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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed feature as recited in claims 5 and 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, lines 2-3, “a reference signal” has been recited twice. It is unclear whether they are the same or different from each other. If they are the same, the second appearance could be modified as --said reference signal-- or --the reference signal--. If they are different, the second appearance could be modified as –second reference signal--. Claim 9 includes the same ambiguity.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear whether “a residual signal remaining after noise reduction” recited on line 3 is the same “a residual signal remaining after noise reduction” recited on line 4-5 of claim 1. If they are the same, the appearance in claim 3 could be modified to refer back to the first recitation. If they are different, the appearance in claim 3 could be modified to distinguish from claim 1. Claim 9 includes the same ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (US 20240203392 A1; hereafter Feng).
Regarding claim 1, Feng discloses (Fig. 4) a method of estimating active noise control (ANC) performance of a vehicle (102) performed by an active noise control (ANC) system, the method comprising:
performing, by a processor (including at least 426; [0078]), ANC by reproducing an acoustic signal (by 410) for reducing noise(e.g., as detected by 104 in Fig. 1) introduced from an outside to an inside of the vehicle (102) through a speaker (110 in Fig. 1, or 410 in Fig. 4), and receiving a residual signal (e(n)) remaining after noise reduction from a microphone (108 in Fig. 1, or 408 in Fig. 4);
generating (by 420) an estimation signal (y
s
^
(n)) for a control signal (y(n)) for controlling output of the speaker (410) such that the acoustic signal is reproduced during the ANC;
generating (by 462) an estimation signal (
D
^
(f)) for original noise (d(n)) before the ANC based on the residual signal (e(n)) and the estimation signal (y
s
^
(n)) for the control signal (y(n)); and
estimating noise reduction performance (464, 466) based on the estimation signal (
D
^
(f)) for the original noise (d(n)) and the residual signal (e(n)).
Regarding claim 2, Feng discloses that the estimation signal (
D
^
(f)) for the original noise (d(n)) is generated by summing (by 462) the residual signal (e(n)) and the estimation signal (y
s
^
(n)) for the control signal (y(n)).
Regarding claim 3, Feng discloses that the estimation signal (y
s
^
(n)) for the control signal (y(n)) is generated by a secondary path model filter (420) on the basis of an output signal (y(n)) of an active filter (426).
Regarding claim 4, Feng discloses that the output signal (y(n)) of the active filter (426) is generated by the active filter (426) based on a reference signal (x(n)) generated by an accelerometer (404, [0038]), a reference signal(x(n)) filtered by the secondary path model filter (420), and a residual signal (e(n)) remaining after noise reduction.
Claims 6-9 correspond to claims 1-4 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Tani (US 20240071360 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Feng fails to show the subtraction. Feng teaches a specific type of performance estimation based on calculating a reduction ration ([0041]). One skilled in the art would have expected that other kind of noise reduction performance could be conducted. Tani teaches another type based on the calculation of difference (S55, [103]) of estimation signal for the original noise (signal calculated in S54) and the residual noise (signal calculated in S43). Tani further suggests that the noise reduction performance could be represented by a decibel (dB) ([0105]) which is an unit for sound pressure. This suggestion would have motivated one skilled in the art to perform that calculation in step S55 is based on the sound pressure level of the residual noise and the sound pressure level of the estimation signal for the original noise (S54). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Feng in view of Tani by generating a noise reduction effect based on sound pressure difference in order to be able to inform the user the ANC effect in decibel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PING LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/PING LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695