DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 04/03/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1 and 19, recites a method and device thus relating to a statutory category. Claim 14 does not relate to a statutory category and thus has been further rejected below as software per se. The claims further recite “1) determining a speech intelligibility optimization target, taking into account based on i) noise at the near-end and ii) noise at the far-end, 2) determining, according to a predetermined algorithm, a Minimum Variance Distortionless Response (MVDR) beamformer with a plurality of inputs by optimizing a first cost function according to the speech intelligibility optimization target to determine a global optimum, 3 determining, according to a predetermined algorithm, a set of frequency band dependent gains by optimizing a second cost function according to the speech intelligibility optimization target to determine a global optimum of a concave optimization formulation, and 4) generating the speech enhancement processing algorithm comprising the determined MVDR beamformer followed by and the determined set of frequency band dependent gains”
The limitation of “determining…”, “determining…”, “determining…”, and “generating…”, as drafted covers mathematical concepts. More specifically, each of the limitations as currently claimed provide steps to derive a speech enhancement algorithm. For example, the first limitation determines an optimization target using far end and near end noise. Optimization targets in general are mathematical in nature. In the second limitation, the claims recite determining of a MVDR beamformer based on a first cost function and based on the speech intelligibility optimization target. This is also math as the MVDR beamformer is derived using mathematical computation of a cost function. In the third limitation of the claim, the claim recites determining of frequency dependent gains by optimizing a second cost function based on the speech intelligibility optimization target to determining a global optimum of a concave optimization formulation. This is describing a mathematical concept of computing frequency dependent gains using cost function which is implemented generally using Lagrangian methods. The last limitation of the claim is defining the speech enhancement algorithm to be a function of what was computed previously. Hence, the claims are directed towards mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 19 and recite the additional elements of “microphone” (claim 1), processor (claim 19) in the independent claims. For example, page 5, lines 20-24 of the as filed specification, there is description of general computer which is well known. Such, devices amount to general purpose computing devices. The microphones as mentioned are purely used to obtain the audio signals and therefore are considered as data gathering pre-solution activity. The claims mention two-way communication but its not explicitly recited as a required element of the claims. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer is noted as a general computer as noted. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitation in the claims noted above are directed towards insignificant solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 2 and 15, the claim relates to “storing the speech enhancement processing algorithm in a memory of a processor system of a wireless two-way communication system.” This reads on output the algorithm determined in claim 1 and loading it into a processor. However, as noted above the “processor” and “memory” are additional elements but are generic in nature. Page 5, lines 20-24 of the as filed specification, there is description of general computer which is well known. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 3, the claims relate to “wherein steps 1)-4) are performed only once” This reads on the mathematical concept of creating this speech enhancement algorithm as noted in claim 1 using each of the mathematical steps. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 4 and 16, the claim relates to “wherein the speech enhancement processing algorithm is arranged to process a plurality of microphone inputs at the far end.” The claims are written in such a way that it appears the algorithm is being configured or will be created so that microphone inputs are processed. This is more like an intended use of the algorithm. No additional limitation is present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 5 and 17, the claim relates to “wherein the speech intelligibility enhancement algorithm is arranged to generate an audio output in response to the plurality of microphone inputs at the far-end and at least an input indicative of the noise at the near-end.” This relates to still a mathematical concept and what the algorithm is intended to do since there are no limitation that explicitly recites that the algorithm once created is applied on the received inputs. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 6, the claim relates to “wherein the speech intelligibility optimization target takes into account is based on only: the noise at the far-end and the noise at the near-end.” This relates to the mathematical concept taking into consideration noises at the near and far-end only as part of the optimization target. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 7, the claim relates to “wherein the speech intelligibility optimization target involves an approximated speech intelligibility index measure, and/or an extended short-time objective intelligibility based target.” This relates to further defining the mathematical concept of “speech intelligibility optimization target” and what it comprises. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 8 and 18, the claim relates to “wherein the speech intelligibility optimization target involves an equal power constraint”. This relates to further defining the mathematical concept of “speech intelligibility optimization target” and what it comprises. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 9, the claim relates to “wherein the set of frequency band dependent gains comprises a set of critical band dependent gains”. This relates to further defining the mathematical concept of “frequency dependent gains” and what it comprises. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 10, the claim relates to “wherein each frequency dependent gain of the set of frequency band dependent gains within a critical band of the set of critical band dependent gains are equal.”. This relates to further defining the mathematical concept of “frequency dependent gains” and what it comprises. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 11, the claim relates to “wherein at least one room acoustic parameter indicative of acoustics environments at the far-end is taken into account in the determining of at least one of: the MVDR beamformer, and the set of frequency band dependent gains”. This relates to further defining the mathematical concept of “frequency dependent gains” or the MVDR beamformer and what it comprises and to include a room acoustic parameter. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 12, the claim relates to “wherein the determining of the Minimum Variance Distortionless Response (MVDR) beamformer involves optimizing a cost function with a Lagrangian formulation.” This relates to the usage of optimizing the cost function using Lagrangian formulation which is explicitly a mathematical concept. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 13, the claim relates to “further comprising storing the speech enhancement processing algorithm in a memory of a processor system on a wireless two-way communication device comprising a plurality of audio inputs and at least one audio output.” This reads on output of the algorithm determined in claim 1 and loading it into a processor. However, as noted above the “processor” and “memory” are additional elements but are generic in nature. Page 5, lines 20-24 of the as filed specification, there is description of general computer which is well known. The specifics of the input of audio and output of the audio is not explicitly recited and is recited in a manner that at some point such input/output will be provided. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 20, the claim relates to “wherein: the audio device is arranged to generate an audio output in accordance with the speech enhancement processing algorithm and to transmit said audio output represented in a wireless signal to a second wireless device, and the wireless audio device is arranged to receive an input indicative of noise from the second wireless device, and wherein the wireless audio device is arranged to apply said input indicative of noise from the second wireless device as input to the speech enhancement processing algorithm.” The way the limitations are worded “arranged to” appears to be written as an intended use of the audio device based on the speech enhancement algorithm determined and what occurs with the audio output Similar issue is present with the second limitation as the audio device is intended to have noise input to it and is then input into the speech enhancement algorithm. The second device appears to be an additional limitation. This second device is only being used as a post solution process of receiving output from the initial device and as a pre-solution process of receiving noise from the secondary device. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims appear to be directed to a software embodiment and not to hardware embodiment, where a machine claim is directed towards a system, apparatus, or arrangement. The claim appears to be directed towards a software embodiment. Page 5, lines 18-26 of the as filed Specification describes the elements of the system being implemented as software alone actualizing the embodiments of the invention. The claimed limitations are capable of being performed as software as described in the above paragraphs, alone since no hardware component is being claimed. Software, alone, are not physical components and thus are not statutory since software do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer programs and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer’s program functionality to be realized. Hence, the stated functions comprise software and is thus not directed to a hardware embodiment. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31, USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between data and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
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, 3-7, 9, 12, 14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khademi et al. (“Jointly Optimal Near-end and Far-end Multi-microphone speech intelligibility enhancement based on mutual information), hereinafter Khademi.
As to claims 1, 14, and 19, Khademi teaches a computer implemented method for providing a speech enhancement processing algorithm for enhancement of speech intelligibility in a wireless two- way communication system between a far-end and a near-end, with multiple microphones at least at the far-end and at least one audio output (see page 3, left column, sect 2.1, 2nd paragraph, where listener side and talker side environments are discussed thus relate to a two way communication and see page 4, sect 3, first full paragraph where multi microphone processor noted), the method comprises
1) determining a speech intelligibility optimization target, taking into account based on i) noise at the near-end and ii) noise at the far-end (see page 4, entire section 3, equations 10-12, where the equations describe the optimization target which takes into account far-end and near-end noise)
2) determining (DMVDR), according to a predetermined algorithm, a Minimum Variance Distortionless Response (MVDR) beamformer with a plurality of inputs by optimizing a first cost function according to the speech intelligibility optimization target to determine a global optimum (see page 4, sect. 4, equation 16 and 15, and lines of text in between, where the MVDR solution is based on the inner maximization problem and where the problem of equation 10 is being solved using optimization (see sect 4, 1st fully paragraph on left column)) ,
3) determining (D_FB_G), according to a predetermined algorithm, a set of frequency band dependent gains by optimizing a second cost function according to the speech intelligibility optimization target to determine a global optimum of a concave optimization formulation (see page 4, sect. 4, right column, paragraph after equation 16 through page 5 left column 1st full paragraph, where the langragian multiplier is used to determine the optimal alpha.sub.k and later where the output of the beamformer is G-k,i which are the gains that are dependent on frequency based on k), and
4) generating (G_SIE_A) the speech enhancement processing algorithm comprising the determined MVDR beamformer followed by and the determined set of frequency band dependent gains (see page 5, continued paragraph from page 4 and 1st paragraph of page 5, where optimal multi channel noise reduction is mentioned with respect to enhancement algorithm based on the MVDR beamforming).
As to claims 14 and 19, apparatus claims 14 and 19 and method claim 1 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claims 14 and 19 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim.
Furthermore, as to claim 14, Khademi teaches a processor and as to claim 19 Khademi teaches a wireless audio device comprising a processor (see sect. 5, where processors are noted to be used “first processor”, “second processor”, and “spatial processor”).
As to claim 3, Khademi teaches wherein steps 1)-4) are performed only once (see sections 3-4, where the spatial processor consisting of beamforming is optimal and the sequence of steps using the maximization and differentiation of the lagrangian is performed once) .
As to claim 4 and 16, Khademi teaches wherein the speech enhancement processing algorithm is arranged to process a plurality of microphone inputs at the far-end (see sect. 3, 2nd full paragraph where microphones in plural used to record far-end noise).
As to claim 5 and 17, Khademi teaches wherein the speech intelligibility enhancement algorithm is arranged to generate an audio output in response to the plurality of microphone inputs at the far-end and at least an input indicative of the noise at the near-end (see page 4, entire section 3, equations 10-12, where the equations describe the optimization target which takes into account far-end and near-end noise and see entire section 4 where the entire purpose is to obtain intelligible speech in the presence of noise as an output).
As to claim 6, Khademi teaches wherein the speech intelligibility optimization target takes into account is based on only: the noise at the far-end and the noise at the near-end (see page 4, entire section 3, equations 10-12, where the equations describe the optimization target which takes into account far-end and near-end noise).
As to claim 7, Khademi teaches wherein the speech intelligibility optimization target involves an approximated speech intelligibility index measure (see sect. 5.2, right column, where ASII is used for speech intelligibility predictor), and/or an extended short-time objective intelligibility based target).
As to claim 9, Khademi teaches wherein the set of frequency band dependent gains comprises a set of critical band dependent gains (see sect. 5.1, 3rd full paragraph where post processors applied per critical band, where the post processor is the gains applied to improve the signal).
As to claim 12, Khademi teaches wherein the determining of the Minimum Variance Distortionless Response (MVDR) beamformer involves optimizing a cost function with a Lagrangian formulation (see sect. 3, right column, 2nd to last paragraph, where lagrangian used to determine MVDR).
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.
Claim(s) 8, 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khademi in view of Khademi et al. (“Intelligibility Enhancement Based on Mutual Information”), hereinafter Khademi (2).
As to claim 8 and 18, Khademi teaches all of the limitations as in claim 1 and 14, above.
Furthermore Khademi teaches usage of a power preservation constraint (see sect. 2.1, left column, 3rd full paragraph).
However, Khademi does not specifically disclose wherein the speech intelligibility optimization target involves an equal power constraint.
Khademi (2) does disclose wherein the speech intelligibility optimization target involves an equal power constraint (see page 1701. Sect. B, right column, paragraph under eqn 33, where power equality constraint used to eliminate lambda).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the power constraint as taught by Khademi with the equal power constraint as taught by Khademi (2) in order to eliminate lambda therefore overcoming ambiguity (see Khademi (2) page 1701, sect. B, right column, paragraph under eqn 33).
As to claim 10, Khademi in view of Khademi (2) teach all of the limitations as in claim 8, above.
Furthermore, Khademi (2) discloses wherein it is a constraint that each frequency dependent gain of the set of frequency band dependent gains within a critical band of the set of critical band dependent gains are equal (see page 1697, right column, bullet 7, where a fixed gain applied at each frequency band and see page 1701, right column, sect B, last paragraph where alpha.sub.m are applied to the critical bands have the same weights used for all frequency bins inside the critical bands).
As to claim 11, Khademi in view of Khademi (2) teach all of the limitations as in claim 8, above.
Furthermore, Khademi (2) discloses wherein at least one room acoustic parameter indicative of acoustics environments at the far-end is taken into account in the determining of at least one of (see page 1696, sect. II, right column, paragraph associated with eqn (2), where the room transfer function is utilized to represent the far-end signal): the MVDR beamformer (see page 1698, eqn 6 which uses d.sub.k, which represented the room transfer function and also see right column of page 1698, paragraph under eqn 10 where standard MVDR beamforming problem is mentioned), and the set of frequency band dependent gains (see page 1701, right column, sect B, last paragraph where alpha.sub.m are applied to the critical bands have the same weights used for all frequency bins inside the critical bands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the power constraint as taught by Khademi with the inclusion of room acoustic parameters as taught by Khademi (2) in order to then be able to maximize the correlation between the original signal and the perceived signal thus allowing for an objective measure for designing a processor (see Khademi (2), page 1696, sect II, right column, last paragraph).
Claim(s) 2, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khademi in view of Sung (US 2020/0075038).
As to claim 2 and 15, Khademi teaches all of the limitations as in claims 1 and 14 above.
However, Khademi does not specifically disclose storing the speech enhancement processing algorithm in a memory of a processor system of a wireless two-way communication system.
Sung does teach storing the speech enhancement processing algorithm in a memory of a processor system of a wireless two-way communication system (see [0218], where the speech quality enhancement server 1850 may transmit information about the determined algorithm and information about the parameter thus indicating storage and see [0015], for a two way system including far-end and near-end as part of a call and see [0220], memory and processor disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the power constraint as taught by Khademi with the storing of the determined speech enhancement algorithm as taught by Sung in order to be able to satisfy both subjective speech quality and objective speech quality).
As to claim 13, Khademi teaches all of the limitations as in claims 1 above.
However, Khademi does not specifically disclose further comprising storing the speech enhancement processing algorithm in a memory of a processor system on a wireless two-way communication device comprising a plurality of audio inputs and at least one audio output.
Sung does disclose storing the speech enhancement processing algorithm in a memory of a processor system on a wireless two-way communication device (see [0218], where the speech quality enhancement server 1850 may transmit information about the determined algorithm and information about the parameter thus indicating storage and see [0015], for a two way system including far-end and near-end as part of a call and see [0220], memory and processor disclosed) comprising a plurality of audio inputs and at least one audio output (see [0062], where multiple microphones are noted and see [0058], sound is reproduced through a speaker or receiver).
The same motivation as in claims 2 and 15 applies.
As to claim 20, Khademi teaches all of the limitations as in claim 19 above.
Furthermore, Khademi teaches the audio device is arranged to generate an audio output in accordance with the speech enhancement processing algorithm … and …is arranged to receive an input indicative (see sect. 4, right column, last paragraph, where multimicrophone signal is received in a noisy environment and where filtered signal is output over a loudspeaker)
However, Khademi does not specifically disclose the specific transmission to a second wireless device or the specifics of the wireless device.
Sung does teach wherein: the audio device is arranged to generate an audio output in accordance with the speech enhancement processing algorithm and to transmit said audio output represented in a wireless signal to a second wireless device (see Figure 1, [0051], [0058], where far end terminal and near end terminal communicate wirelessly and where output signal is reproduced via a speaker or receiver), and the wireless audio device is arranged to receive an input indicative of noise from the second wireless device (see [0016], where far end noise signal is acquired), and wherein the wireless audio device is arranged to apply said input indicative of noise from the second wireless device as input to the speech enhancement processing algorithm (see [0016], where speech quality enhancer to enhance quality of the far end voice signal).
The same motivation as in claims 2 and 15 applies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kjems (US 2014/0056435) is cited to disclose noise estimation and reduction using MVDR.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARAS D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-2:30PM, 5PM-7PM (EST), Friday 8AM-noon (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.
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.
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
11/04/2025