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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1 and 13-15 are independent. Claims were amended by a preliminary amendment of 7/26/2024 such that Claims 16-18 were added where Claim 16 depends from 1, Claim 17 from 10, and Claim 18 from 15.
This Application was published as U.S. 20240331719.
Apparent priority: 10 July 2019.
This Application is a continuation of US 17/626,104 issued as US 12033653. Instant Claims are broader and a Terminal Disclaimer is required as set forth below.
This Application has a single unnumbered drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
558
964
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
The dependents of Claim 1 alternate between:
16. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the human voice is a signer's voice.
17. The apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the at least one acoustically perceivable parameter is the pith and/or the reverberation.
Please stay consistent and use “The apparatus” in the dependent claims in keeping with the rules of antecedent basis.
Claims 4-5 are objected to for the following informalities:
4. Apparatus according to claim 3,
wherein the processing device or the suppressing device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to extract an audio signal component containing a human voice in an audio signal outputtable or output in the vehicle cabin and to separate a extracted audio signal component containing a human voice, of the respective audio signal from other audio signal components of the respective audio signal.
5. Apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the audio receiving device is configured to receive a human voice signal of at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin and a human voice signal of at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin,
whereby the processing device is configured to modify the received human voice signal of the at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin with at least one first acoustic modification parameter and to modify the received human voice signal of the at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin with at least one further acoustic modification parameter.
Appropriate correction is required.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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.
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: “outputting device” and “receiving device” and “processing device” in Claim 1 and its dependents. These limitations are generic in the context of the art and don’t refer to any specific structure and only serve as placeholders for the structure that performs the associated function(s) without providing any information about what that structure is. MPEP 2181 I A says:
For a term to be considered a substitute for "means," and lack sufficient structure for performing the function, it must serve as a generic placeholder and thus not limit the scope of the claim to any specific manner or structure for performing the claimed function. It is important to remember that there are no absolutes in the determination of terms used as a substitute for "means" that serve as generic placeholders. The examiner must carefully consider the term in light of the specification and the commonly accepted meaning in the technological art. Every application will turn on its own facts.
Based on the ordinary skill in the art and description of functions of these components in the Specification, they refer to microphones (“[0011] The at least one audio receiving device typically, comprises one or more audio receiving elements, such as microphones. …”) speakers ( “[0009] … The at least one audio outputting device typically, comprises one or more audio outputting elements, such as loudspeakers. … Hence, at least from a structural point of view, the at least one audio outputting device of the apparatus can be a standard audio outputting device of a vehicle audio system.”) and processors or microprocessors. The use of the placeholder “device” which is generic in this context together with “configured for a function” creates a 112(f) interpretation.
PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a rejection. Please don’t address it as a rejection. If the Applicant does not agree with the INTERPRETATION, he may argue or amend to replace the terms interpreted under 112(f) with structural terms such as “microphone,” “loudspeaker,” or “processor” as appropriately supported by the Specification. In the alternative, he may let the interpretation stand if the intent was to include a means plus function limitation in the Claim.
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.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12033653 as shown below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following mapping:
Instant Application
US 12033653
1. Apparatus for outputting an audio signal in a vehicle cabin, the apparatus comprising:
1. An apparatus for outputting an audio signal in a vehicle cabin, the apparatus comprising:
at least one audio outputting device configured to output an audio signal comprising at least one audio signal component containing a human voice in a vehicle cabin;
at least one audio outputting device configured to output a first audio signal comprising at least one audio signal component containing a first human voice, in a vehicle cabin;
characterized by
at least one audio receiving device configured to receive a human voice signal of at least one person located in the vehicle cabin whilst the at least one audio outputting device outputs the audio signal in the vehicle cabin;
at least one audio receiving device configured to receive a second human voice signal of at least one person located in the vehicle cabin whilst the at least one audio outputting device outputs the first audio signal in the vehicle cabin; and
at least one processing device configured to combine the audio signal and the received human voice signal so as to generate a combined audio signal containing the audio signal and the received human voice signal which combined audio signal is outputtable or output in the vehicle cabin via the at least one audio outputting device.
at least one processing device configured to combine the first audio signal and the received second human voice signal so as to generate a combined audio signal containing the first audio signal and the received second human voice signal which combined audio signal is output in the vehicle cabin via the at least one audio outputting device,
3. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing device or a suppressing device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to suppress an audio signal component containing a human voice in an audio signal outputtable or output in the vehicle cabin.
wherein the processing device or a suppressing device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to suppress the at least one audio signal component containing the first human voice in the first audio signal before combining the first audio signal and the second human voice signal,
5. Apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the audio receiving device is configured to receive a human voice signal of at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin and a human voice signal of at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin,
whereby the processing device is configured to modify the received human voice signal of the at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin with at least one first acoustic modification parameter and to modify the received human voice signal of the at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin with at least one further acoustic modification parameter
wherein the audio receiving device is configured to receive a human voice signal of at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin and a human voice signal of at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin, and
6. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the audio receiving device is configured to receive a human voice signal of at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin and a human voice signal of at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin,
whereby the processing device or a suppressing device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to suppress the human voice signal of the at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin and to generate a resulting received human voice signal which contains the human voice signal of the at least one first person and a suppressed human voice signal of the at least one further person.
whereby the processing device or the suppressing device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to suppress the human voice signal of the at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin and to generate a resulting received human voice signal which contains the human voice signal of the at least one first person and a suppressed human voice signal of the at least one further person.
Claim 2 is taught by claim 2 of the reference patent.
Claim 3 is taught by claim 1 of the reference patent.
Claim 4 is taught by claim 4 of the reference patent.
Claim 5 is taught by claim 1 of the reference patent.
Claim 6 is taught by claim 1 of the reference patent.
Claim 7 is taught by claim 12 of the reference patent.
Claim 8 is taught by claim 6 of the reference patent.
Claim 9 is taught by claim 14 of the reference patent.
Claim 10 is taught by claim 8 of the reference patent.
Claim 11 is taught by claim 9 of the reference patent.
Claim 12 is taught by claim 10 of the reference patent.
Claim 13 is taught by claim 15 of the reference patent.
Claim 14 is taught by claim 16 of the reference patent.
Claim 15 is taught by claim 17 of the reference patent.
Claim 16 is taught by claim 11 of the reference patent.
Claim 17 is taught by claim 14 of the reference patent.
Claim 18 is taught by claim 11 of the reference patent.
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, 8-9, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hetherington (U.S. 20100107856).
Regarding Claim 1, Hetherington teaches:
1. Apparatus for outputting an audio signal in a vehicle cabin, the apparatus comprising: [Hetherington, Figure 1, “[0021] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an embodiment of the system as implemented in a vehicle. …”]
at least one audio outputting device configured to output an audio signal comprising at least one audio signal component containing a human voice in a vehicle cabin; [Hetherington, Figure 1, “speaker 104.” “[0021] … The output of node 110 is combined with music signal 116 at summing node 111 and provided as output 112 to vehicle cabin speaker 104 in cabin 101. Note that when there is no singer detected in the vehicle, the output of node 110 is simply the vocal signal 117 so that the signal 112 is the normal music plus vocal track.”] [Hetherington, Figure 1, signal 112 = “normal music” / “at least one audio signal” + “vocal track” / “human voice.”]
at least one audio receiving device configured to receive a human voice signal of at least one person located in the vehicle cabin whilst the at least one audio outputting device outputs the audio signal in the vehicle cabin; [Hetherington, Figure 1, “microphone 105.” A human “singer 102” and “driver/singer's voice 114.” “[0023] As can be seen at cabin 101, the microphone 105 receives sound signals from multiple sources, including speaker 104, singer 102, and noise 115 from noise sources 103….”] [Hetherington, Figure 1, “driver/ singer 102” and “driver/singer's voice 114.”]
at least one processing device configured to combine the audio signal and the received human voice signal so as to generate a combined audio signal containing the audio signal and the received human voice signal which combined audio signal is outputtable or output in the vehicle cabin via the at least one audio outputting device.[Hetherington, Figure 1, “vocal track processor 107.” The summation/combining is at “node 111” which receives “music 116” and the signal from “node 110”. The “node 110” removes the voice part of the song (“vocals 117”) from the echo-cancelled (at AEC 109) microphone signal 118 such that only music 116 and singing voice 114 of the user 102 and any noise115 from the room are combined at the “summing node 111.” “[0021] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an embodiment of the system as implemented in a vehicle. The content playback and processing system includes an audio source 106 providing content that includes music and vocals. This signal is provided to a vocal track processor 107. This unit processes the signal to separate the music 116 and vocal 117 signals using a number of known techniques. The vocal track processor outputs the music signal 116 to summing node 111 and the vocal signal to node 110. The output of node 110 is combined with music signal 116 at summing node 111 and provided as output 112 to vehicle cabin speaker 104 in cabin 101. …” “[0025] … The microphone signal, y 118, consists of three signals: (1) an echo signal 113 which is the processed reference signal, x 112, emitted by the loudspeaker 104; (2) local noise 115 from the car cabin 101; (3) the driver/singer's voice 114. The AEC 109 compares the microphone signal 118 with the song's music signal 109 and determines if the driver 102 is vocally active during the song. In an acoustic echo cancellation system, this simultaneous vocal activity is referred to as "double talk" (DT). When active, the AEC 109 outputs signal 120 (which in one embodiment is 1-DT) to node 110. When there is double talk detected, the combination of signal 120 with vocal signal 117 at node 110 will result in attenuation of the vocal signal 117.”] [Hetherington, Figure 1, “vocal track processor 107… separate the music 116 and vocal 117 signals … outputs the music signal 116 to summing node 111 and the vocal signal to node 110. The output of node 110 is combined with music signal 116 at summing node 111 and provided as output 112 to vehicle cabin speaker 104 in cabin 101.…” “The AEC 109 … determines if the driver 102 is vocally active during the song. When active, the AEC 109 outputs signal 120 … the combination of signal 120 with vocal signal 117 at node 110 will result in attenuation of the vocal signal 117.”]
PNG
media_image2.png
272
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Hetherington teaches:
2. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one audio outputting device is configured to output a respective combined audio signal in the vehicle cabin. [Hetherington, Figure 1, the “speaker 104” is in “inside car cabin 101.” “[0021] …The output of node 110 is combined with music signal 116 at summing node 111 and provided as output 112 to vehicle cabin speaker 104 in cabin 101. …”]
Regarding Claim 3, Hetherington teaches:
3. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing device or a suppressing device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to suppress an audio signal component containing a human voice in an audio signal outputtable or output in the vehicle cabin.[Hetherington, Figure 1, the “node 110” removes the “vocal track” form the incoming “music +vocals” so that it can add on the voice of the driver/passenger instead. Figure 2, “Attenuate Vocal Track 205” and Figure 3, “Activate Attenuation 306.” “[0010] A simplified Karaoke system is provided where a singer sings along to pre-recorded music that already includes a vocal track. When the system is activated, the singer sings along to the music and the vocal track in the music is automatically attenuated whenever the person sings. As long as the person is singing, the automatic attenuation is invoked….”]
Regarding Claim 4, Hetherington teaches:
4. The apparatus according to claim 3,
wherein the processing device or the suppressing device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to extractan audio signal component containing a human voice in an audio signal outputtable or output in the vehicle cabin and to separate a extracted audio signal component containing a human voice, of the respective audio signal from other audio signal components of the respective audio signal. [Hetherington, Figure 1, the “y(mic) 118” signal that comes from the microphone has voice, music, and noise (see [0025]) and the AEC 109 separates and cancels the human voice. The signal from the “Audio source 106” also includes “music +vocals” and the “vocal track processing 107” separates them into “music 116” and “vocals 117.”]
Regarding Claim 8, Hetherington teaches:
8. The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the processing device or a suppressing device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to suppress undesired noise in the vehicle cabin generated by receiving the audio signal which is outputtable or output in the vehicle cabin via the at least one audio outputting device. [Hetherington, Figures 1 and 3, “AEC 109” is an acoustic echo canceller that modifies the signal by removing echo 113. This echo 113 is generated by receiving the input to the microphone 105 back through the speaker 104. “[0023] As can be seen at cabin 101, the microphone 105 receives sound signals from multiple sources, including speaker 104, singer 102, and noise 115 from noise sources 103. The speaker output 113 is an echo signal and the singers output 114 is the non-content vocal source to be detected.” “[0027] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating the operation of AEC 109. At step 301 the AEC 109 receives the original content signal 108. At step 302 the AEC 109 receives the signal 118 from cabin microphone 118. At step 303 AEC 109 attempts to recognize the original signal 108 (with delay) in signal 118. At step 304 AEC 109 removes the recognized echo signal. This should result in the signal now just consisting of the non-content vocal signal 114 of the singer 102 and any noise 115….”]
Regarding Claim 9, Hetherington teaches:
9. Apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the processing device or a modifying device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to modify at least one acoustically perceivable parameter, particularly the pitch and/or the reverberation, of at least one audio signal component of the audio signal which is outputtable or output in the vehicle cabin an audio signal component containing a human voice, and/or [Hetherington, Figure 1, “AEC 109” is an acoustic echo canceller that modifies the signal by removing echo. Andy and all of the components shown in Figure 1 that lead to the generation of x(ref) 112 modify the audio signal that is output at the speaker 104. See Figure 2, 205: “Attenuate Vocal Track” and Figure 3, 304: “Remove recognized echo signal” and 306: “Active attenuation.”]
configured to modify at least one acoustically perceivable parameter of the received human voice signal of at least one person in the vehicle cabin. [Claim includes an and/or connector which means teaching only one limitation is sufficient for teaching the Claim.] (See application of Munoz to Claim 20 for the teaching of this limitation.)
Claim 13 is a device claim with limitations derived from the limitations of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Additionally:
13. Processing device for an apparatus according to claim 1, the processing device being configured to combine an audio signal and a received human voice signal so as to generate a combined audio signal containing the audio signal and the received human voice signal which is outputtable in the vehicle cabin via at least one audio outputting device.[Hetherington, Figure 1, and [0021]. “the conte play-back and processing system …” includes several components listed in [0021].]
Claim 14 is directed to a vehicle but has derived from the limitations of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Additionally:
14. Vehicle, comprising a vehicle cabin and an apparatus according to claim 1. [Hetherington, Figure 1, “inside car cabin 101” and [0011] indicating that the system is used in a car/automobile/vehicle: “the system is envisioned as being implemented in an automobile setting.”]
Claim 15 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
15. Method for outputting an audio signal in a vehicle cabin, the method comprising the steps of:
outputting via at least one audio outputting device, an audio signal comprising at least one audio signal component containing a human voice in a vehicle cabin; [Hetherington, Figure 1, this is the output of the “audio source 106” that includes “music +vocals” from the “speaker 104” when no one is singing or talking in the car cabin 101.]
receiving, via at least one audio receiving device, a human voice signal of at least one person located in the vehicle cabin whilst outputting the audio signal in the vehicle cabin; and [Hetherington, Figure 1, receiving the “sing 114” of the driver/singer/passenger 102 at the “microphone 105” inside the car cabin while the “speaker 104” is outputting the signal 106.]
combining, via at least one processing device, the audio signal and the received human voice signal so as to generate a combined audio signal containing the audio signal and the received human voice signal; and [Hetherington, Figure 1, “combiner/summer 111” generating “x(ref) 112 signal” by adding the singing voice of the singer 102 to the “music 116” portion that is generated by removing the vocal track from the input from source 106 at “node 110.” Figure 3, “remove recognized echo signal 304.”]
outputting, via the at least one audio outputting device, the combined audio signal in the vehicle cabin. [Hetherington, Figure 1, output of the combined Karaoke sound “x(ref) 112l” from “speaker 104.”]
Regarding Claim 16, Hetherington teaches:
16. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the human voice is a signer's voice. [Hetherington, Figure 1, showing driver/passenger/singer 102 singing 114. “[0025] The Acoustic Echo Canceller (AEC) 109 determines when the driver 102 (or other passengers if the car cabin 101 contains multiple microphones) is vocally active….” “[0027] …If the remaining signal is above the threshold, it is assumed that the driver/singer 102 is singing and attenuation of the vocal track is activated at step 306….” “[0025] … The microphone signal, y 118, consists of three signals: (1) an echo signal 113 which is the processed reference signal, x 112, emitted by the loudspeaker 104; (2) local noise 115 from the car cabin 101; (3) the driver/singer's voice 114. …”]
Claim 18 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of Claim 16 and is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetherington in view of Kaderavek (U.S. 20060083390).
Regarding Claim 5, Hetherington teaches:
5. The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the audio receiving device is configured to receive a human voice signal of at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin and a human voice signal of at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin, [Hetherington, Figure 1, “driver/singer 102” and several passages indicating that more than one human speaker may be present: “[0025] The Acoustic Echo Canceller (AEC) 109 determines when the driver 102 (or other passengers if the car cabin 101 contains multiple microphones) is vocally active.…The microphone signal, y 118, consists of three signals: (1) an echo signal 113 which is the processed reference signal, x 112, emitted by the loudspeaker 104; (2) local noise 115 from the car cabin 101; (3) the driver/singer's voice 114… The AEC 109 compares the microphone signal 118 with the song's music signal 109 and determines if the driver 102 is vocally active during the song….” “[0013] At step 203 the content playback begins. At decision block 204 the system determines if a live voice (non-content vocal source) is detected. For example, if the system is in a vehicle, the driver might be attempting to sing along with the content. In other embodiments, the driver and/or passengers may just be talking. The system checks at step 204 to determine if there is any vocal input from a non-content source.”]
whereby the processing device is configured to modify the received human voice signal of the at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin with at least one first acoustic modification parameter and to modify the received human voice signal of the at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin with at least one further acoustic modification parameter
Hetherington does not address treating the voices of different speakers differently.
Kaderavek teaches:
5. The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the audio receiving device is configured to receive a human voice signal of at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin and a human voice signal of at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin, [Kaderavek, Figures 4, 6, and 7. Flowchart of Figure 7 refers to a Driver and a Passenger. “[0052] FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating a microphone system 400 capable of adaptive signal processing. Microphone system 400 may represent the microphone systems 200 and 300, previously discussed, or it may be another microphone system in accordance herein. Capsules 406 and 407 may generate independent signals….” “[0053] Two examples are discussed. In both examples, a first capsule of a microphone system may be directed to a driver of a vehicle such as a car, a train, etc. A second capsule of the microphone system may be directed to a passenger or passengers.” ]
whereby the processing device is configured to modify the received human voice signal of the at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin with at least one first acoustic modification parameter and to modify the received human voice signal of the at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin with at least one further acoustic modification parameter [Kaderavek, Figure 6 identifies speech signals from the direction of Driver and sound from all other directions (including the direction of passenger(s)) and suppresses the sound from all other directions as interfering sound. The suppression teaches the “at least one first/further acoustic modification parameter” because one signal’s amplitude is taken to zero. Kaderavek also teaches that One signal is Suppressed and the Other is Equalized: two different acoustic modification parameters. “[0058] … When a … passengers' voice instruction may need to be ignored, it is possible to detect audio signals which come from the driver's direction only. Audio signals that come from other directions may be suppressed (650).” “[0060] As described in FIGS. 5-7, audio signals from the two microphone capsules may be processed and filtered separately and combined into one signal. The two microphone capsules may be directed into a different direction and each audio signal generated at the microphone capsules may be different from each other. The different audio signals may be evaluated and processed separately. For instance, one audio signal may be suppressed and the other audio signal may be equalized. At least one of the different audio signals may be used to provide adaptive signal processing. The audio signals may be processed to reflect noise levels, direction of audio signals, surrounding of the microphone capsules, etc.”]
Hetherington and Kaderavek pertain to treatment of speech of more than one human speaker in a car and it would have been obvious to modify the system of Hetherington to include the differential treatment of the speech of the Driver and the speech of the Passengers when control and command should be with one of the speaking persons in the car. This feature is usually used in the context of speech for command and control and the art decides whether the right of command (by speech) should be reserved to the Driver or, in some circumstances, when the Driver should not be talking and spoken commands should come from the passengers. The reference is not a Karaoke reference. This combination falls under combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results or use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2141, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding Claim 6, Hetherington, as applied to Claim 5, teaches that more than one human speaker may be present. It does not teach treating the different voices differently.
Kaderavek teaches:
6. The apparatus according to claim 1,
6. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the audio receiving device is configured to receive a human voice signal of at least one first person located in the vehicle cabin and a human voice signal of at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin, [Kaderavek, Figures 4, 6, and 7. Flowchart of Figure 7 at 720 refers to a Driver and a Passenger: Direct first capsule to Driver and second capsule to Passenger.]
whereby the processing device or a suppressing device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to suppress the human voice signal of the at least one further person located in the vehicle cabin and to generate a resulting received human voice signal which contains the human voice signal of the at least one first person and a suppressed human voice signal of the at least one further person.[Kaderavek, Figure 6 identifies speech signals from the direction of Driver and sound from all other directions (including the direction of passenger(s)) and suppresses the sound from all other directions as interfering sound. “[0058] … When a … passengers' voice instruction may need to be ignored, it is possible to detect audio signals which come from the driver's direction only. Audio signals that come from other directions may be suppressed (650).” ]
Rationale as provided for Claim 5. This is special narrower case of Claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetherington in view of Wang (U.S. 20180308462).
Regarding Claim 7, Hetherington removes the echo 113 which is a type of noise but does not teach removal of noise 115 of Figure 1.
Wang teaches:
7. The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the audio receiving device is configured to receive a human voice signal of at least one person located in the vehicle cabin and noise from an external noise source acoustically perceivable in the vehicle cabin, [Wang is directed to Karaoke devices used in a car when a driver or passenger sings. “[0021] The microphone 108 is used to convert acoustical energy corresponding to vocals provided by a user of the karaoke device 100 into electrical signals that may be, for example, mixed with a karaoke music signal and transmitted via the AM/FM transmitter 116 for playback over speakers connected to a radio tuned to receive the transmission from the AM/FM transmitter 116. The microphone 108 may be any type of microphone suitable for portable use and for capturing at least a majority of the sound frequencies produced by the human voice, particularly in song. The microphone 108 may be, for example, an electret microphone. The microphone 108 may also be a cardioid or other directional microphone, for limiting the detection of unwanted noise that may be prevalent in a vehicle or other mobile or temporary location….”]
whereby the processing device or a suppressing device assignable or assigned to the processing device is configured to suppress the noise acoustically perceivable in the vehicle cabin and to generate a resulting received human voice signal which contains the human voice signal of the at least one person and suppressed noise acoustically perceivable in the vehicle cabin. [Wang teaches suppression of noises that are usually present in a car: “[0021] … The microphone 108 may comprise noise-cancelling or noise-filtering features, for cancelling or filtering out noises common to the driving experience, including such noises as passenger voices, air conditioning noises, tire noise, engine noise, radio noise, and wind noise. Such features may be active or passive, and may include, for example, a physical noise protection filter placed around at least a portion of the microphone 108, or configured to be positioned between the microphone 108 and the mouth of a karaoke singer (e.g. a user of the microphone 108). ….”]
Hetherington and Wang pertain to Karaoke in a car and it would have been obvious to modify the system of Hetherington to include the additional noise suppression measures of Wang which remove the environmental noises as well. This combination falls under combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results or use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2141, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetherington in view of Zhang (U.S. 20200258536).
Regarding Claim 10, Hetherington does not teach a handheld mic: “[0025] … In a car cabin 101, the microphone 105 is typically housed in the rear-view mirror (or some other "distant" location) and is considered "far away" from the driver's mouth….”
Zhang teaches:
10. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one audio receiving device is built as or comprises at least one mobile audio receiving element. [Zhang teaches that two or more mobile handheld microphones may be used. “[0055] In order to provide two-player or even multi-player karaoke, an auxiliary microphone 200 is provided to cooperate with the in-vehicle intelligent WiFi microphone 100, and as shown in FIGS. 4-6, the auxiliary microphone 200 includes a second main mounting housing 210, …, the second microphone 250 is located at an upper end of the second main mounting housing 210, … an FM transmission module and a Bluetooth communication module which are electrically connected to the second main control processor; and the second microphone acquires an external audio signal, the audio mixing processing module performs audio processing on the acquired audio signal, and then the FM transmission module transmits the processed audio signal to the intelligent WiFi microphone.”]
Hetherington and Zhang pertain to Karaoke in a car and it would have been obvious to modify the system of Hetherington to include the use of a user mobile device microphones which may be held closer to the singer’s mouth as an option. This combination falls under combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results or use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2141, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See Zhang: “[0007] A technical problem to be solved in the present invention is to provide an in-vehicle intelligent WiFi microphone and an audio delay processing method therefor, by which the problem that the existing in-vehicle microphone is prone to interference and has poor sound quality when FM signals are used to establish audio transmission with an in-vehicle entertainment system, can be solved.”
Regarding Claim 11, Hetherington teaches that multiple microphones may be present and does so in the context of assigning a microphone to each passenger: “[0025] The Acoustic Echo Canceller (AEC) 109 determines when the driver 102 (or other passengers if the car cabin 101 contains multiple microphones) is vocally active….” On the other hand, it teaches that the “microphone 105” is a far-field microphone that can pick up the other sounds in the cabin, “[0025] … In a car cabin 101, the microphone 105 is typically housed in the rear-view mirror (or some other "distant" location) and is considered "far away" from the driver's mouth….”
Zhang teaches:
11. Apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the at least one mobile audio receiving element is assignable or assigned to at least one person seat in the vehicle cabin. [Zhang teaches that the mobile hand-held microphones are placed in mounting housings 210 associated with a seat. “[0059] Wherein, a second protection shield 260 is arranged at the upper end of the second main mounting housing 210, a charging jack 240 is arranged at a lower end of the second main mounting housing 210, the charging jack 240 mates with an in-vehicle charger or a charging plug connector, and the in-vehicle charger includes a microphone mounting seat and a connector connected to a vehicle USB interface.”]
PNG
media_image3.png
542
253
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rationale for combination as provided for Claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetherington in view of Boddicker (U.S. 20060050894).
Regarding Claim 12, Hetherington teaches that multiple microphones may be present but does not discuss them. “[0025] The Acoustic Echo Canceller (AEC) 109 determines when the driver 102 (or other passengers if the car cabin 101 contains multiple microphones) is vocally active….”
Boddicker teaches:
12. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the audio receiving device comprises a plurality of mobile audio receiving elements, whereby the receiving level of the respective mobile audio receiving elements is individually adjustable.[Boddicker teaches that both in prior art (Figure 1) and its own invention (Figures 2-9), two or more microphones may be receiving input and the level of signal output from each microphone can be separately adjusted: “[0009] Alternatively, component-style prior art apparatuses component karaoke players are similar to CD players in size and function except that they have several additional features: two or more microphone inputs with separate microphone volume controls and a digital key and digital echo control.” “[0040] … Vocal input is provided via microphones 60, 62 respectively of the entertainment system of the invention, the microphones 60, 62 being mounted where desirable within the confines of the vehicle or even extendable to a location outside of the vehicle such as a pickup-bed or extendable to an extent that enables the vehicle-mounted system to function as part of a sound stage. System controls 55-59 adjust the level of signal output from each of the microphones 60, 62 in the vehicle 50. By way of example, control 55 adjusts the output of the microphone 60. Control 56 adjusts the output of the microphone of the microphone 62. …” ]
PNG
media_image4.png
142
237
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
612
693
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hetherington and Boddiker pertain to Karaoke in a car and it would have been obvious to modify the system of Hetherington to include the use of individual controls for the sound input from different microphones in order to give some sounds prominence over others or suppress some sounds altogether. This combination falls under combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results or use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2141, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetherington and Zhang in view of Munoz (U.S. 9,076,421).
Regarding Claim 17, Hetherington was not cited for teaching the “configured to modify at least one acoustically perceivable parameter of the or a received human voice signal (9) of at least one person (P) in the or a vehicle cabin (4)” of Claim 9 and Claim 20 further limits this limitation. The reverb switch 159 of Munoz below, when turned on, it adds echoes /reverberations to the voice of the singer. See Col. 3, lines 8-12 and citations below.
Zhang mentions a reverberator IC in [0062] as a preprocessor that is applied to the mic signal.
Munoz teaches:
17. The apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the at least one acoustically perceivable parameter is the pith and/or the reverberation. [Munoz, Figure 1, “control buttons” including “159 reverb switch” and “a reverb switch (159), wherein the reverb switch (159) is operatively connected to the microprocessor (160) … configured to receive the voice signal from the microphone (140) and add a pre-determined numbers of echoes of the voice signal …” Col. 2, 63 to Col. 3, 7.]
Hetherington/Zhang and Munoz pertain to Karaoke in a car and it would have been obvious to modify the system of Hetherington/Zhang to include the reverb switch of Munoz in order to provide more control over the output Karaoke sound. This combination falls under combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results or use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2141, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haulick (U.S. 20090022330), Figure 4 shows a separate microphone array 404 for each passenger in the car. “[0042] FIG. 4 shows another implementation of the vehicle multimedia system 400 according to the invention. Multiple passengers 401 are located in a vehicle passenger compartment 402 which comprises multiple loudspeakers 403 and microphones 404. Multiple microphones are provided for each passenger position, so that beam-formed signals can be obtained for each passenger position…” “[0052] … Multiple microphones may be provided so that multiple passengers may sing simultaneously, or a music video may be shown together with the text of the song on the display 504.”
“[0079] According to an implementation, the controllers for controlling the amplification are formed for independently controlling sound volume for different passenger positions inside the vehicle, the amplification being based on the voice activity of a passenger on the respective position and/or the background noise present at the respective position. The output of the processed voice signal and the audio signal may be independently controlled, or it may be controlled together. By this feature, a pleasant sound output is generated for each passenger, since at each passenger position different background noise may prevail. Furthermore, if voice activity of the passenger is detected, the output of the processed voice signal can be attenuated for the passenger position, whereby it is avoided that the passenger has to listen to his voice with a high volume, which would be highly distracting.”
PNG
media_image6.png
612
773
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fiegura (U.S. 6114774) also shows a different microphone for each passenger and driver:
“Generally, a small microphone, preferably a directional microphone, is provided for every occupant of the vehicle. The microphone may either hang from the ceiling of the vehicle or be attached to the shoulder strap seat belt. For the driver, the microphone may be mounted on the steering wheel. All microphones may be connected through amplifiers to a mixer, which mixes controlled amounts of audio from each microphone with the audio of the car radio, cassette player, compact disc player or video player. After mixing, the audio signals are passed through the balance and fader controls of the vehicle's sound system to the loudspeaker(s) of the vehicle.” Col. 2, 50-60.
PNG
media_image7.png
669
512
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Wang (U.S. 20180308462) Figure 2 teaches that the singer’s mobile device may be used to receive his voice: “[0042] In still other embodiments, one or more components of the karaoke device 100, or all of the components of the karaoke device 100, may be provided in a mobile device, which may then be used as a karaoke device without any need for connecting to a separate mobile device. ….” “[0040] In some embodiments of the present disclosure, a mobile device 300 may stream karaoke music directly to an in-vehicle sound system via a Bluetooth or other wireless or wired connection….”
PNG
media_image8.png
273
473
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See also Reuter (U.S. 20150127338) for nulling/suppressing the speech of passengers in a car.
Georgiou (U.S. 20120281856):
PNG
media_image9.png
431
695
media_image9.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 601 for Content of Applications:
I. GUIDELINES FOR DRAFTING A NONPROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111(a)
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout and content of patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use. See also 37 CFR 1.77 and MPEP § 608.01(a). If an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) is used, data supplied in the application data sheet need not be provided elsewhere in the application with one exception for applications filed before September 16, 2012. For such applications, the citizenship of each inventor must be provided in the oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 even if this information is provided in the application data sheet (see pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(b)). If there is a discrepancy between the information submitted in an application data sheet and the information submitted elsewhere in the application, the application data sheet will control except for the naming of the inventors which is governed by 37 CFR 1.41 and, for applications filed before September 16, 2012, the citizenship of the inventors. See MPEP § 601.05.
A complete application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) comprises a specification, including claims, as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, drawings as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 113, an oath or declaration as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 115, and the prescribed filing fee, search fee, examination fee and application size fee.
Arrangement and Contents of the Specification
The following order of arrangement is preferable in framing the specification. See also MPEP § 608.01(a). Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as section headings.
(A) Title of the invention. (See MPEP § 606).
(B) Cross-reference to related applications. (See MPEP § 211 et seq.).
(C) Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development. (See MPEP § 310).
(D) The names of the parties to a joint research agreement (see 37 CFR 1.71(g)).
(E) An incorporation by reference statement regarding the material in:
(1) One or more ASCII plain text files, submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or on one or more read-only optical discs (see 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8)) for the following document types:
(a) A “Computer Program Listing Appendix” (see 37 CFR 1.96(c));
(b) A “Sequence Listing” (see 37 CFR 1.821(c)); or
(c) “Large Tables” (see 37 CFR 1.58(c)).
(2) An XML file for a “Sequence Listing XML” (see 37 CFR 1.831(a)), submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or on one or more read-only optical discs (see 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8)).
(F) Statement regarding prior disclosures by an inventor or joint inventor.
(G) Background of the invention. (See MPEP § 608.01(c)).
(1) Field of the invention.
(2) Description of related art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98.
(H) Brief summary of the invention. (See MPEP § 608.01(d)).
(I) Brief description of the several views of the drawing. (See MPEP § 608.01(f)).
(J) Detailed description of the invention. (See MPEP § 608.01(g)).
(K) Claim(s) (commencing on a separate sheet). (See MPEP § 608.01(i)-(p)).
(L) Abstract of the Disclosure (commencing on a separate sheet). (See MPEP § 608.01(b)).
(M) “Sequence Listing”, if present and submitted as a PDF image file via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or on physical sheets of paper (see 37 CFR 1.821(c) (2) and (3)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIBA SIRJANI whose telephone number is (571)270-1499. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 to 5, M-F.
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, Pierre Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fariba Sirjani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659