Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues on pages 8-10 that Ganeshkumar does not teach or suggest detecting whether there is a second distortion caused by a non-speech pseudo signal in an in-ear speech signal from an in-ear microphone and inpainting the in-ear speech signal with the second distortion using the in-air speech signal in response to detecting the second distortion. It is because, in order to teach or suggest the above limitations of claim 1, Ganeshkumar would have to disclose detecting whether there is a distortion caused by a non-speech pseudo signal in the output signal 123 from the inner microphone, and creating the high frequency components for the output signal 123 from the inner microphone using the output signal 121 from the external microphone in response to detecting the distortion. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. It is because, there are two different environment noise. One is due to environment outside an ear canal of a user and another one is due to environment inside the ear canal of the user (see paragraph 62 and claim 24). The nose due to outside environment is the claimed second distortion and the noise due to inside environment is the claimed first distortion. Thus when detecting user’s speech there is only the noise reduced internal signal 123 is present in the output due to due to the detected environmental noise in outside [i.e., second distortion] and vice versa. Thus Ganeshkumar teaches this limitations (see paragraph 62 and claim 24).
Thus, the rejection of the claim will remain. The rejection of the claims 14 and 20 will remain for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganeshkumar (US Pub. No. 2022/0060812) in view of Xue et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0164480).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figure -31, Ganeshkumar teaches a method for detecting distortion of speech signals and inpainting the distorted speech signals, comprising:
detecting whether there is a second distortion caused by a non-speech pseudo signal in an in-ear speech signal from an in-ear microphone (paragraph 0062; claim 24); and
inpainting the in-ear speech signal with the second distortion using the in-air speech signal in response to detecting the second distortion (paragraph 0062, lack of highly frequency component; claim 24, capturing an internal signal…..”.).
However, Ganeshkumar does not specifically teach detecting whether there is a first distortion caused by clipping in an in-air speech signal from an in-air microphone and inpainting the in-air speech signal with the first distortion using the in-ear speech signal in response to detecting the first distortion. Xue teaches detecting whether there is a first distortion caused by clipping in an in-air speech signal from an in-air microphone and inpainting the in-air speech signal with the first distortion using the in-ear speech signal in response to detecting the first distortion (paragraphs 0021, 0042-0043, 0054). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganeshkumar to incorporate the feature of detecting whether there is a first distortion caused by clipping in an in-air speech signal from an in-air microphone and inpainting the in-air speech signal with the first distortion using the in-ear speech signal in response to detecting the first distortion in Xue’s invention as taught by Ganeshkumar. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to have a better sound pickup performance.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Ganeshkumar teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to detect (paragraph 0066).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Ganeshkumar teaches a system for detecting distortion of speech signals and inpainting the distorted speech signals, comprising:
a flash memory device [i.e., memory] storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the steps (paragraph 0066).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganeshkumar (US Pub. No. 2022/0060812) in view of Xue et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0164480) further in view of Nielsen (Chinese Pub. No. CN116964964A).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Ganeshkumar in view of Xue does not specifically teach detecting whether threshold clipping exists in the in-air speech signal, wherein the threshold clipping comprises at least one of single clipping or double clipping. Nielsen teaches detecting whether threshold clipping exists in the in-air speech signal, wherein the threshold clipping comprises at least one of single clipping or a plurality of clipping thresholds [i.e., double clipping] (abstract; page 2, 2nd paragraph under “Background technology”, page 4, 4th-7th paragraphs under “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganeshkumar in view of Xue to incorporate the feature of detecting whether threshold clipping exists in the in-air speech signal, wherein the threshold clipping comprises at least one of single clipping or double clipping by a video game in Ganeshkumar’s invention in view of Xue’s invention as taught by Nielsen. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to efficiently find out if there is any clipping exists such that the amplitude does not exceed the full range value when the audio signal is enhanced.
Furthermore, Ganeshkumar in view of Xue does not specifically teach detecting whether soft clipping exists in the in-air speech signal. Nielsen teaches detecting whether soft clipping exists in the in-air speech signal (page 2, 2nd paragraph under “Background technology”, page 4, 4th-7th paragraphs under “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS”, 6th paragraph in page 8). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganeshkumar in view of Xue to incorporate the feature of detecting whether soft clipping exists in the in-air speech signal in Ganeshkumar’s invention in view of Xue’s invention as taught by Nielsen. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to efficiently find out whether there is any soft clipping exists such that the amplitude does not exceed the full range value in case of enhancing the audio signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
March 7, 2026