DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "3" and "1" have both been used to designate the reference microphone in Figs. 3-8.
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (US 2022/0254329 A1 – cited in IDS), hereinafter “Hayashi.”
As to claim 1, Hayashi discloses a cancellation device (Fig. 12B) comprising:
processing circuitry configured to generate a cancellation signal for suppressing noise acquired by one or more reference microphones for acquiring noise (¶0059, ¶0079 and ¶0100, Figs. 4 and 12B. “The noise canceling processing unit 110 is a digital signal processing circuit constituted by a digital signal processor (DSP), for example.” “the first microphone MCa is a microphone for collecting noise from the noise source as in the microphone shown in FIG. 10.” “It is equivalent to the idealization of the positional relationship between the reference microphone and the error microphone shown in FIG. 12.” MCa is reference microphone.); and
one or more cancellation loudspeakers configured to emit sound on the basis of the cancellation signal (¶0060 and ¶0083, Figs. 12A-B. “The cancel signals are output from the drivers DR constituting the speaker unit 200.” Driver DR emits cancel signal L2.),
wherein the processing circuitry generates the cancellation signal on the basis of sound signals obtained by one or more error microphones disposed in a region where noise is desired to be suppressed (¶0079 and ¶0100, Figs. 12A-B. “The second microphone MCb is arranged such that the directivity direction corresponds to the direction of the driver DR.” “It is equivalent to the idealization of the positional relationship between the reference microphone and the error microphone shown in FIG. 12.” MCb is error microphone.), and
the one or more reference microphones have directivity and are disposed in the vicinity of the cancellation loudspeakers (¶0079 and ¶0100, Figs. 12A-B. Reference microphone MCa is uni-directional.).
As to claim 3, Hayashi discloses wherein the number of the one or more reference microphones is one (¶0054, Figs. 6a-b. “The number of microphone MC and the number of drivers DR are not limited to the numbers shown in the figure.” Single reference microphone MC shown.), and
the reference microphone has directivity in a direction in which sound coming from the one or more cancellation loudspeakers is weaker than in a direction in which sound coming from the one or more cancellation loudspeakers is strong (¶0074, Fig. 12b. “The microphone MC is arranged on the outer surface of the housing 201 in the speaker unit 200 such that the directivity direction of the uni-directional microphone MC corresponds to the direction of the noise source and one low-sensitivity null corresponds to the direction of the driver DR.”).
As to claim 4, Hayashi discloses wherein the number of the one or more reference microphones is two or more (¶0054, Figs. 4 and 6c. MC1-8. “The number of microphone MC and the number of drivers DR are not limited to the numbers shown in the figure.”),
some of the one or more reference microphones have directivity in a direction in which sound coming from the one or more cancellation loudspeakers is weaker than in a direction in which sound coming from the one or more cancellation loudspeakers is strong, and the rest of the one or more reference microphones have directivity in a direction in which the noise arrives (¶0074, Figs. 4, 6c, 10 and 12b. “The microphone MC is arranged on the outer surface of the housing 201 in the speaker unit 200 such that the directivity direction of the uni-directional microphone MC corresponds to the direction of the noise source and one low-sensitivity null corresponds to the direction of the driver DR.”).
As to claims 6 and 7, they are directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 5, Hayashi does not expressly disclose a directivity control unit configured to dynamically control the directivity.
However, Hayashi (¶0117) does disclose, “Arranging and using a plurality of omni-directional microphones as the microphone array and further performing processing by the directivity processing unit 150 can give directivity (use of a so-called beamforming technique).” Dynamic beam steering/directivity control is well-known routine and conventional in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to dynamically steer the beam towards the noise source.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hiselius (WO 2017/136386 A1).
As to claim 2, Hayashi does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more cancellation loudspeakers are enclosure-less loudspeakers.
Hiselius discloses wherein the one or more cancellation loudspeakers are enclosure-less loudspeakers (Hiselius, p. 12 lines 5-9 and p. 14 lines 21-32, Fig. 5. “In one or more embodiments, a hearing protector of a hearing protection device can include a transducer that does not have an enclosure, i.e., an open-back transducer or loudspeaker.” “One difference between hearing protector 300 of FIG. 5 and hearing protector 10 of FIGS. 1-3 is that transducer 340 does not include an enclosure. Instead, membrane 344 and actuator 346 are disposed outside of housing 310 and are exposed to the surrounding environment.”).
Hayashi and Hiselius are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to sound attenuation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a transducer without an enclosure, as taught by Hiselius. The motivation would have been obvious to try, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. choosing between open or closed enclosure), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695