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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 14-15, 17, 19, 22-23, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hua, US Patent Pub. 20130129105 A1.
Re Claim 1, Hua discloses apparatus, comprising: an earpiece configured to be coupled to a user's ear canal (figs. 1-2; abstract); an inner microphone arranged in the earpiece and configured to generate an acoustic model signal based on a combined signal (fig. 2: internal microphone 36; para 0069: internal microphone 36 picks up signals output from combined signals of previous feedback filtered signals and original picked up and filtered feedforward signals); a loudspeaker arranged in the earpiece (fig. 2: transducer/loudspeaker 18; paras 0062, 0072) and configured to: generate the combined signal based on an intermediate signal and a detected sound signal (fig. 2: internal microphone 36; para 0069: internal microphone 36 picks up signals output from combined signals of previous feedback filtered signals and original picked up and filtered feedforward signals to form the next intermediate signals that will be output to the transducer/loudspeaker and also loop around and repeat the aforementioned process again); and output the combined signal to the inner microphone and into the user's ear canal (fig. 2: internal microphone 36; para 0069: internal microphone 36 picks up signals output from combined signals of previous feedback filtered signals and original picked up and filtered feedforward signals to form the next intermediate signals that will be output to the transducer/loudspeaker and also loop around and repeat the aforementioned process again); and a signal processor coupled to the inner microphone and the loudspeaker in a feedback loop (fig. 2: internal microphone 36; para 0069: internal microphone 36 picks up signals output from combined signals of previous feedback filtered signals and original picked up and filtered feedforward signals to form the next intermediate signals that will be output to the transducer/loudspeaker and also loop around and repeat the aforementioned process again) configured to: combine the acoustic model signal with the intermediate signal to generate an input signal (fig. 2: internal microphone 36; para 0069: internal microphone 36 picks up signals output from combined signals of previous feedback filtered signals and original picked up and filtered feedforward signals to form the next intermediate signals that will be output to the transducer/loudspeaker and also loop around and repeat the aforementioned process again), wherein the intermediate signal is filtered using a secondary path estimate (fig. 2: 42 & 44; paras 0073, 0078: intermediate signals picked up by internal microphone 36 are transmitted to parallel filters 42 & 44 in the feedback loop); apply a first feedback filter to the input signal to generate a first feedback filter output (fig. 2: 42; para 0073: feedback filter branch 42); apply a second feedback filter to the input signal to generate a second feedback filter output (fig. 2: 44; para 0073: feedback stabilizer filter branch 44), wherein the second feedback filter has a different effect on attenuation characteristics of the feedback loop than the first feedback filter (fig. 2: 42, 44; para 0089: stabilizer feedback filter 44 functions differently but in tandem with feedback filter 42; which therefore implies that the feedback filters differently impact noise reduction/attenuation characteristics), and wherein the second feedback filter is configured to suppress a different sound component than the first feedback filter (fig. 2: 42, 44; para 0089: stabilizer feedback filter 44 functions differently but in tandem with feedback filter 42; which therefore implies that the feedback filters differently impact noise reduction/attenuation characteristics); combine the first feedback filter output with the second feedback filter output to generate the intermediate signal (fig. 2: 46; para 0073: feedback filter 42, feedback stabilizer filter 44 and feedforwards filtered signal 32 are combined in mixer 46 and supplied to transducer 18); and supply the intermediate signal to the loudspeaker (fig. 2: 46; para 0073: feedback filter 42, feedback stabilizer filter 44 and feedforwards filtered signal 32 are combined in mixer 46 and supplied to transducer 18).
Re Claim 4, Hua discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to generate the intermediate signal, the signal processor is configured to weight the first feedback filter output and the second feedback filter output using respective weighing units of a plurality of weighting units (paras 0036-0037: respective weighting gains applied to the different filtered signal branches).
Re Claim 6, Hua discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising one or more forward filters configured to receive audio signals from one or more outer microphones wherein the signal processor is configured to combine one or more forward filters with the fist feedback filter output and the second feedback filter output to generate the intermediate signal (fig. 2: 46; para 0073: feedback filter 42, feedback stabilizer filter 44 and feedforwards filtered signal 32 are combined in mixer 46 and supplied to transducer 18 as the intermediate signal).
Re Claim 8, Hua discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein a first weighting unit of the plurality of weighting units is configured to weight the first feedback filter output based on a first weight value that is automatically set by a calculation unit the weighting of the individual feedback filters are automatically adjusted by a calculation unit (fig. 2: 42 & 44; paras 0073, 0078: filters 42 & 44 are automatically determined/calculated).
Re Claim 14, Hua discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the earpiece is integrated into a headset, a hearing aid, or hearing protection (fig. 2: 42 & 44; paras 0073, 0078: filters 42 & 44 inherently have respective sampling rates).
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 4.
Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 8.
Claim 22 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 6.
Re Claim 23, Hua discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the applying the first feedback filter to the input signal comprises sampling the input signal using a first sampling rate (figs. 1-2; abstract: headset; wherein headsets are selected from the Markush claim language).
Claim 26 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 14.
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.
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.
Claims 5 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua, US Patent Pub. 20130129105 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gauger, JR. et al, US Patent Pub. 20140126734 A1. (The Gauger, JR. et al reference is cited in IDS filed 06/03/2024)
Re Claim 5, Hua discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising an equalizer configured to equalize external audio signals wherein the signal processor is configured to combine an output of the equalizer with the first feedback filter output and the second feedback filter output to generate the intermediate signal. However, Gauger, JR. et al discloses an equalizing audio filter combined with the feedback and feedforward paths (Gauger, JR. et al, para 0085 equalizing audio filter). It would have been obvious to modify the Hua system to include an equalizing audio filter as taught in Gauger, JR. et al for the purpose of equalizing the levels across a broad frequency.
Claim 21 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 5.
Claims 7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua, US Patent Pub. 20130129105 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Stein et al, US Patent Pub. 20180103319 A1.
Re Claim 7, Hua discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a first weighting unit of the plurality of weighting units is configured to weight the first feedback filter output based on a first weight value that is set manually. However, Stein et al discloses the concept of manually tuning/weighting filters (Stein et al, para 0056). It would have been obvious to modify the Hua system such that its filters can be manually tuned/weighted as taught in Stein et al for the purpose of being able to manually control the filters.
Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 7.
Claims 9 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua, US Patent Pub. 20130129105 A1 as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Kechichian et al, US Patent Pub. 20150381821 A1.
Re Claim 9, Hua discloses the apparatus of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the calculation unit is configured to provide to the signal processor for the first feedback filter output, a weighting function and a power estimate, and wherein a first weighting unit of the plurality of weighting units is configured to normalize and smooth the weighting function and the power estimate to calculate the first weight value. However, Kechichian et al discloses a system where NLMS algorithm is employed to model the direct path of the acoustic impulse response of an adaptive filter where update term is normalized by a smoothed power estimate (Kechichian et al, para 0138). It would have been obvious to modify the Hua system such that its filters weights are normalized by a smoothed power estimate as taught in Kechichian et al for the purpose of making complex filter designs manageable.
Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 & 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 13: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Wherein the first feedback filter is configured to sample the input signal using a first sampling rate, wherein the second feedback filter is configured to sample the input signal using a second sampling rate that is different from the first sampling rate, and wherein the signal processor is configured to perform a first sampling rate conversion on the first feedback filter output, a second sampling rate conversion on the second feedback filter output, or both, prior to combining the first feedback filter output with the second feedback filter output to generate the intermediate signal.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 24-25: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Wherein the applying the second feedback filter to the input signal comprises sampling the input signal using a second sampling rate that is different from the first sampling rate.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 23 and ultimately claim 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C MONIKANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 9AM-5PM, ALT. Fridays off.
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, Carolyn R Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/GEORGE C MONIKANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692 07/28/2026
Prosecution Insights