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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-27 are pending. Claims 1, 25, and 26 are independent.
Claims 2-13 and 21-24 depends from Claim 1.
Claim 26 depend from Claim 25.
Claims 14-20 are cancelled.
This Application was published as U.S. 2025/0372111.
Response to Amendment
Examiner thanks Applicant for response filed on 21 July 2026 which has been correspondingly accepted and considered in this office action. Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
With regards to 35 USC § 101 and 112:
Applicant has provided arguments, see pages 11-15, filed 21 July 2026 and amended claims 1-3 and 5-9. As a result, amendments to claims and arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 35 USC §§ 112 and 101 have been withdrawn.
With regards to objection to drawings:
Applicant has amended the specification and Fig 14. Thus, the objection to drawings has been withdrawn.
With regards to 35 USC § 103:
Applicant's arguments for claims 1-13 filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1:
Applicant argues the following on Applicant arguments page 16 received 21 Jul 2026:
Modifying Every's mode selection to instead be driven by a battery power level would result in Every transitioning to a lower-power mode when the battery is low, regardless of the acoustic noise level of the audio signal--including in noisy environments where noise reduction is needed. Such modification is contrary to the intended operation of Every and would change the principle of operation of Every from noise-driven mode selection to battery-driven mode selection. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reason to combine these features and that further, the combination thereof would frustrate the principle of operation of Every.
Under MPEP 2111, claims should be interpreted using broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification.
Under MPEP 2143 examples for how to provide “clear articulation” and making the analysis “explicit” such as MPEP 2143(A) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.01 provides suggestion or motivation to modify the references such as MPEP 2143.01(V) the proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Here, under BRI of the claims, selecting a noise reducer mode is select, in association with the voice call and based on a first power indicator, a first noise reducer mode from multiple noise reducer modes; The claim does not make provide any further limitations on the first power indicator. A reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation is that selecting the first noise reducer mode from many noise reducer modes is performed somehow in association with the voice call, and somehow based on a first power indicator.
Here, Non final office action of 22 Apr 2026 page 14 teaches the claimed limitation by combining the adaptive power control system for audio processing with the audio processing system using battery level, which is a power indicator. This rejection meets the elements of MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). For brevity, reasons for meeting MPEP and KSR requirements will not be explained except to address Applicant’s arguments.
On the other hand, Applicant argues that “Every transitioning to a lower-power mode when the battery is low, regardless of the acoustic noise level of the audio signal--including in noisy environments where noise reduction is needed” (Applicants remarks page 6) This is not a correct interpretation of the combination of references because the combination of references does not force Every to ignore noise reduction and only selects a noise reduction mode solely on batter level. Every Fig 3 teaches the power mode is selected by the power controller (312) “based on an estimate of acoustic noise in the audio signal” or “selects the mode based on the noise estimate and one or more noise thresholds”(Applicant remarks page 6) as Applicant acknowledges. Adding the capability of determining the power level does not negate the importance of the noise level since Every Fig 3 teaches normal, low, and ultra power modes that are associated with a power level. Thus, Every teaches selecting the noise reducer based on the power level indicator.
Applicant further argues “Such modification is contrary to the intended operation of Every and would change the principle of operation of Every from noise-driven mode selection to battery-driven mode selection.” (Applicant remarks page 6) Based on BRI of the claims, it is not clear how the power indicator is used to select the noise reducer modes, only that the selection is based on a first power indicator without providing any details how the information about the power indicator is being used. For example, the information can be passed to the power control (312) of Every and based on the power indicator level, the power control (312) unit can ignore or use it to select a power reducer mode. Thus the combination of Every and Shanmugan clearly articulates and explicitly supports how the power mode is selected, and the proposed modification does not render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Claims 2-13:
Applicant arguments for claims 2-13 filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive because these claims depend on claim 1.
Applicant's arguments for claims 21-27 filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. While the arguments are moot, a few comments must be made.
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 1-5, 10-11, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Every et al. (US8798289 hereinafter Every) in view of Shanmugam et al.(US2020/0312342 hereinafter Shanmugam)
With regards to claim 1, Every teaches:
A device comprising: a memory configured to buffer an audio input from an audio source, wherein the audio input corresponds to a voice call via the device; and [Every Fig 2 teaches “audio device 104 may include memory (not shown) that comprises a computer readable storage medium” (Col 3 lines 12-14) and “audio devices such as cell phones” (Col 1 line 20) receive audio input that corresponds to a voice call]
an audio processor coupled to the memory and configured to: [Every Fig 2 item 202]
generate, based on the first noise reducer mode as selected noise reducer mode, [Every Fig 2-3 item 204] at least a first portion of an audio output based on at least a first portion of the audio input; and output the first portion of the audio output. [Fig 2 item 206, Col 4 lines 1-6]
With regards to claim 1, Every fails to teach:
select, in association with the voice call and based on a power indicator, a noise reducer mode from multiple noise reducer modes;
With regards to claim 1, Shanmugam teaches:
select, in association with the voice call and based on a power indicator, a noise reducer mode from multiple noise reducer modes; [Shanmugam Fig 1 teaches audio processing system (104), receives a “battery power level signal BL from the battery 105, which indicates the power level of the battery 105” (Par [0020]) and based on the battery level or power indicator the “noise suppression circuit 106 operates in one of first and second modes of operation to suppress the noise present in the primary speech signal PSS and to generate the enhanced speech signal S_Out” (Par [0022] and where electronic device (100) may include a “mobile phone” (Par [0018]) that is associated with the voice call used for audio processing from a microphone)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the adaptive power control system for an audio device with the audio processing system with the battery monitor as taught by Shanmugam. The motivation to combine the teachings of Every with Shanmugam is because Shanmugam teaches “processing system that uses less processing power to suppress noise present in a speech signal while maintaining the quality of the speech signal” (Par [0005]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Every to suppress noise using less power]
With regards to claim 2, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the audio processor is further configured to obtain the first power indicator, wherein the first power indicator indicates a first power level of a battery coupled to the audio processor, a first charging status of the battery, or a combination thereof. [Shanmugam Fig 1 teaches audio processing system (104), receives a “battery power level signal BL from the battery 105, which indicates the power level of the battery 105” (Par [0020])]
With regards to claim 3, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the audio processor is further configured to: perform a comparison based on the first power indicator and one or more thresholds, and wherein the first noise reducer mode is selected based on a result of the comparison. [Shanmugam Fig 1 teaches “noise suppression circuit 106 also operates in the first mode when the power level of the battery indicated by the battery level signal BL is less than a predetermined threshold value” (Par [0023]) where the first mode is a noise reducer mode]
With regards to claim 4, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein: the audio processor includes a noise reducer; [Every Fig 3 / Shanmugam Fig 1 item 106] and the noise reducer is configured to operate based on the selected noise reducer mode. [Shanmugam Fig 2 further describes noise suppression circuit (106) or noise reducer and first and second modes (Par [0035])]
With regards to claim 5, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 4
wherein the noise reducer is configured to perform a noise reduction operation, and wherein the noise reduction operation includes an echo cancellation operation, a noise suppression operation, or a combination thereof. [Every Fig 3 item 306]
With regards to claim 10, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
further comprising: an encoder configured to receive the audio output from the audio processor; or [Every Fig 4 teaches CODEC used to encode audio output from audio processing system (204) which contains normal power module (316) in order to send to output device]
a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) configured to receive the audio output from the audio processor. [Every teaches “electric signals may, themselves, be converted by an analog-to-digital converter (not shown) into digital signals for processing in accordance with some embodiments” (Col 3 lines 27-30)]
With regards to claim 11, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
further comprising: a modem, and [Every Fig 2 teaches “audio devices such as cell phones” (Col 1 line 20) where cell phones can have a modem (see M. Dorbecker, K. Hellwig, F. Jansson and T. Frankkila, "The cellular text telephone modem - the solution for supporting text telephone functionality in GSM networks," 2001 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37221), Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2001, pp. 1441-1444 vol.3)
wherein the audio processor is configured to: transition from a low-power state to an active state during the voice call, wherein the audio processor is configured to obtain the audio input; and [Every Fig 7 teaches transition from low power (LP) mode to normal power (NP) mode when “the value of the noise estimate in the lower power mode exceeds a threshold associated with the normal power mode” (Col 10 lines 30-32) such as in a voice call and obtain audio input (710) where “Steps in the method depicted in FIG. 7 can be added, subtracted, combined, and/or rearranged and still fall within the scope of the present technology” (Col 9 lines 54-56)]
after generation of the output audio during the active state, [Every Fig 7 item 770] transition from the active state to the low-power state. [Every Fig 6 which shows transition from Low power to Normal power and back to low power, which also teaches the opposite of normal power to low power to normal power or transitioning to a low-power state from an active state]
With regards to claim 13, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the audio processor is integrated into a portable electronic device. [Every Fig 2 teaches audio processor (202) and audio processing system (204) integrated into the audio device where “audio devices such as cell phones” (Col 1 line 20) and cell phones are portable electronic devices]
With regards to claim 21, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the audio processor is further configured to perform, on at least a portion of the audio input buffered at the memory, a noise reduction operation based on the selected noise reducer mode [Every Fig 2-3 teaches audio processing system (204) performs noise reduction operation (items 302,306) based on selected noise reducer power modes]
to generate the audio output. [Every Fig 2 item 206, Col 4 lines 1-6]
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Every et al. (US8798289) and Shanmugam et al.(US2020/0312342) in further view of Dusan et al.(US2024/0292151 hereinafter Dusan)
With regards to claim 6, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 4
wherein the multiple noise reducer modes include an echo cancellation mode, [Every Fig 3 item 306, Col 4 lines 46-59] a noise suppression mode, [Every Fig 3 item 306, Col 4 lines 46-59] an echo cancellation noise suppression (ECNS) mode, [Every Fig 3 item 306, Col 4 lines 46-59] a single microphone echo cancellation noise suppression (SMECNS) mode, [Every Fig 4 item 418, Col 7 lines 44-50] a filter-based noise reduction mode having a power consumption rate that is less than a power consumption rate [Every Fig 3 item 304 where “The ULP mode may filter the primary microphone signal using bypass filter 302” (Col 5 lines 3-4) where a ULP is a ultra low power mode] a noise reduction deactivated mode, [Every Fig 3 teaches “power control module 312 sets a corresponding signal or flag, and several modules of the audio processing system are deactivated, including modules which perform noise suppression” (Col 7 lines 62-65) or a combination thereof. [Every Fig 7 teaches “Steps in the method depicted in FIG. 7 can be added, subtracted, combined, and/or rearranged and still fall within the scope of the present technology” (Col 9 lines 54-56)]
With regards to claim 6, Every in view of Shanmugam fails to teach:
a neural network noise reduction engine mode, a filter-based noise reduction mode having a power consumption rate that is less than a power consumption rate of the neural network noise reduction engine mode,
With regards to claim 6, Dusan teaches:
a neural network noise reduction engine mode, a filter-based noise reduction mode having a power consumption rate that is less than a power consumption rate of the neural network noise reduction engine mode, [Dusan Fig 3 and Fig 8 teach neural network (304)] that includes noise suppressor/post-filter (816) that operates in course mode or low-power mode “by switching off and/or bypassing a portion of the DSP or neural network” (Par [0095]) which is at a power consumption rate less than a neural network.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the adaptive power control system for an audio device with the audio processing system that uses a filter bypass in a low power mode as taught by Every and Shanmugam with the neural network as taught by Dusan. The motivation to combine the teachings of Every and Shanmugam with Dusan is because Dusan teaches “switching off, ceasing operation, bypassing, and/or operating a DSP and/or neural network may modify the operation of a DSP and/or a neural network to reduce power consumption and/or computing resource usage by the DSP and/or the neural network based on one or more environmental conditions (e.g., when the environmental condition(s) indicate that running the DSP and/or neural network at full power may not be beneficial to the user experience), operational modes, and/or companion device processing capabilities” (Par [0070]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Every in view of Shanmugam to suppress noise using less power]
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Every et al. (US8798289) and Shanmugam et al.(US2020/0312342) in further view of Ji et al.(US2014/0133329 hereinafter Ji)
With regards to claim 12, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the voice call is a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRx) call.
With regards to claim 12, Every in view of Shanmugam fails to teach:
wherein the voice call is a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRx) call.
With regards to claim 12, Ji teaches:
wherein the voice call is a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRx) call.
[Ji Fig 2 teaches mobile device (220) supports “Connected Mode Discontinuous Reception (C-DRX) mode” (Par [0021])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the adaptive power control system for an audio device as taught by Every and Shanmugam with the mobile device that supports CDRx as taught by Ji. The motivation to combine the teachings of Every and Shanmugam with Ji is because Ji teaches “mobile device 220 can conserve battery power during periods of inactivity” (Par [0021]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Every in view of Shanmugam to suppress noise using less power]
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Every et al. (US8798289) and Shanmugam et al.(US2020/0312342) in further view of Pedersen et al.(US2024/0064478 hereinafter Pedersen)
With regards to claim 22, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 22, Every in view of Shanmugam fails to teach:
wherein the audio processor is configured to: switch, based on a determination that a power level indicated by a second power indicator is less than or equal to a first threshold, the selected noise reducer mode from the first noise reducer mode to a second noise reducer mode of the multiple noise reducer modes; and
switch, based on a determination that another power level indicated by a third power indicator is less than or equal to a second threshold that is less than the first
threshold, the selected noise reducer mode from the second noise reducer mode to
a noise reduction deactivated mode of the multiple noise reducer modes.
With regards to claim 22, Pedersen teaches:
wherein the audio processor is configured to: switch, based on a determination that a power level indicated by a second power indicator is less than or equal to a first threshold, the selected noise reducer mode from the first noise reducer mode to a second noise reducer mode of the multiple noise reducer modes; and [Pedersen teaches switching to “activated (or deactivated) in dependence of battery power. If, e.g., a battery level of the hearing device is below a first threshold value” (Par [0049])]
switch, based on a determination that another power level indicated by a third power indicator is less than or equal to a second threshold that is less than the first
threshold, the selected noise reducer mode from the second noise reducer mode to
a noise reduction deactivated mode of the multiple noise reducer modes. [Pedersen teaches switching to wind noise reduction processing mode based on “the battery level is below a second threshold value, the wind noise reduction processing may be dispensed with entirely” (Par [0049]) which is a deactivated mode.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the adaptive power control system for an audio device as taught by Every and Shanmugam with the noise suppression in a hearing device based on power levels as taught by Pedersen. The motivation to combine the teachings of Every and Shanmugam with Pedersen is because Pedersen teaches “Only applying the wind noise in one of the processing paths may be advantageous in order to save computational complexity as well as battery power. E.g. if the battery level is below a certain threshold, the wind noise reduction processing is only applied in one of the processing branches” (Par [0166]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Every in view of Shanmugam to suppress noise using less power]
With regards to claim 23, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 23, Every in view of Shanmugam fails to teach:
wherein the audio processor is configured to: switch from the first noise reducer mode to a second noise reducer mode of the multiple noise reducer modes based on a determination that a power level indicated by a second power indicator is less than or equal to a first threshold; and [Pedersen teaches switching to “activated (or deactivated) in dependence of battery power. If, e.g., a battery level of the hearing device is below a first threshold value” (Par [0049])]
switch from the second noise reducer mode to a third noise reducer mode of the multiple noise reducer modes based on a determination that another power level indicated
by a third power indicator is less than or equal to a second threshold that is lower
than the first threshold. [Pedersen teaches switching to wind noise reduction processing mode based on “the battery level is below a second threshold value, the wind noise reduction processing may be dispensed with entirely” (Par [0049]) where dispensing the wind processing is when the “battery is even lower” (Par [0166]) than other thresholds.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the adaptive power control system for an audio device as taught by Every and Shanmugam with the noise suppression in a hearing device based on power levels as taught by Pedersen. The motivation to combine the teachings of Every and Shanmugam with Pedersen is because Pedersen teaches “Only applying the wind noise in one of the processing paths may be advantageous in order to save computational complexity as well as battery power. E.g. if the battery level is below a certain threshold, the wind noise reduction processing is only applied in one of the processing branches” (Par [0166]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Every in view of Shanmugam to suppress noise using less power]
With regards to claim 23, Every in view of Shanmugam and Pedersen teaches:
All the limitations of claim 23
wherein: the first noise reducer mode has a first power consumption rate; the second noise reducer mode has a second power consumption rate that is less than the
first power consumption rate; and [Every Fig 3-5 teaches normal and low power modes where low power mode has a lower power consumption rate because “low power module differs from the normal power module of FIG. 4 in that source inference engine 408 is deactivated and module 410 does not perform mask generation” (Col 8 lines 59-62)]
the third noise reducer mode has a third power consumption rate that is less than the second power consumption rate. [Every Fig 3 where ultra lower power mode has a lower consumption rate than normal and low power modes because the “bypass filter can be designed to be low-cost to keep the overall ultra low power mode power consumption to a minimum.” (Col 5 lines 11-13)]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-27 allowed.
Claims 7-9 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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph J Yamamoto whose telephone number is (571)272-4020. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 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.
JOSEPH J. YAMAMOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656
