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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: time delay module in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 discloses in the preamble: “An audio signal processing device method”. It appears that the claim is directed towards a method and therefor the term “device” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the present claim language discloses in part:
“wherein in the signal delay time, the codec and digital gain amplifier estimates and judges whether a multiplication result of the peak detection signal, the at least one analog gain amplification factor and the digital gain amplification factor exceeds a peak threshold value, thereby determining whether the at least one analog gain amplification factor and/or the digital gain amplification factor is reduced in advance,
wherein if the at least one analog gain amplification factor and/or the digital gain amplification factor is reduced in advance, the signal distortion of the analog audio output signal is prevented in advance”.
The limitation which states “if the at least one analog gain amplification factor and/or the digital gain amplification factor is reduced in advance, the signal distortion of the analog audio output signal is prevented in advance” is a little ambiguous since “the signal distortion of the analog audio output signal is prevented in advance” only conveys an outcome and does not convey an act is performed if it has been judged that the gain factors are reduced in advance. Perhaps the above limitation can be amended to read “wherein if the at least one analog gain amplification factor and/or the digital gain amplification factor is reduced in advance, perform an action to prevent the signal distortion of the analog audio output signal in advance” to render the claim scope more clear. Due to the ambiguous claim language, claim 1 is regarded as indefinite.
Claims 15 and 16 disclose in part: “wherein after the at least one analog gain amplification factor and/or the digital gain amplification factor has been reduced”.
The term “after” in each claim suggests that the claimed functions are performed following a reducing of the analog or digital gain amplification factors. However, claim 1 from which claim 15 and 16 depend, does not provide a “reducing” step, therefor it is not clear when the functions of claim 15 and 16 are performed. Due to the lack of clarity, claims 15 and 16 are regarded as indefinite. It appears that the claims should be rewritten to read as: “wherein if the at least one analog gain amplification factor and/or the digital gain amplification factor has been reduced”.
Claims 2-16 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as dependent upon a rejected base claim for at least the same reason as that of their base claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 17, the closest prior art such as Schneider et al (US 9071268) teaches the general concept of an audio signal processing method for an audio signal processing device, the method comprising the steps of: inputting an analog input signal (fig.3 ANALOG_IN) and performing an analog gain amplification process via an analog amplifier (fig.3#304,306); performing a digital gain amplification process via a digital gain amplifier (fig.3 #310a,b) and codec (fig.3 #308a,b); and a peak detection circuit (fig.3 #221,223) for determining a level of the amplified analog signal that is output from the analog amplifier; and comparing the level to a threshold value, wherein a gain of the digital amplifier may be reduced upon determining that the level exceeds threshold value (col.7 ln.31-67; col.8 ln.1-22).
However, none of the closest prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches
“(c) judging whether a multiplication result of the peak detection signal, the variable analog gain amplification factor and a digital gain amplification factor exceeds a peak threshold value in a signal delay time, thereby determining whether at least one of the variable analog gain amplification factor and the digital gain amplification factor is reduced in advance, wherein if a judging condition of the step (c) is not satisfied, a step (d) is performed, wherein if the judging condition of the step (c) is satisfied, a step (e) is performed;
(d) after the signal delay time, allowing the variable analog gain amplification factor and the digital gain amplification factor to be maintained, processing the second amplified analog audio input signal into the first amplified analog audio input signal, processing the first amplified analog audio input signal into a processed output signal, and performing the step (a) again;
(e) reducing at least one of the variable analog gain amplification factor and the digital gain amplification factor in advance within the signal delay time, wherein after the signal delay time, the second amplified analog audio input signal is processed into the first amplified analog audio input signal according to at least one of the variable analog gain amplification factor and the digital gain amplification factor that has been reduced, and the first amplified analog audio input signal is processed into the processed output signal” in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in independent claim 17.
Other prior art has been cited herein regarding monitoring circuits for reducing transient noises in microphone amplifiers, however the other prior art of record also fails to teach or provide suggestion to arrive the combination of the elements and steps presented in the independent claims, again when said elements or steps are collectively considered in regards to each claim. For at least the reasons listed above, dependent claims 18-20 are also allowed in view of their respective dependencies upon the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Das et al (US 10785568 B2) discloses reducing audio artifacts in a system for enhancing dynamic range of audio signals.
Schuurmans et al (US 20130259242 A1) discloses a control of a microphone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R KURR whose telephone number is (571)270-5981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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.
JASON R. KURR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/JASON R KURR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695