DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 2/26/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. The Response filed 2/26/2026 has been entered and fully considered. With respect to the statement regarding 35 USC 112(f), the arguments are not persuasive. The cited claim elements do not imply structure, and the details of those features are provided as functional language, not structural language. Accordingly, the claim interpretation is maintained.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103, that rejection is also maintained. The Response argued that Matsumoto describes receiving audio data from multiple microphones, and thus does not describe “an audio signal.” This is based on the present specification describing that a single microphone is used to collect “an audio signal.” However, the details in the specification are generally not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111.01(II). If claim 1 was amended to recite a single microphone is used to collect “an audio signal,” the outstanding rejection may be overcome.
All of the arguments are essentially based on the distinction that a single microphone is described in the present specification, but not claimed. Although the cited reference may describe using multiple microphones, the audio data from both may be considered “an audio signal” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a plurality of envelope followers,” “a first envelope follower,” “a second envelope follower,” “a comparator,” and “an attenuator” in Claim 6, “the gain attenuator” in Claim 7, “the first envelope follower” and “the second envelope follower” in Claim 9, and “a third envelope follower,” “a fourth envelope follower,” “a fifth envelope follower,” and “the comparator” in Claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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 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.
6. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over US Pat. App. Pub. No. 20150088494 (Matsumoto) in view of US Pat. App. Pub. No. 20230267945 (Yeh et al, hereinafter “Yeh”).
With regard to Claim 1, Matsumoto describes:
“A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
generate a first amplitude measurement for a first frequency band of an audio signal; (Paragraph 61 describes that a first frequency signal is calculated from an input audio signal. Paragraph 82 describes that an amplitude of the first frequency signal is generated.)
generate a second amplitude measurement for a second frequency band of the audio signal; (Paragraph 61 describes that a second frequency signal is calculated from an input audio signal. Paragraph 82 describes that an amplitude of the second frequency signal is generated.)
determine a first amplitude ratio between the first amplitude measurement for the first frequency band of the audio signal and the second amplitude measurement for the second frequency band of the audio signal; (Paragraph 82 describes that a ratio of the amplitudes is calculated.)
generate, based on the first amplitude ratio, a [[first vocal artifact]] indication; (Paragraph 84 of Matsumoto describes calculating a suppression coefficient based on the amplitude ratio.) and
attenuate at least one of the first frequency band of the audio signal or the second frequency band of the audio signal based on at least the [[first vocal artifact]] indication.” (Paragraph 84 of Matsumoto describes attenuating at least one of the first and second frequency signals using the suppression coefficient.)
Matsumoto does not explicitly describe that the suppression coefficient represents a first vocal artifact indication.
However, paragraph 211 of Yeh describes detecting speech artifacts such as plosives, and then determines an attenuation amount based on the level of artifact detected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vocal artifact indicator as described by Yeh into the method of Matsumoto to efficiently remove vocal artifacts, as described in paragraph 211 of Yeh.
With regard to Claim 3, Matsumoto describes “an attenuation of the at least one of the first frequency band of the audio signal or the second frequency band of the audio signal is based on one of at least the group consisting of a fixed attenuation value or a variable attenuation value.” Figure 10 shows that the attenuation used can be a variable value.
With regard to Claim 4, Matsumoto describes “the variable attenuation value is based on the first amplitude ratio.” Figure 10 shows the relationship between the variable attenuation level and the amplitude ratio.
With regard to Claim 6, Matsumoto describes “An apparatus comprising:
a plurality of envelope followers, wherein the plurality of envelope followers comprises:
a first envelope follower configured to generate, from an audio signal, a first amplitude measurement for a first frequency band of the audio signal; (Paragraph 61 describes that a first frequency signal is calculated from an input audio signal. Paragraph 82 describes that an amplitude of the first frequency signal is generated.) and
a second envelope follower configured to generate, from the audio signal, a second amplitude measurement for a second frequency band of the audio signal; (Paragraph 61 describes that a second frequency signal is calculated from an input audio signal. Paragraph 82 describes that an amplitude of the second frequency signal is generated.)
a comparator configured to:
determine a first amplitude ratio between the first amplitude measurement for the first frequency band of the audio signal and the second amplitude measurement for the second frequency band of the audio signal; (Paragraph 82 describes that a ratio of the amplitudes is calculated.) and
generate, based on the first amplitude ratio, a first [[vocal artifact]] indication; and (Paragraph 84 of Matsumoto describes calculating a suppression coefficient based on the amplitude ratio.)
a gain attenuator configured to attenuate, based on the first [[vocal artifact]] indication, at least one of:
the first frequency band of the audio signal; or
the second frequency band of the audio signal.” (Paragraph 84 of Matsumoto describes attenuating at least one of the first and second frequency signals using the suppression coefficient.)
Matsumoto does not explicitly describe that the suppression coefficient represents a first vocal artifact indication.
However, paragraph 211 of Yeh describes detecting speech artifacts such as plosives, and then determines an attenuation amount based on the level of artifact detected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vocal artifact indicator as described by Yeh into the method of Matsumoto to efficiently remove vocal artifacts, as described in paragraph 211 of Yeh.
With regard to Claim 7, Matsumoto describes “the gain attenuator is further configured to attenuate: the first frequency band according to a first value; and the second frequency band according to a second value.” Paragraph 93 describes that only one of the two signals may be attenuated, thus multiplying the other signal by a factor of 1.0, leading to different attenuation values.
With regard to Claim 8, Matsumoto describes “the first frequency band is different from the second frequency band.” Paragraph 7 describes that the first and second frequency signals are based on different portions of an input signal and thus are different frequency bands.
With regard to Claim 12, Matsumoto describes “an attenuation of the least one of the first frequency band of the audio signal or the second frequency band of the audio signal is based on one of at least the group consisting of a fixed attenuation value or a variable attenuation value.” Figure 10 shows that the attenuation used can be a variable value.
With regard to Claim 13, Matsumoto describes “the variable attenuation value is based on the first amplitude ratio.” Figure 10 shows the relationship between the variable attenuation level and the amplitude ratio.
With regard to Claim 14, Matsumoto describes “at least one of the group consisting of a wireless transmitter, a wireless receiver, a wireless transceiver, or a microphone.” Paragraph 24 describes that the device includes a microphone.
With respect to Claims 15-17, computer readable medium Claim 1 and method Claim 15 are related as a computer readable medium programmed to perform the same steps as the method. Accordingly, Claims 15-17 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1, 3, and 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 2, 5, 9-11, and 18-20 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not teach or suggest “the first amplitude measurement for the first frequency band of the audio signal is generated according to a first time resolution and wherein the second amplitude measurement for the second frequency band of the audio signal is generated according to a second time resolution” as recited in Claims 2 and 18 and in combination with the features of the independent claims.
The prior art does not teach or suggest “the first envelope follower is configured with a first time resolution; the second envelope follower is configured with a second time resolution; the first time resolution corresponds to a first attack time and a first release time; and the second time resolution corresponds to a second attack time and a second release time.” as recited in Claim 9 and in combination with the features of Claim 6.
The prior art does not teach or suggest “generate, according to a third time resolution, a third amplitude measurement for a first frequency band of the audio signal and a fourth amplitude measurement for a second frequency band of the audio signal; generate, according to a fourth time resolution, a fifth amplitude measurement for a second frequency band of an audio signal; determine: a second amplitude ratio between the third amplitude measurement for the first frequency band of the audio signal and the fourth amplitude measurement for the second frequency band of the audio signal; and a third amplitude ratio between the second amplitude measurement for the second frequency band of the audio signal and the fifth amplitude measurement for the second frequency band of the audio signal; generate, based on the second amplitude ratio, a second vocal artifact indication; generate, based on the third amplitude ratio, a third vocal artifact indication; and attenuate, based on at least one of the group consisting of the first vocal artifact indication, the second vocal artifact indication, or the third vocal artifact indication, at least one of: the first frequency band of the audio signal; or the second frequency band of the audio signal.” as recited in Claim 5 and in combination with the features of Claim 1, and as similarly recited in Claims 11, 19, and 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20250280252 (Penniman et al.) also describes a device that uses followers to analyze audio data.
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD TRACY whose telephone number is (571)272-8332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5PM.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/EDWARD TRACY JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights