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 § 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)(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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai (US 20180211648 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nagai discloses a method for discerning sound ([0005], [0006], [0049], [0068], [0069], [0071] e.g.) reaching through a barrier (body of the vehicle in Fig. 1, [00]) having an internal side (the side enclosed by body of the vehicle) and an external side (outside of vehicle), the method including:
- sensing vibrations of the barrier by means of a vibration sensor (11 in Fig. 2, [0032], [0036]; wherein device 1 of Fig. 2 is installed on the internal side, see [0031]),
- sensing the sound on the internal side of the barrier by means of a microphone (12 in Fig. 2, [0024], [0043]),
- digitizing signals from the vibration sensor and from the microphone ([0044]), and
- adaptive filtering (by 21a in Fig. 3, [0051]) the digitized signal from the vibration sensor, using the digitized signal from the microphone as a reference signal ([0051]),
whereby the discernability of sound is enhanced (“… isolate the sound outside the vehicle and the sound inside the vehicle with a high precision…”; [0049], [0071], e.g.).
Regarding claim 2, Nagai shows that the vibrations of the barrier are sensed in a frequency range of the sound reaching through the barrier ([0045]).
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.
Claims 4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Li et al. (US 010789933 B1; hereafter Li) and Hanazono et al. (US 20170229111 A1; hereafter Hanazono).
Regarding claims 7, 6 and 10, Nagai fails to show adaptive filtering in frequency sub-bands. Nagai teaches a general adaptive filtering which, one of the ordinary skilled would have expected, would work equally well in any well-known specific algorithm. Li teaches adjusting filter coefficient of the adaptive filter (Figs. 3 and 4; col. 8, lines 57+, e.g.) to prevent the amplitude frequency response exceeding a predetermined threshold (Figs. 6s and 7s). Li is unclear on adaptive filtering in frequency sub-band. Hanazono teaches that the input signal could be divided into multiple frequency bins with corresponding adaptive filter coefficients being updated based on a predetermined threshold ([0037], [0045]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagai in view of Li and Hanazono by utilizing an adaptive filter with frequency sub-bands and adjusting the filter coefficient of each sub-band based on a predetermined threshold in order to provide a precise control of adaptive filter in Nagai to compensating frequency response variation.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the limitation of the filter coefficient within a predetermined threshold as taught in Li discussed above with respect to claim 7 also reads on the claimed ratio as the filter coefficient w is a function of the ratio between the reference signal (x(k)) and error (e(k)) (see equations); wherein x(k) and e(k) represent short-term energies.
Regarding claim 8, Nagai fails to show equalization. However, it was well known in the art to calibrate the sensors, when using them concurrently, to have the same response in order to provide a more accurate measurement. Examiner takes Official Notice that this feature is notoriously well known in the art. In Nagai, both the vibration sensor and the microphone are being used to measure acoustic wave. The vibration sensor would detect a composite signal including sound on the inner side of the car ([0037]) and the microphone also would detect a composite signal including sound on the inner side of the car ([0043]). When one sensor (either vibration sensor or microphone) is more sensitive to the inner sound than the other, the discernability of sound would be affected. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagai by using well known calibration technique for calibrating both the vibration sensor and the microphone in order to ensure that they both have the similar sensitivity to the inner sound.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai.
Regarding claim 3, Nagai fails to show equalization. However, it was well known in the art to calibrate the sensors, when using them concurrently, to have the same response in order to provide a more accurate measurement. Examiner takes Official Notice that this feature is notoriously well known in the art. In Nagai, both the vibration sensor and the microphone are being used to measure acoustic wave. The vibration sensor would detect a composite signal including sound on the inner side of the car ([0037]) and the microphone also would detect a composite signal including sound on the inner side of the car ([0043]). When one sensor (either vibration sensor or microphone) is more sensitive to the inner sound than the other, the discernability of sound would be affected. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagai by using well known calibration technique for calibrating both the vibration sensor and the microphone in order to ensure that they both have the similar sensitivity to the inner sound.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Pan (US 20170142532 A1).
Regarding 11, most of limitations corresponds to those in claim 1 discussed above. Nagai teaches an adaptation algorithm (claim 3), a filter (claim 3) and a subtractor (21b in Fig. 3), but fails to show a linear filter. Nagai teaches a general adaptive filter which, one of the ordinary skilled would have expected, would work equally well with well known configuration for performing the same purpose. Pan teaches an adaptation algorithm unit (120), a linear filter (116) and a subtractor (118), all connected in series, to generate an enhanced signal (e(n)) which is being utilized for adaptation similar to Nagai. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagai by utilizing well known adaptive filter configuration, such as the one as taught Pan, in order to adjusting the filter response based on feedback from the subtractor’s output.
Regarding claim 12, Nagai teaches the frequency range ([0044]-[0046]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Nagai teaches the vibration attached on the internal side and a car window ([0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
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