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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,6,7,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20100131269 A1), and further in view of Hamelink et al (US 20140094228 A1).
As per claim 1, Park discloses an active noise control method for a vehicle, comprising:
acquiring a noise signal near ears of a person seated in the vehicle (fig. 4a, the acoustic background noise picked up by the microphone, noting analogous embodiment as shown in fig. 1, which shows the background noise).
generating a first control signal for outputting a noise canceling sound having an anti-phase with respect to the noise signal (output of AN10, or any of the other inputs or signals within the processing of stage A010) ;
determining whether the noise signal contains an emergency sound (the identified source in SS10, can be an emergency sound/horn/siren per para 69);
in response to determining that the noise signal contains the emergency sound, determining a frequency-specific gain corresponding to a sound pressure level of the emergency sound in the noise signal (the frequency, and amplitude/gain values to perform the functions of para 69: SS10 to separate a target component that appears only within a particular frequency range (e.g., from about 500 or 1000 Hertz to about two or three kilohertz), has a narrow bandwidth (e.g., not greater than about fifty, one hundred, or two hundred Hertz), and/or has a sharp attack profile (e.g., has an increase in energy not less than about fifty, seventy-five, or one hundred percent from one frame to the next)), noting that this processing is based on the SPL of the signal received by microphone VM20) (also per para 70: applying a gain to, and/or controlling a gain of the anti-noise signal; by mixing the anti-noise signal with one or more other signals (e.g., a music signal or other reproduced audio signal, a far-end communications signal, and/or a separated target component); by filtering the anti-noise and/or output signals;) ;
generating a second control signal by applying the frequency-specific gain to the first control signal (the combination of the inputs into AO10 to impart the emergency signal into the output audio); and
generating and outputting a first noise canceling sound based on the second control signal (output to SP10).
However Park does not disclose the ANC in a vehicle.
Hamelink teaches to use ANC in vehicles to cancel noise in the vehicle (abstract). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to use the ANC in a vehicle system for the purpose of cancelling noise.
As per claim 2, the active noise control method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to determining that the noise signal does not contain the emergency sound, outputting a second canceling/noise cancelling sound based on the first control signal (whenever there is no signal in the microphone VM20, the output is based on the control, signal from AN10).
As per claim 3, the active noise control method of claim 1, wherein the frequency-specific gain is inversely proportional to the sound pressure level of the emergency sound in an effective frequency band of the emergency sound and has a constant value outside the effective frequency band of the emergency sound (stage A10 must apply an inverse to the spl of the target component in order to produce an antiphase signal with the emergency signal added in; additionally Fig. 5A teaches an inverse of the component signal spl applied, noting the signal is frequency band specify as cited above).
As per claim 6, the claim 1 rejections discloses
An active noise control apparatus for a vehicle, comprising:
a microphone disposed near ears of a person seated in the vehicle to acquire a noise signal (claim 1 rejection);
an active noise controller configured to generate a first control signal for outputting a canceling/ noise-canceling sound having an anti-phase with respect to the noise signal (claim 1 rejection); and
a speaker configured to output the canceling noise-canceling sound (claim 1 rejection),
wherein the active noise controller includes: signal acquisition unit configured to receive the noise signal from the microphone (per claim 1 rejection, the acquiring a noise signal);
an emergency sound detection unit configured to decide whether the noise signal contains an emergency sound (the determining step per claim 1 rejection);
a gain determination unit configured to determine a frequency-specific gain corresponding to a sound pressure level of the emergency sound contained in the noise signal (determining per the claim 1 rejection); and
a control signal generation unit configured to generate a second control signal by applying the frequency-specific gain to the first control signal (generating per the claim 1 rejection).
As per claim 7(cancelled), The active noise control apparatus of claim 6, wherein the active noise controller includes: a noise signal acquisition unit configured to receive the noise signal from the microphone (the required digital interface to receive the signals form the microphones per the claim 1 rejection);
an emergency sound detection unit (SS10) configured to decide whether the noise signal contains an emergency sound;
a gain determination unit configured to determine a frequency-specific gain corresponding to a sound pressure level of the emergency sound contained in the noise signal (per claim 1 rejection); and
a control signal generation unit configured to generate one of first and second control signals for outputting the canceling sound having the anti-phase with respect to the noise signal (the control signals per the claim 1 rejection).
As per claim 9, the active noise control apparatus of claim 6, wherein the control signal generation unit is configured to apply the frequency-specific gain determined by the gain determination unit to the first control signal to generate the second control signal in response to the emergency sound detection unit determining that the noise signal contains the emergency sound (either of the gains cited in the claim 1 rejection).
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.
Claim(s) 4,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20100131269 A1), and further in view of Hamelink et al (US 20140094228 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 20100296668 A1).
As per claim 4, the active noise control method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the noise signal contains the emergency sound comprises: performing frequency analysis on the noise signal per para 69 via the separate function or the fourier functions). and determining whether the noise signal conforms to the sound pressure characteristics of the corresponding emergency sound type in the effective frequency band (part of the separating step per para 69).
But does not disclose:
The analysis based on a lookup table that defines sound pressure characteristics in an effective frequency band corresponding to each of a plurality of emergency sound types;
Lee teaches the use of a lookup table in a spatial processing filter (separation stage) para 72, and teaches that this allows for offline processing. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to implement a loopkup table for the purpose of allowing offline processing which by definition save resources.
As per claim 10, the active noise control apparatus of claim 6, wherein the emergency sound detection unit is configured to: perform frequency analysis on the noise signal based on a lookup table that defines sound pressure characteristics in an effective frequency band corresponding to each of a plurality of emergency sounds; and determine whether the noise signal conforms to the sound pressure characteristics of the corresponding emergency sound in the effective frequency band (per the claim 4 rejection).
Claim(s) 5,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20100131269 A1), and further in view of Hamelink et al (US 20140094228 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tzanetos (US 20180082673 A1).
As per claim 5, Park discloses the active noise control method of claim 1 including detecting emergency sounds, but does not specify: wherein determining whether the noise signal contains the emergency sound includes: providing the noise signal to a machine learning model and acquiring an output of the machine learning model, the machine learning model including a classification model that classifies the input sound signal into one of a plurality of emergency sounds; and deciding whether one of the plurality of emergency sounds is contained in the noise signal based on the output of the machine learning model.
Tzanetos teaches to detect emergency sounds via/based on the output of a machine learning model to classify a sound per para 93. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to use a machine learning model for the purpose of effectively separating or identifying or classifying the emergency signal in the system of Park.
As per claim 8, the elements of the claim 6 rejection, as performing the steps of the claim 5 rejection, discloses the active noise control apparatus for a vehicle of claim 6, wherein the emergency sound detection unit is configured to provide the noise signal to a machine learning model, acquire an output of the machine learning model, and determine whether the noise signal contains one of a plurality of emergency sounds based on the output of the machine learning model.
Response to Arguments
The submitted arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
As per applicant’s argument that Park does not teach determining a frequency specific gain based on an spl, the examiner notes that the functions in para 69 require gain values in order to perform the filtering and or source separation, where the processing is frequency band limited per para 69, and is based on the SPL of the audio needed to be picked up by the microphones in fig. 4a. Additionally, para 70 further discloses an additional gain function that is frequency limited in the same manner as above and is also based on the SPL level of the audio signals as picked up by the microphones.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN whose telephone number is 571-272-7498, and whose email address is alexander.krzystan@uspto.gov
The examiner can usually be reached on m-f 7:30-4:00 est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Examiner Alexander Krzystan
March 11, 2026