAK exceeds the preset threshold, therefore, the compensation is “according to the level”. Indeed, when the level LPEAK is higher than the preset threshold, the compensation is operational. When the level LPEAK is lower than the threshold, there is no compensation, which is sufficient to meet this limitation).”
Additionally or alternatively, Pan also teaches a method and apparatus for suppressing howling (see par. 0001). Similar to the operation of the device of Seki, in step 302, Pan’s device acquires the spectrum signal corresponding to the first signal (par. 0040). Also, similar to the operation of the device of Seki, in step 304 (see par. 0054 – 0056 ), Pan’s device determines the howling spectrum component in the spectrum signal based on the howling detection threshold. If the spectral amplitude corresponding to the first frequency point is greater than the howling detection threshold, then the first spectral component is determined to be the howling spectral component, and the first frequency point is any one or more frequency points of the spectral signal. By comparing the howling detection threshold with the spectral amplitudes corresponding to all frequency points, the howling spectral components can be determined. This method is beneficial for simultaneously detecting howling at multiple frequency points or broadband howling. Next, in step 305 (see paragraphs 0060 – 0065), Pan’s device determines the suppression parameters based on the howling detection threshold and the spectral amplitude corresponding to the howling spectral component. Lastly, in step 306, Pan’s device (see par. 0070 – 0071) performs filtering on the spectrum signal based on the suppression parameter.
In other words, in Pan’s device, the filtering is performed also based on the specific amplitude of the howling signal (“compensate … in the audio received via the receiver according to the level”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Pan usage of howling amplitude to devise suppression parameters for the filters, so that filtering would be based on the amplitude (“the level”) of the howling signal, in the system of Chacko and Seki. Doing so would have allowed to more accurately filter out howling (see Pan, paragraph 0069).
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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights