.0Notice 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 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent.
Claims 2-13 depend from Claim 1.
Claims 15-19 depend from Claim 13.
This Application was published as U.S. 2025/0372111.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5 Sep 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Specification Par [0059] refers to “encoder 204” that is not in any drawing.
Specification Par [0105-107, and 109-111] refers to “device 1400” that is not in any drawing.
Specification Par [0112] refers to “instructions 1465” that is not in any drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 8 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.
With regards to claim 8:
Claim refers to less than or equal to a second threshold. No mention of a first threshold is mentioned in claim 8, let alone in claim 4 or claim 1 in which claim 8 depends. Nor is it clear that the first threshold in claim 7 is the same first threshold or a different first threshold for claim 8 because these claims do not depend on each other. For the purpose of examination, a less than or equal to a second threshold will be treated as less than or equal to a threshold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 14, and 20 recite various limitations that, but for generic computer components (i.e. one or more computer processors, memory, or computer-readable medium) can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and are considered abstract ideas, and using a machine learning model can be considered a mathematical calculation. The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover the concept of selecting a noise reduction mode based on a power indicator and generating an audio output based on the audio input. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite elements in the form of “memory,” “processor,” or “computer-readable medium.” These elements are used to perform the claimed methods and steps, and are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and outputting the results. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not include subject matter that could not be performed by a human, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of using the generic computing elements to perform the claimed elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or can be considered insignificant extra solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, and mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. For the all the reasons stated above, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 2; the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because an indication of power or charging status is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 3; the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because performing a comparison based on thresholds and selecting based on the results can be done with pen and paper or in one’s one mind as an abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 4; the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because the noise reducer operating mode is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 5; the claim further limits the elements of claim 4; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because configuration of the noise reducer is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 4, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 6; the claim further limits the elements of claim 4; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because different type of noise reduction modes is neither a mathematical concept nor a mental process, nor a method of organizing human activity because it does not fall within the enumerated sub-groupings. Similar to claim 4, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 7; the claim further limits the elements of claim 4; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because switching noise reduction modes by a processor is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 4, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 8; the claim further limits the elements of claim 4; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because switching noise reduction modes by a processor is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 4, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 9; the claim further limits the elements of claim 4; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because switching noise reduction modes by a processor is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 4, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 10; the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because an encoder and a digital-to-analog converter configured to receive output are data gathering steps. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 11; the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because a modem is neither a mathematical concept nor a mental process, nor a method of organizing human activity because it does not fall within the enumerated sub-groupings and configuration of an audio processor is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 12; the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because type of voice call is neither a mathematical concept nor a mental process, nor a method of organizing human activity because it does not fall within the enumerated sub-groupings. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 13; the claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because integrating an processor into a portable electronic device is neither a mathematical concept nor a mental process, nor a method of organizing human activity because it does not fall within the enumerated sub-groupings. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 15; the claim further limits the elements of claim 14; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because configuring a noise reducer to operate and perform are data gathering steps. Similar to claim 14, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 16; the claim further limits the elements of claim 14; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because performing a comparison based on thresholds and selecting based on the results can be done with pen and paper or in one’s one mind as an abstract idea. Similar to claim 14, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 17; the claim further limits the elements of claim 16; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because switching noise reduction modes is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 16, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 18; the claim further limits the elements of claim 17; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because what noise reduction mode and engine mode includes are neither a mathematical concept nor a mental process, nor a method of organizing human activity because it does not fall within the enumerated sub-groupings. Similar to claim 17, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 19; the claim further limits the elements of claim 14; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because what noise reduction mode includes are neither a mathematical concept nor a mental process, nor a method of organizing human activity because it does not fall within the enumerated sub-groupings. Similar to claim 14, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, 8, 10-11, 13-17, and 20 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; 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 configured to: [Every Fig 2 item 220]
generate, based on the selected noise reducer mode, [Every Fig 2-3 item 204] an audio output based on the audio input; and output the audio output. [Fig 2 item 206, Col 4 lines 1-6]
With regards to claim 1, Every fails to teach:
select, based on a power indicator, a noise reducer mode from multiple noise reducer modes;
With regards to claim 1, Shanmugam teaches:
select, 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])
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 power indicator indicates a power level of a battery, a charging status, 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 power indicator and one or more thresholds, and wherein the 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 an echo cancellation operation, a noise suppression operation, or a combination thereof. [Every Fig 3 item 306]
With regards to claim 8, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 4
wherein the audio processor is configured to switch the noise reducer from a single microphone echo cancellation noise suppression (SMECNS) mode to a deactivated mode based on a determination [Every Fig 4 item 418 teaches single microphone echo cancellation noise suppression (Col 7 lines 44-50) which is part of normal or low power mode that is deactivated by a power control (312) that deactivates “based on a noise estimate and one or more thresholds” (Col 7 lines 53-54)]
that a power level indicated by the power indicator is less than or equal to a second threshold. [Shanmugam teaches switching modes “when a power level of a battery associated with the audio processing system is less than a predetermined threshold level” (Par [0016])]
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 14, Every teaches:
A method of audio processing by an audio processor, [Every Fig 2 item 220] the method comprising: generating, based on the selected noise reducer mode, [Every Fig 2-3 item 204] an audio output based on an audio input that corresponds to a voice call; and outputting the audio output. [Fig 2 item 206, Col 4 lines 1-6]
With regards to claim 14, Every fails to teach:
selecting, based on a power indicator, a noise reducer mode from multiple noise reducer modes;
With regards to claim 14, Shanmugam teaches:
selecting, 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])
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 15, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 14
further comprising: configuring a noise reducer to operate based on the selected noise reducer mode, and wherein the noise reducer is configured to perform an echo cancellation operation, a noise suppression operation, or a combination thereof. [Every Fig 3 item 306]
With regards to claim 16, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 14
further comprising performing a comparison based on the power indicator and one or more thresholds, wherein the 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 17, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 16
further comprising switching, based on a result of the comparison, from a first noise reducer mode of the multiple noise reducer modes to a second noise reducer mode of the multiple noise reducer modes. [Every Fig 1 teaches switching to the second mode “when the type of noise present in the primary speech signal PSS is different from the stationary noise and the battery level indicated by the battery level signal BL is greater than the predetermined threshold level” (Par [0024])]
With regards to claim 20, Every teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: [Every Fig 2 teaches “Computer-readable storage media refer to any medium or media that participate in providing instructions to a central processing unit (CPU) such as the processor 202 for execution” (Col 10 lines 48-51)]
generate, based on the selected noise reducer mode, [Every Fig 2-3 item 204] an audio output based on an audio input that corresponds to a voice call; and output the audio output. [Fig 2 item 206, Col 4 lines 1-6]
With regards to claim 20, Every fails to teach:
select, based on a power indicator, a noise reducer mode from multiple noise reducer modes;
With regards to claim 20, Shanmugam teaches:
s select, 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])
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]
Claims 6 and 18-19 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 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 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 deactivate” (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]
With regards to claim 18, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 17
the second noise reducer mode includes a non-neural network noise reduction engine mode having a second power consumption rate; and the second power consumption rate is less than the first 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]
With regards to claim 18, Every in view of Shanmugam fails to teach:
wherein: the first noise reducer mode includes a neural network noise reduction engine mode having a first power consumption rate;
With regards to claim 18, Dusan teaches:
wherein: the first noise reducer mode includes a neural network noise reduction engine mode having a first power consumption rate; [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 has a power consumption.
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 ultra 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]
With regards to claim 19, Every in view of Shanmugam teaches:
All the limitations of claim 14
wherein the multiple noise reducer modes include, a single microphone echo cancellation noise suppression (SMECNS) mode, [Every Fig 4 item 418, Col 7 lines 44-50]
a 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 deactivate” (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 19, Every in view of Shanmugam fails to teach:
a neural network noise reduction engine mode
With regards to claim 19, Dusan teaches:
a 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 has a power consumption.
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 ultra 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]
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights