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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 3/18/25 and 5/20/24 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 5/20/24 are acceptable to the examiner.
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 sets forth a public address system and claim 13 sets forth a hearing assist device; however, claims 12 and 13 do not provide those elements needed to for the system and device. As currently set forth and without any specifics these claims are deemed to be only directed to an audio processing system already set forth in claim 1 for use in a public address system and a hearing assist device. Clarification of the system and device is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fitz et al. (US 2017/0311095 A1), cited by applicant.
Re claim 1: Fitz et al. teaches an audio processing system, comprising:
an input adapted to receive an acoustic signal having a target audio component via a microphone (see input (205) into microphone (204));
an electroacoustic transducer (206);
an amplifier configured to amplify the acoustic signal and output an amplified signal having an amplified target audio component via the electroacoustic transducer (see figure 2, element (208) used to amplify an acoustic signal from (204) and to output a signal as set forth); and
an artificial intelligence (AI) system (comprised of elements (201, 202 and 203)) having a machine learning model (in the form of a neural network, as discussed in paragraphs [0015-0025]) that processes the acoustic signal prior to amplification to produce a dynamic filter, paragraph [0025], wherein the AI system applies the dynamic filter to the acoustic signal to suppress feedback in the amplified signal caused by the amplified target audio component being picked up by the microphone.
Re claim 14: Fitz et al. teaches a method comprising:
receiving an acoustic signal having a target audio component via a microphone input (see input (205) into microphone (204));
generating a dynamic filter (202) from the acoustic signal using a machine learning model (in the form of a neural network, as discussed in paragraphs [0015-0025] that processes the acoustic signal prior to amplification to produce a dynamic filter (paragraph [0025]);
applying the dynamic filter to the acoustic signal to suppress feedback in the acoustic signal (see figure 2);
amplifying the dynamically filtered acoustic signal to generate an amplified signal having an amplified target audio component transducer (see figure 2, element (208) used to amplify an acoustic signal from (204) and to output a signal); and
outputting the amplified signal to an electroacoustic transducer (figure 2, output of (208) provided as input to transducer (206);
wherein the feedback is caused by the amplified target audio component being picked up by the microphone input (note the operations are initiated by the audio picked up by (204)).
Re claim 2: see paragraph [0025] in which the audio processing includes a neural network
Re claim 8: note the arrangement in figure 2 used to generate an acoustic signal as discussed in paragraph [0028] can include time domain approaches
Re claim 13: see abstract teaching the hearing assistance device being used as set forth
Re claims 11 and 15: note the targeted audio can include speech or music, paragraph [0015]
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitz et al. in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0341053 A1).
Re claim 3: The teaching of Fitz et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Fitz et al. only teaches the use of neural networks for audio processing, but does not teach that the machine learning neural network is one of a TCN or long short term memory type as set forth. Zhang et al. teaches in audio processing arrangements that either TCN or long short term memory neural networks can alternatively be used for audio processing, paragraph [0048]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this teaching of Zhang et al. into the arrangement of Fitz et al. to predictably provide alternative neural networks to perform audio processing. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitz et al. in view of Stamenovic et al. (US 2021/0289296 A1)
Re claims 4 and 16: The teaching of Fitz et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Fitz et al. does not teach to transform the acoustic signal into spectral frames that are then used by the machine learning model, claim 4 or a spectral mask (claim 6). Stamenovic et al. teaches (figure 4, paragraph [0060. 0062] element (412) along with element (416) to obtain spectral frames of a spectrogram that are then used by machine learning model (418) generating a mask (filter) for frequency domain processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of Stamenovic et al. into the arrangement of Fitz et al. to predictably provide a machine learning model that operates using frequency domain signals. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 7: the generation of a sequence of filtered spectral frames is satisfied by the filtering mask performed by (418), paragraphs [0059, 0062] of Stamenovic et al. producing a spectral representation output when processing the audio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of Stamenovic et al. into the arrangement of Fitz et al. to predictably provide a spectral representation output when processing audio. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 17: having an acoustic signal transformed into a sequence of frames is deemed satisfied by the operation of (402), paragraph [0060] in Stamenovic et al. that are then inputted to a machine learning model for audio processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of Stamenovic et al. into the arrangement of Fitz et al. to predictably provide audio in the form of a sequence of frames for audio processing. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitz et al. in view of Guo, Meng et al. (EP 4132009A2), cited by applicant
Re claim 12: The teaching of Fitz et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Fitz et al. does not teach that the audio system can be used in a public address system as set forth but for hearing assistance devices. Guo, Meng et al. teaches in a similar environment of audio processing that a public address system (paragraph [0046] can benefit in a similar manner as a hearing assistance device) thereby providing an expanded use of audio processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature into the arrangement of Fitz et al. to predictably provide an expanded use of audio processing. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9-10, 18, 19 and 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed audio processing system including in combination those features of claim 4/1 wherein each spectral frame includes approximately 100-300 frequency bins as set forth in claim 5 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. Similar features as set forth in method claim 18/17/16/14 and therefor allowable for similar reasons. The claimed audio processing system including in combination those features of claim 4/1, wherein processing of the acoustic signal includes: generating a spectral mask using the machine learning model for each spectral frame; applying each spectral mask to an associated spectral frame to generate a sequence of filtered spectral frames; and applying an inverse asymmetric-windowed fast Fourier transform (FFT) to the filtered spectral frames to generate a filtered time domain acoustic signal as set forth in claim 6 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. Similar features are present in method claim 19/17/16/14 and therefor allowable for similar reasons.
The claimed audio processing system including in combination those features of claim 1 wherein the machine learning model is trained with training data that includes a database of target audio components and a database of feedback components, and wherein the machine learning model is trained to filter out the feedback components as set forth in claim 9 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 10 depend upon those features of claim 9/1. Claim 20/14 sets forth similar features as that of claim 9/1 and therefor allowable for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Us Patent 12,022,268 B1 is a patent obtained by applicant’s parent application
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 3/19/26