Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Applicants Request for Reconsideration filed 3/30/26 which has been entered. Claims 21, 24-26, 29, 31-32, and 37-40 have been amended. Claim 35 has been cancelled. Claim 41 has been added. Claims 21-34 and 36-41 are still pending in this application, with Claims 21, 26, and 32 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to claim 29, claim 29 both positively enables and disables a mode based on mutually exclusive classifications. Claim 26 already classifies the sound environment of the first transformed signal as the third sound environment, enables the voice enhancement mode, and uses the voice enhancement mode. Therefore, it is unclear how the first transformed signal could be classified as the fourth sound environment while already being classified as the third environment, and thus, trigger disabling of the voice enhancement mode. Examiner interprets claim 29 as if the first transformed signal is only classified as the third sound environment and thus causes the enabling of the voice enhancement mode only.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 21-25 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murase et al. US Publication No. 20030120485 in view of Tracey et al. US Publication No. 20130030800.
Referring to claim 21, Murase et al. teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, at a device, a first signal from an ambient environment; determining a first environmental classification from a list of possible ambient environmental classifications of the ambient environment (Fig. 11: signal section classifying part 30 receives signal from microphones 10; para 0072: “type-I noise”; para 0073: “type-II noise”; para 0183: “voice signal” – Examiner notes that the sound signal type is indicative of the ambient environment);
selecting, based on the first environmental classification of the ambient environment, a first processing mode for use by the device (Fig. 11: noise suppressing part 40 based on signal section classifying part 30);
converting, in accordance with the first processing mode, the first signal into a second signal (Fig. 11: noise suppressing part 40 transforms its input signal into an output signal);
determining a second environmental classification from the list of possible ambient environmental classifications of the ambient environment (Fig. 11: voice recognizing part 50 detects voice rather than type I or type II noise).
However, Murase et al. does not teach a voice enhancement mode per se, but Tracey et al. teaches selecting, based on the voice detection, a voice enhancement mode; and converting, in accordance with the voice enhancement mode, the second signal into a third signal (para 0008: “control the voice enhancement controller responsive to the detected voice; where the voice activity detector is further configured to cause the voice enhancement controller to adjust the gain of the enhancement filter based on a previous noise input responsive to detecting voice”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance voice, as taught in Tracey et al., in the method of Murase et al. because “the voice enhancement system transforms the voice input signal into an enhanced output signal that can be more intelligible to a listener in the presence of varying levels of environmental noise.”
Referring to claim 22, Murase et al. teaches cause a recipient to perceive sound (para 0007) and Tracey et al. teaches providing an output signal based on the third signal to cause a recipient to perceive sound (para 0030). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 21.
Referring to claim 23, Murase et al. teaches a stimulating signal provided to the recipient (para 0007) and Tracey et al. teaches the output signal comprises a stimulating signal provided to the recipient (para 0030). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 21.
Referring to claim 24, Murase et al. teaches the first environmental classification comprises a noisy environment (para 0088: “The signal section classifying part 30 classifies the noise signal sections”), and wherein the second environmental classification comprises a speech environment (Fig. 11: voice recognizing part 50; para 0188).
Referring to claim 25, Murase et al. teaches determining the speech environment is based on identifying a voice from the second signal (Fig. 11: voice recognizing part 50; para 0188).
Claim 32-34 and 36-41 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murase et al. in view of Tracey et al. and Navada US Publication No. 20120231768.
Referring to claim 32, Murase et al. teaches a method, comprising: performing a first classification analysis to determine a first environmental classification instead of a second environmental classification of a first input signal (Fig. 11: signal section classifying part 30);
selecting a first processing mode based on the first environmental classification instead of the second environmental classification of the first input signal (Fig. 11: noise suppressing part 40 based on signal section classifying part 30);
converting the first input signal into a first processed signal using the first processing mode (Fig. 11: noise suppressing part 40 transforms its input signal into an output signal);
performing a second classification analysis to identify voice in the first processed signal (Fig. 11: voice recognizing part 50 detects voice);
However, Murase et al. does not teach a voice enhancement mode per se, but Tracey et al. teaches selecting a second processing mode based on the voice; converting the first processed signal into a second processed signal using the second processing mode; and providing an output signal based on the second processed signal for delivery to a recipient to cause the recipient to perceive sound (para 0008: “control the voice enhancement controller responsive to the detected voice; where the voice activity detector is further configured to cause the voice enhancement controller to adjust the gain of the enhancement filter based on a previous noise input responsive to detecting voice”; para 0030: “the voice enhancement system transforms the voice input signal into an enhanced output signal that can be more intelligible to a listener”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance voice, as taught in Tracey et al., in the method of Murase et al. because “the voice enhancement system transforms the voice input signal into an enhanced output signal that can be more intelligible to a listener in the presence of varying levels of environmental noise.”
However, Murase et al. and Tracey et al. do not teach deactivating the first processing mode for certain classifications per se, but Navada teaches performing the first classification analysis to determine the second classification instead of the first classification of a second input signal; and deactivating the first processing mode for the second input signal based on the second classification instead of the first classification of the second input signal (claim 8: “determining if the audio signal comprises music and, if so, disabling noise suppression”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disable noise reduction for certain signal classifications, as taught in Navada, in the method of Murase et al. and Tracey et al. because music is a wanted signal and sometimes “music content includes spectral components that tend to be perceived as noise”, therefore, it is advantageous to disable noise reduction so that the music signal is not altered.
Referring to claim 33, Tracey et al. teaches converting the first processed signal into the second processed signal using the second processing mode comprises processing the voice (para 0008). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 32.
Referring to claim 34, Tracey et al. teaches processing the voice comprises enhancing the voice (para 0008). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 32.
Referring to claim 36, Murase et al. teaches the first processing mode comprises a noise reduction mode (Fig. 11: noise suppressing part 40).
Referring to claim 37, Murase et al. teaches receiving the input signal from a plurality of directions (para 0023).
Referring to claim 38, Murase et al. teaches the first input signal is converted into the first processed signal using the first processing mode by processing the first input signal received based on the plurality of directions using the first processing mode (Fig. 11: noise suppressing part 40 transforms its input signal into an output signal; para 0023).
Referring to claim 39, Murase et al. teaches the plurality of directions comprises a front of the recipient and a rear of the recipient; and wherein processing the first input signal based on the plurality of directions comprises reducing noise from the first input signal received from the rear of the recipient (para 0118; Fig. 11: noise suppressing part 40 – Examiner notes that the noise directions are the non-front direction, which include the rear direction.).
Referring to claim 40, Murase et al. teaches the first input signal is converted into the first processed signal by applying respective weighting factors to the first input signal (para 0157: “the noise suppressing part 40 lowers a signal level by assigning weights to a noise signal section”) received from different directions of the plurality of directions (para 0023: “A speaker and a noise source are present in different directions seen from a sensor. An input signal 503 to the microphone 510 contains the voice signal 501 superimposed with the noise signal 502, and is composed of signal sections (1), (4) and (6) (containing a stationary noise), signal sections (2) and (5) (containing a non-stationary noise and a stationary noise), and a signal section (3) (containing a voice and a stationary noise)”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weight the different parts of the input signal, as taught in Murase et al., in the method of Murase et al. and Tracey et al. because “a noise level in a stationary noise signal section and a non-stationary noise signal section can be suppressed similarly. Furthermore, the stationary noise signal can be removed, and the non-stationary noise signal can be reduced.”)
Referring to claim 41, Murase et al. teaches performing the second classification analysis to identify voice in the second input signal (Fig. 11: voice recognizing part 50 detects voice) and Tracey et al. teaches selecting the second processing mode based on the voice; and converting the second input signal into a third processed signal using the second processing mode and without using the first processing mode (para 0008: “control the voice enhancement controller responsive to the detected voice; where the voice activity detector is further configured to cause the voice enhancement controller to adjust the gain of the enhancement filter based on a previous noise input responsive to detecting voice” – Examiner notes that the noise suppression part of Murase is not used in the voice enhancement of Tracey). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 32.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-28 and 30-31 are allowed.
Claim 29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 26, Murase et al. in view of Tracey et al. teach most of the limitations of claim 26, however, they do not, alone or in combination with other prior art of record, teach performing the first classification analysis to classify the sound environment of the first transformed signal as the second sound environment while also performing the second classification analysis to classify the sound environment of the first transformed signal as the third sound environment in combination with other recited elements in the claim.
Claims 27-31, which depend on claim 26, are narrower in scope than claim 26, and therefore, Murase et al. and Tracey et al. alone or in combination with other prior art of record, do not teach or make obvious to combine the further limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 32-41 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in para 3 of page 12 of the remarks:
“For example, Murase discloses the signal section classifying part 30 classifying sections of a signal into different categories, such as type-I noise signal section or intended signal section. However, Murase does not determine an environmental classification of an ambient environment from which the signal is received. See Murase, paras. [0082]-[0086]. For example, the categories in which a section of a signal can be classified by the signal section classifying part 30 merely indicate its signal type (e.g., noise signal or intended signal) and are not an environmental classification of an ambient environment. Moreover, Murase discloses the voice/speech recognizing part 50 recognizes voice, which is different than determining an environmental classification of an ambient environment from which a signal is received. See id., paras. [0189]. Overall, classifying sections of a signal into different types, such as containing noise or voice, is different from determining an environmental classification of an ambient environment. Therefore, Murase fails to disclose determining an environmental classification, much less from a list of possible ambient environmental classifications, of an ambient environment.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Classifying a sound signal as a type of signal is indicative of the sound environment. If the signal is classified as noise, that means the environment contains noise. If the signal is classified as voice, that means the environment contains speech. Therefore, Murase teaches determining environmental classifications.
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.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Wednesday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571)272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights