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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4 and 6-12 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 § 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 8-9 is 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.
As to claim 8, “the hole to which each of the one or more cancellation loudspeakers is open,” is unclear.
As to claim 9, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the fixed plate.”
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2022/0254329 A1), hereinafter “Hayashi,” in view of Yokota (US 2013/0243225 A1).
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.).
Hayashi does not expressly disclose the one or more cancellation loudspeakers are enclosure-less loudspeakers, thereby reducing sound emitted by the one or more cancellation loudspeakers approximately at a position on the same plane as at least one of one or more diaphragms of the one or more cancellation speaker, and
the one or more reference microphones are approximately at the position .
Yokota discloses the one or more cancellation loudspeakers are enclosure-less loudspeakers, thereby reducing sound emitted by the one or more cancellation loudspeakers approximately at a position on the same plane as at least one of one or more diaphragms of the one or more cancellation speaker (¶0039-0042, Fig. 2. “In the bare speaker 1, as shown in FIG. 2, a sound wave Sf emitted from the front of the vibration plate and a sound wave Sb emitted from the rear of the vibration plate are mixed. A phase of the sound wave Sf emitted from the front of the vibration plate and a phase of the sound wave Sb emitted from the rear of the vibration plate are opposite to each other. Therefore, an area (hereinafter referred to as sound pressure zero area) Zo in which the sounds emitted from the front and rear of the vibration plate are mixed and cancelled to reduce a sound pressure to nearly zero is present in an area in a surface parallel to a surface including an outer peripheral end of the vibration plate of the speaker 1 and further on an outer side than the outer peripheral end of the vibration plate.”), and
the one or more reference microphones are approximately at the position (¶0042, Fig. 2. “A microphone 2 for external noise collection is arranged in an arbitrary position of the sound pressure zero area Zo. Practically, for example, since an area near an outer periphery of a frame of the speaker 1 is the sound pressure zero area Zo, the microphone 2 is fixed to the frame of the speaker 1 and arranged in the sound pressure zero area Zo.”).
Hayashi and Yokota are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to noise reduction.
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 bare speaker, as taught by Yokota. The motivation would have been to mix sounds from the front and rear to produce a sound pressure zero area for the microphone (Yokota, ¶0039-0042).
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.”), and
in case that 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, 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.
As to claim 9, Hayashi in view of Yokota discloses wherein at least one of the one or more reference microphones is disposed on the center of the fixed plate (Hayashi, Fig. 6B and Yokota, ¶0040-0042 and ¶0061, Figs. 2, 5 and 7. Microphone 2 at center of vibration plate.).
The motivation is the same as claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights