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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B (Fig. 8), which read on claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1 and 6 recite the limitation "the noise model of interest". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (note: the claims introduce “noise of interest model”).
Claim Interpretation
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.
Regarding claims 1-5, claim limitations “noise of interest model configurer,” “active noise control area configurer,” “decision unit,” “output unit” and “input unit" have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because it uses non-structural terms “configurer” and “unit" coupled with functional language “generating,” “setting,” “configures,” “analyzing,” “outputting,” “receiving,” and “determines” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claims 1-5 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seneger et al. (US Pub. 20230097755) in view of Jasleen et al. (US Pub. 20220238091).
Regarding claim 1, Seneger disclose an intelligent active noise control device (see abstract; paragraph 6) comprising:
a microphone mounted in a vehicle and collecting in-vehicle noise (see fig. 6, item 48);
an active noise control area configurer setting an active noise control area (see figs. 6-7; paragraphs 61-64; “Audio zones are defined for each occupant, with a focus on multiple zones”; zone-specific anti-noise) ; and
an active noise control sound output unit outputting an active noise control sound to the set active noise control area (see figs. 6-7; paragraphs 37 and 61-64; claim 2, “a plurality of speakers disposed in the vehicle for delivering the first augmented anti-soundwave to an occupant present in the first zone of the vehicle and delivering the second augmented anti-soundwave to an occupant present in the second zone of the vehicle”).
Seneger fails to explicitly disclose
a noise of interest model configurer generating a noise of interest model by being trained on noise characteristics according to a preset type of noise;
a similarity analysis and decision unit analyzing collected noise by comparing the collected noise with the noise model of interest; and
active noise control according to an analyzed similarity.
However, Jasleen discloses a noise of interest model configurer generating a noise of interest model by being trained on noise characteristics according to a preset type of noise (see fig. 4; paragraph 23; the noise cancellation model is developed and updated by AI/ML training engine 32 for each modeled noise type)
a similarity analysis and decision unit analyzing collected noise by comparing the collected noise with the noise model of interest (see fig. 3, item 52 and fig. 4, items 68 and 70; paragraph 18; “logic of the noise cancellation engine listens to environmental noise and monitors context at the system to determine for detected background noise whether or not to generate noise cancellation with degree of confidence. If cancellation is determined within a defined threshold, such as 80%, noise cancellation is generated”; the engine determines whether detected environmental noise is of a type matching the model and decides whether to cancel with a degree of confidence, applying a confidence threshold); and
active noise control according to an analyzed similarity (see fig. 3, item 52, 54 and 56; cancellation is applied or withheld per detected noise type (e.g. the system may cancel a doorbell while leaving noise matching a baby crying uncancelled).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated Jasleen’s a noise of interest model configurer generating a noise of interest model by being trained on noise characteristics according to a preset type of noise; a similarity analysis and decision unit analyzing collected noise by comparing the collected noise with the noise model of interest; and active noise control according to an analyzed similarity with the intelligent active noise control device of Senegar. The motivation would be to achieve the predictable result of cancelling undesired noise while preserving sounds that should remain audible.
Regarding claim 2, Senegar in view of Jasleen disclose the intelligent active noise control device of claim 1, as discussed above,
wherein the noise of interest model configurer includes:
a noise input unit receiving at least one of road noise or living noise (see fig. 6, item 48; paragraphs 5 and 61-62).
Senegar fails to explicitly disclose a deep learning trainer performing deep learning training on the road noise and the living noise; and
a noise of interest model generator generating at least one of a road noise model or a living noise model based on the deep learning training.
However, Jasleen discloses a deep learning trainer performing deep learning training on the road noise and the living noise; and
a noise of interest model generator generating at least one of a road noise model or a living noise model based on the deep learning training (see fig. 2, paragraph 21 and fig. 4, item 32).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated Jasleen’s a deep learning trainer performing deep learning training on the road noise and the living noise; and a noise of interest model generator generating at least one of a road noise model or a living noise model based on the deep learning training with the intelligent active noise control device of Senegar. The motivation would be to achieve the predictable result of cancelling undesired noise while preserving sounds that should remain audible.
Regarding claim 6, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the intelligent active noise control device of claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the intelligent active noise control device of claim 2; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 2, as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 8-10 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Trammell (US Pub. 20150003626) discloses multi-microphone, zone-by-zone analysis of cabin noise with per-zone adjustment of cancellation in an automobile cabin..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7697. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM, PST.
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.
/PAUL KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights