DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment dated 5/29/2024, claims 3-7, 10-16 were amended, no claims were cancelled and none were newly introduced. Accordingly claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “said measurement system comprising a 2D assembly of microphones”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 5 microphones of same type” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims,
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “comprises at least 5”, and the claim also recites “, preferably 10 or more microphones” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “comprises at least 5”, and the claim also recites “, preferably 10 or more microphones” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims,
Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “comprises at least 5”, and the claim also recites “, preferably 10 or more microphones” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “comprises at least 5”, and the claim also recites “, preferably 10 or more microphones” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims,
claim 8 recites the broad recitation “at least half a tenth of a second, preferably at least one tenth of a second”, and the claim also recites “most preferably at least one second” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “comprises at least 5”, and the claim also recites “, preferably 10 or more microphones” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Dependent claims 2-7 are rejected for the same reason as their base claim 1 due to the virtue of dependency.
Dependent claims 9-16 are rejected for the same reason as their base claim 8 due to the virtue of dependency.
claim 2 has additional issues as it recites the broad recitation “microphones are arranged in at least two points and/or orientations that are the same and/or different,”, and the claim also recites “and/or different” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “comprises at least 5”, and the claim also recites “, preferably 10 or more microphones” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 6-7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weinzierl et al. “Sound power and timbre as cues for the dynamic strength of orchestra instruments.”, Journal of Acoustic Society of America 144 1347-1355 (2018) hereinafter Weinzierl.
Regarding claim 1, Weinzierl teaches A measurement system for precise quantification of timbre of musical instruments (Fig. 2 shows a musical instrument being tested by the system), said measurement system comprising a 2D assembly of microphones (In Fig. 2 a isochadron shape frame is holding microphones, the isochadron shape which is the same shape of a soccer ball is a 3D assembly composed of a plurality of 2D assemblies of microphones), preferably at least 5 microphones of same type (“spherical 32-channel microphone array surrounding a musician in the anechoic chamber of TU Berlin” in Fig. 2), mounted on one or more stands (In Fig. 2 a Isochadron shape made of a frame is shown with microphones affixed to the frame and “Four 8-channel RME OctaMic microphone” in Page 1350, Left column paragraph 1), and an acquisition system for acquiring microphone signals (“Four 8-channel RME OctaMic microphone preamplifiers and A/D converters connected to an audio workstation were used in order to record the microphone signals with 24 bit resolution at a sampling frequency of fs = 44.1 kHz” in Page 1350, Left column paragraph 1), wherein the 2D assembly is the stand or a frame having a shape of a rectangle or other planar or spherical figure (Fig. 2 shows an Isochadron shape which is a spherical shape for the frame), and wherein the microphones are arranged as a field inside or along the perimeter of said figure (“an adjustable chair was used in order to place the musical instrument as close as possible to the geometric center of the array, and the musicians were asked to perform in a playing position that remained as constant as possible”” in Page 1350, column left, paragraph 3 and “electret microphones with a nearly uniform frequency response from 20Hz to 20KHz , located on the faces of the truncated isochadron (soccer ball shape)” in Page 1348 right column, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 2, Weinzierl teaches the system of claim 1, Weinzierl further teaches the system further comprising wherein said microphones are arranged in at least two points and/or orientations that are the same and/or different, for example vertical and horizontal or along two diagonals, two parallel verticals or two parallel horizontals (Fig. 2 shows an Isochadron shape frame that includes connections in points where a horizontal and vertical directions are made by the frame members).
Regarding claim 3, Weinzierl teaches the system of claim 1, Weinzierl further teaches the system further comprising wherein the microphone field is shaped as a cross or letter X (the Fig. 2 in reference shows an Isochadron shape frame that comprises members that are in X shape).
Regarding claim 6, Weinzierl teaches the system of claim 1, Weinzierl further teaches the system further comprising wherein the system for acquisition microphone signals is configured in agreement with requirements of microphones, usually including enhancement, filtration, and analogue-to-digital conversion (“Four 8-channel RME OctaMic microphone preamplifiers and A/D converters connected to an audio workstation were used in order to record the microphone signals” in Page 1350, Left column, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 7, Weinzierl teaches the system of claim 1, Weinzierl further teaches the system further comprising a memory and/or a computer for storing acquired signals in a digital format on a storage medium and for computer analysis and processing (“an audio workstation were used in order to record the microphone signals with 24 bit resolution at a sampling frequency of f.sub.s = 44.1 kHz. … To measure all individual 32 gain factors, a sine sweep signal generated in MATLAB” in Page 1350, left Column, Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 15, Weinzierl teaches the system of claim 1, Weinzierl further teaches the system further comprising Use of the measurement system and/or the method for determination of timbre of musical instruments according to claim 1 in marking of musical instruments, in comparison of musical instruments, in musical production (“Fig. 2, Spherical 32-channel microphone array surrounding a musician in the anechoic chamber of TU Berlin” in Page 1349, left Column, Paragraph 2), in retail and manufacture of musical instruments, in analysis of damaged or counterfeit musical instruments, for tracking sound alteration of a particular musical instrument, in repair and fine-tuning of musical instruments and/or in sound design.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinzierl et al. “Sound power and timbre as cues for the dynamic strength of orchestra instruments.”, Journal of Acoustic Society of America 144 1347-1355 (2018) hereinafter Weinzierl in view of Kim et al. (US 20190139552 A1) hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Weinzierl teaches the system of claim 1, Weinzierl further teaches the system further comprising wherein the system is arranged for measurements in a free-sound field (“With a free volume of V=1070 m cubed the fully anechoic chamber at TU Berlin” in Page 1348, Right Column, Paragraph 1) and comprises at least 5 (“and 32 Sennheiser KE4-211-2 electret microphones” in Page 1348, right Column, Paragraph 1), preferably 10 or more microphones arranged at a distance from 1 to 10 m from the musical instrument (“using a quasi-spherical microphone array with a radius of approximately r=2.1 m”, and ”sound radiating parts of d.sub.0 = 1.05 m” in Page 1348, right Column, Paragraph 1), Weinzierl does not specifically disclose the system further comprising wherein the distances between the microphones are from 1 cm to 30 cm, preferably from 5 to 25 cm, usually 7 cm however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Chu for a system to further comprise wherein the distances between the microphones are from 1 cm to 30 cm, preferably from 5 to 25 cm, usually 7 cm (“a one-degree resolution is used. FIG. 22 shows an example of combined observations A-D using a 2-D microphone arrangement, where distance dx is 3.6 centimeters and distance dy is 7.3 centimeters,” in ¶[0246]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Weinzierl with the teachings of Kim for the benefit of minimizing spatial aliasing of the system as shown by Kim in (“by the spatial aliasing frequency for the microphone pair, which may be defined as the frequency at which the wavelength of the signal is twice the distance d between the microphones” in ¶[0177]), therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weinzierl with Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14, 16 would be allowed over prior art of record if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is overcome and the phrase “any of the preceding claims” in claim 8 is rewritten unless all of the preceding claims 1-7 are also allowed in this application.
Most relevant prior art of record is Weinzierl et al. “Sound power and timbre as cues for the dynamic strength of orchestra instruments.”, Journal of Acoustic Society of America 144 1347-1355 (2018) hereinafter Weinzierl.
Regarding claim 8, Weinzierl teaches A method for determination of timbre of a musical instrument suitable to produce a tone with a sufficiently long stationary part (“For the sound power analysis, the stationary parts of all single note recordings were selected manually using a -3dB criterion for the beginning and the end of stationary phase” in Page 1350, right Column, Paragraph 1), wherein the method comprises the following steps: a) selection of a musical instrument(s) and tones to be analyzed (“All instruments of typical Beethovenian orchestra (violin, viola, violoncello, double bass, flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, French horn, trumpet, trombone) were recorded both in their modern form” in Page 1350, left Column, Paragraph 2), and optionally playing style, if analysis of piano playing, forte playing, or any other repeatable playing style is desired, b) playing the tones selected in step a) with the selected instrument and detecting sound signals of played instrument by the measurement setup according to a sound signal generated directly on an electric/electronic instrument or an acoustic instrument equipped with a system for sound acquisition (“the musicians were asked to perform in playing position that remained as constant as possible” in Page 1350, Left column, paragraph 3), Weinzierl does not specifically disclose the method further comprising sound acquisition in a single time window of at least half a tenth of a second, preferably at least one tenth of a second, most preferably at least one second, wherein the playing of the selected tones can be repeated, preferably five times, c) removing initial, i.e., transient, and final, i.e., release, parts of the sound from the instrument sound/signal recorded in step b), d) performing Fourier transform, preferably with a window function that reduces the broadening of the spectral peaks due to the finite time window of the signal, e) restriction to power, i.e., to the square of the absolute value of the amplitude, f) determination of a fundamental frequency and frequencies of harmonics, g) integration of the power in the frequency interval around each harmonic that corresponds to the width of the harmonic, h) formation of a harmonic vector by frequency or amplitude weighting or ranking of the integrated harmonic powers, preferably by logarithms of the integrated harmonic powers, and i) PCA or SVD analysis of the vectors formed in the previous step, wherein the result of steps h) and i) is a vector basis that most efficiently describes the statistical variations of the vectors and is hierarchically order by importance, wherein in development of said vectors in the vector basis a first vector is given the largest weight, followed by a second basis vector, which is given a second largest weight, smaller factor, and so on, wherein coordinates of the selected musical instrument are projections of its harmonic vector onto said basis vectors.
The following is the reason for would be allowance of claim 8:
Weinzierl alone or in combination with any other prior art of record does not specifically disclose, suggest nor render obvious the limitations wherein the method further comprises sound acquisition in a single time window of at least half a tenth of a second, preferably at least one tenth of a second, most preferably at least one second, wherein the playing of the selected tones can be repeated, preferably five times, c) removing initial, i.e., transient, and final, i.e., release, parts of the sound from the instrument sound/signal recorded in step b), d) performing Fourier transform, preferably with a window function that reduces the broadening of the spectral peaks due to the finite time window of the signal, e) restriction to power, i.e., to the square of the absolute value of the amplitude, f) determination of a fundamental frequency and frequencies of harmonics, g) integration of the power in the frequency interval around each harmonic that corresponds to the width of the harmonic, h) formation of a harmonic vector by frequency or amplitude weighting or ranking of the integrated harmonic powers, preferably by logarithms of the integrated harmonic powers, and i) PCA or SVD analysis of the vectors formed in the previous step, wherein the result of steps h) and i) is a vector basis that most efficiently describes the statistical variations of the vectors and is hierarchically order by importance, wherein in development of said vectors in the vector basis a first vector is given the largest weight, followed by a second basis vector, which is given a second largest weight, smaller factor, and so on, wherein coordinates of the selected musical instrument are projections of its harmonic vector onto said basis vectors, therefore the claim is allowed for the limitations above in combination with all the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 9-12, 16, claims would be allowed for their dependency on allowed claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, claim would be allowed for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the method of allowed claim 8 (see reason for allowance of claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 14, claim would be allowed for its dependence on allowed claim 13.
Claim 5 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAR T HAMID whose telephone number is (571)272-1953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, Eastern time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached at (571) 272-7848. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
AMMAR T. HAMID
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/AMMAR T HAMID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695