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 .
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is not to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In the state of the art, transitory signals are commonplace as a medium for transmitting computer instructions and thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of a “computer readable medium” covers a signal per se. A transitory signal does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matters.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouchard (“Multichannel Affine and Fast Affine Projection Algorithms for Active Noise Control and Acoustic Equalization Systems”) in view of Tani et al. (US 20150063581 A1; hereafter Tani).
Regarding claim 9, Buchard discloses a system for controlling noise based on active noise reduction (abstract, e.g.), comprising:
a noise acquisition device for acquiring a noise or vibration signal (second column of p. 55, “I number of reference sensors in an ANC system”);
a control device for generating a multi-channel reference signal (xi(n)) based on the noise or vibration signal acquired by the noise acquisition device, and generating a control signal (yj(n)) based on a coefficient (wi,j,k(n); equation (1) or (5)) of a filter at a current time (n) and the multi-channel reference signal (xi(n)) ;
a sound reproduction device (“J number of actuators in an ANC system” in second column of p. 55) for generating a secondary sound wave for canceling noise in an environment based on the control signal sent by the control device (see section I on first column of p.54 and Fig. 1); and
an error signal acquisition device (“K number of error sensors in an ANC system) for acquiring acoustical signals at a plurality of positions of the environment to obtain a vector e(n) of an error signal (ek(n));
wherein the control device is further configured to filter the multi-channel reference signal to obtain a filtered reference signal (vi,j,k(n), equation (2)) and write the filtered reference signal into a matrix form, and to update the coefficient (w(n+1)) of the filter based on the matrix form of the filtered reference signal (vi,j,k(n)) and the vector of the error signal (ET(n))according to the following equation (“-μ” in equation (5) reads on the claimed “μ”, ),
w(n+1)=w(n)+μ
X
^
(n)[
X
^
(n)T
X
^
(n)+δI]-1e(n)
wherein w(n+1) represents an updated coefficient of the filter, w(n) represents a coefficient of the filter at the current time, μ is a convergence factor,
X
^
(n) is the matrix form of the filtered reference signal, δ is a regularization factor, and I is an identity matrix.
Bouchard fails to specify that the ANC system is an ANC system for cancelling road noise in a compartment. Bouchard teaches a general ANC system that utilizes multichannel affine projection algorithm providing improved convergence performance over ANC system using other well known algorithm, such as recursive LMS which is considered providing fast adaptation, (abstract, e.g.). One skilled in the art would have expected that the algorithm as taught in Bouchard could be utilized for cancelling noise in a specific environment, such as the one as presented in Tani, without generating any unexpected result. Tani teaches an ANC system, utilizing LMS, for cancelling vehicle road noise by using sensors (1s in Figs. 9 and 10) for acquiring a noise or vibration signal caused by friction between wheel and a road surface ([0046]), a sound reproduction device (2) for generating a second sound waves for canceling noise in a compartment (see Fig. 10) and multiple error sensors (3s) for controlling adaptation of the filter coefficient. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bouchard by applying the multichannel affine projection algorithm for cancelling specific noise in a specific environment, such as the system with multiple error sensors, multiple reference sensors and multiple speakers as taught in Tani, in order to determine whether the affine project algorithm improves the performance of the ANC.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, as discussed above, Tani teaches a vibration sensor or a microphone ([0046]), a plurality second microphones (3s in Fig. 10) and a vehicle-mounted loudspeaker (2s).
Regarding claim 12, Bouchard teaches the claimed equations (second column of p. 55, equations (2) and (5)).
Regarding claim 13, Bouchard teaches the claimed equation (equation (1)).
Regarding claim 15, Bouchard fails to show a computer readable storage medium storing a computer program for implementing the noise control method. Given the computation complexity as taught in Bouchard, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilizing a computer, following the instructions, for processing the noise control method. Examiner takes Official Notice that this feature is notoriously well known in the art of ANC. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bouchard and Tani by using well known computer readable medium for storing instruction for the noise controlling process in order to provide an antinoise in a speedy manner.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-8 corresponds to the combination of claims 9-12 discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Bouchard teaches the claimed equations (second column of p. 55 and equation (1)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouchard and Tani as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Bastyr et al. (US 20230306947 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tani fails to teach that the vibration sensor is arranged on a bottom plate of the vehicle. Tani teaches that various locations for mounting the vibration sensor detecting road noise. This indicates that the vibration sensor could be mounted at a location that is preferred by the designer as long as it could detect the road noise. The claimed location is not novel for an ANC system. Bastyr also teaches ANC system for canceling road noise at the passenger compartment (Fig. 1). The vibration sensor could be mounted on the chassis or other part of the vehicle ([0017], [0019]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Bouchard and Tani by testing the performance of ANC system with vibration sensor mounting at various locations, such as the one as taught in Bastyr, in order to determine the best location for detecting the vibration noise while providing antinoise for cancelling the road noise.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PING LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/PING LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695