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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application, 2023-97309, filed in the Japan Patent Office on 06/13/2023. The foreign priority claim is not perfected until Applicant submits a certified English translation of the foreign priority document.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97, and has been considered by Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. Applicant is suggested to amend to a more descriptive title, such as “Sound Output Device with sound outputting based on object approach detection, Method and Program”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 to 11 are objected to because of the following informalities, including minor typographical and grammatical errors, likely resulting from translation:
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, “…certain playback sound or certain call audio…certain masking sound…” is recited. Playback sound, call audio, and masking sound are first introduced with “certain”, which is unclear. Applicant is suggested to amend to “…a playback sound or a call audio …a masking sound…” for clarity.
Dependent claims 2-9 inherit the same problem from base claim 1 and they are objected to for the same reason as well.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, “…output first sound…output second sound…” is recited. “…output a first sound…output a second sound…” is more grammatically correct than “…output first sound…output second sound…”, thus correction is needed.
Dependent claims 2-9 inherit the same problem from base claim 1 and they are objected to for the same reason as well.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, “…as sound that…or sound of a surrounding environment …” is recited; regarding claim 7, “…as sound having… the sound of the surrounding environment …” is recited; regarding claim 9, “…sound received from…” is recited; “… a sound…” is more grammatically correct. Also, the source of sound in “sound of a/the surrounding environment” is ambiguous and unclear. Correction and clarification are needed, e.g. “…as a sound in… of an ambient sound of a surrounding environment …” for claims 5 and 6, “…as the sound having… the ambient sound of the surrounding environment …” for claim 7; “… a sound received from…” for claim 9.
Regarding claim 8, “…to store sound of a surrounding environment…includes the sound of the surrounding environment…” is recited. “…to store a sound…” is more grammatically correct. Also, the source of sound is ambiguous and unclear. Correction and clarification are needed, e.g. “…to store an ambient sound of a surrounding environment… includes the ambient sound of the surrounding environment…”. Furthermore, “…sound that includes…” is recited. The phrase “sound” is ambiguous. Applicant is requested to clarity if this meant to be “… a sound that includes…” or “… the sound that includes…”.
Regarding claim 5, “…one of the first found…” is recited. In view of claim 1, the phrase “found” is clearly a typo. Application is suggested to amend to “…one of the first sound…”.
Claim 7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitt
et al. (US Patent No. 11809774B1) in view of Christoph (US Pub. No. 20080181422A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vitt teaches A sound output device comprising (see “The headset is an audio device”, col.1, ln.38):
a first outputter configured to output sound to one ear of a user (see Element 135, Fig.1; also see “The headset 130 includes a left speaker 135 that is positioned next to a left ear of the user 120”, col. 3, ln. 54-55);
a second outputter configured to output sound to the other ear of the user(see Element 136, Fig.1; also see “The headset 130 includes …a right speaker 136 that is positioned next to a right ear of the user 120”, col. 3, ln. 54-57);
a first detector configured to detect an approach of an object in a vicinity of the first outputter (the sensor i.e. detector is integrated into the sound output device, see “the sensor data may be produced by a sensor that is integrated into the headset, such as a proximity sensor, motion sensor…a touch sensor, a camera, a reference microphone”, col.7, ln.11-14; the detector is configured to detect an approach of an object in a vicinity of a speaker AKA outputter, see “…the detector 205 may determine whether an object is at least partially covering a speaker and/or a microphone…This increase may indicate that a hand of the user is covering the speaker…”, col.7, ln. 35-43; wherein “the speaker” can be the left speaker, i.e. the first outputter, see “sensor data may be voltage and/or current values measured from a speaker ( e.g., left speaker 135) of the headset”, col.7, ln.16-18 );
“a controller configured to cause the first outputter to output first sound including at least one of certain playback sound or certain call audio and cause the second outputter…” (a controller can be integrated into the sound output device, see “the controller 200 may be integrated into (e.g., a housing of) the headset 130”, col.6, ln.47-48; the controller may cause the sound output device to initiate the improved audibility mode, see “as opposed to the privacy mode which may reduce the sound output of a speaker, upon initiation of the improved audibility mode the sound output of the speaker may be increased. In one aspect, similar to the process 300, the operations described herein may be performed by the controller 200”; wherein, the controller causes the left speaker (Element 135, Fig. 1) i.e. the first outputter, to output a sound, see “the headset is initiating the privacy mode…the headset may apply a gain to the input audio signal to reduce an output sound level of the speaker 135”, col.6,ln.8-15; also see “as opposed to the privacy mode which may reduce the sound output of a speaker, upon initiation of the improved audibility mode the sound output of the speaker may be increased”, col.16, ln. 41-44); the sound may include a playback sound or a call audio ( see “the user desired audio may be obtained from a sound source external to the headset 130 (e.g., a media playback device)”, col.7, ln.1-3; also see “the user 120 may participate in a handsfree phone call that is initiated by a smart phone, but conducted through the headset”, col.3, ln.40-43; and cause the right speaker(Element 136, Fig.1) i.e. the second outputter, to be muted, see “the right speaker 136 may be muted while the left speaker 135 is at least partially covered”, col.6, ln.18-20);
“…on a basis of the first detector detecting the approach of the object.” (see Element 155, Fig.1; also see “in response to determining that the left speaker 135 is at least partially covered…”, col.14, ln.58-59)
Vitt does not teach underlined limitations wherein “cause the second outputter to output second sound including certain masking sound”.
Christoph teaches “sound including certain masking sound” ( a cancellation signal/sound or the white noise is a masking sound, see [0013]: “An active noise control system comprises a loudspeaker for radiating a cancellation signal to reduce or cancel unwanted noise signal”; also see [0058]: “FIG. 3 shows the masking of a sinusoidal test tone by white noise”; the masking sound is included in other sound, see [0057]: “Simultaneous masking means that a masking sound and useful signal occur at the same time”).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further improved the sound output device as taught by Vitt to cause the second outputter to output a second sound including certain masking sound as taught by Christoph. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to reduce or cancel unwanted noise signal”([0013]).
Regarding claim 3, Vitt in view of Christoph teaches all the limitations previously set forth in claim1’s 103 rejection.
Claim 3 further recites “…the object covers at least a portion of the first outputter”. Vitt also teaches this limitation (the object is a user’s hand, see ”user 1 may cover the left speaker 135 and the microphone 140 with a left hand”, col.14, ln.29-30; the left speaker is the first outputter, see “in response to determining that the left speaker 135 is at least partially covered, the controller 200 may process the left audio signal to produce a left adjusted audio signal, according to the operations described above. The controller may also process the right audio signal to produce a right adjusted audio signal”, col.14, ln.58-63).
Regarding claim 4, Vitt in view of Christoph teaches all the limitations previously set forth in claim1’s 103 rejection.
Vitt in view of Christoph teaches a sound output device including a first and a second outputter selectively controlled by a controller( “The controller may drive the left speaker 135 with the left adjusted audio signal to output sound and drive the right speaker 136 with the right adjusted audio signal to output sound”, Vitt: col. 14, ln. 67 and col.15, ln. 1-3).
Vitt in view of Christoph further teaches the controller selectively controls the first outputter and the second outputter based on a condition, such as detection of a hand gesture near the first outputter (see ”in response to determining that the left speaker 135 is at least partially covered, the controller 200 may process the left audio signal to produce a left adjusted audio signal, according to the operations described above. The controller may also process the right audio signal to produce a right adjusted audio signal, where the left audio signal is processed differently than the right audio signal. The difference may be due to the fact that the left speaker is affected by the occlusion of the user's hand, while the right speaker is not occluded”, col.14, ln.58-67).
Claim 4 recites the controller is configured to cause the second outputter to start output of the second sound on a basis of the first outputter starting output of the first sound, and cause the second outputter to end output of the second sound on a basis of the first outputter ending output of the first sound.
Although the prior art Vitt in view of Christoph does not disclose that the second outputter outputs sound in a manner as specified in claim 4, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was effectively filed that the designer would have been able to program predictable variations of “one or more data processing components to perform…audio/image processing operations” (Vitt: col. 21, ln.18-20) and caused the second outputter to start or end output of the second sound based on the first outputter starting or ending output of the first sound respectively based on the designer’s preference/needs. This operation would have yielded predicable results.
Regarding claim 5, Vitt in view of Christoph teaches all the limitations previously set forth in claim1’s 103 rejection.
Vitt also teaches the controller is configured to output the second sound as sound that is quieter than at least one of the first found or sound of a surrounding environment of the second outputter (the controller may process and output the right audio signal i.e. the second sound, differently including quieter than the left audio signal, i.e. the first sound, see “The controller may also process the right audio signal to produce a right adjusted audio signal, where the left audio signal is processed differently than the right audio signal”, col.14, ln.62-64; also see “As a result, the sound level on the left side of the user may be different than at the right side”, col.15, ln.8-9).
Regarding claim 6, Vitt in view of Christoph teaches all the limitations previously set forth in claim1’s 103 rejection.
Vitt further teaches “…sound of a surrounding environment of the second outputter” (the left or first microphone 140 captures a sound of surrounding environment of the left or first outputter 135, see “the microphone 140 is capturing ambient sound that may include ambient noise from within the environment in which the headset is located and/or sound output of the speaker 135”, col.10, ln.61-64; the sound output device may also integrate a second microphone for the right or second outputter 136, thereby to capture a sound of surrounding environment of the second outputter, see “the controller may separately perform the process 300 for both the left speaker 135 using a microphone signal from microphone 140 and the right speaker 136 using a microphone signal from the other microphone”, see col. 15, ln. 33-36).
Vitt does not teach “… sound in accordance with frequency characteristics of …”
Christoph teaches “… sound in accordance with frequency characteristics of …” (see [0004]-[0005]: “…suppress unwanted noise by generating cancellation sound waves to superimpose on the unwanted signal, whose amplitude and frequency values are for the most part identical to those of the noise signal, but whose phase is shifted by 180 degrees in relation to the unwanted signal…The term 'noise' refers in this case both to external acoustic sound waves-such as ambient noise…”).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further improved the sound output device as taught by Vitt to output the second sound as sound in accordance with frequency characteristics of sound of a surrounding environment of the second outputter as taught by Christoph. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to reduce or cancel unwanted noise signal”([0013]).
Regarding claim 7, Vitt in view of Christoph teaches all the limitations previously set forth in claim1’s 103 rejection.
Vitt further teaches “…sound of a surrounding environment of the second outputter” (the left or first microphone 140 captures a sound of surrounding environment of the left or first outputter 135, see “the microphone 140 is capturing ambient sound that may include ambient noise from within the environment in which the headset is located and/or sound output of the speaker 135”, col.10, ln.61-64; the sound output device may also integrate a second microphone for the right or second outputter 136, thereby to capture a sound of surrounding environment of the second outputter, see “the controller may separately perform the process 300 for both the left speaker 135 using a microphone signal from microphone 140 and the right speaker 136 using a microphone signal from the other microphone”, see col. 15, ln. 33-36)
Vitt does not teach “…sound having frequency characteristics in accordance with the frequency characteristics of…”
Christoph teaches “…sound having frequency characteristics in accordance with the frequency characteristics of…” (see [0004]-[0005]: “…suppress unwanted noise by generating cancellation sound waves to superimpose on the unwanted signal, whose amplitude and frequency values are for the most part identical to those of the noise signal, but whose phase is shifted by 180 degrees in relation to the unwanted signal…The term 'noise' refers in this case both to external acoustic sound waves-such as ambient noise…”).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further improved the sound output device as taught by Vitt to output the second sound as sound having frequency characteristics in accordance with the frequency characteristics of the sound of the surrounding environment of the second outputter as taught by Christoph. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to reduce or cancel unwanted noise signal”([0013]).
Regarding claim 9, Vitt in view of Christoph teaches all the limitations previously set forth in claim1’s 103 rejection.
Vitt also teaches or at least suggests a communicator configured to communicate with another electronic apparatus (the sound output device in the form of a headset includes a wireless transceiver configured to establish a wireless connection and to transmit and receive data packets with another electronic apparatus, such as a smart phone. The transceiver corresponds to the claimed communicator, see “the headset may be a wireless electronic device that is configured to establish a wireless connection with the media playback device (not shown), such as a smart phone, a tablet computer, a laptop, etc., over a wireless computer network, using e.g., BLUETOOTH protocol or a wireless area network. During the established wireless connection, the headset may exchange (e.g., transmit and receive) data packets (e.g., Internet Protocol (IP) packets) with the media playback device”, col. 3, ln. 28-36),
Vitt further teaches the controller is configured to output, as the first sound, sound received from the other electronic apparatus ( the sound from the external media playback device, i.e. the other electronic apparatus, is the first sound and the left speaker is the first outputter, see “The controller 200 is configured to obtain … user desired audio content as input audio signal(s) and perform various operations based on the sensor data (and/or the input audio signal(s)) in order to produce output audio signal(s) (e.g., driver signals for driving one or more speakers, such as speakers 135 and 136). In one aspect, the user desired audio may be obtained from a sound source external to the headset 130 (e.g., a media playback device) over a wireless communication link”, col. 6, ln. 63-67 and col. 7, ln.1-4).
Regarding claim 10, since the claimed method comprises the same operations conducted by the device in claim 1, claim 10 is rejected as being unpatentable over Vitt in view of Christoph for the reasons mentioned in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program to conduct the operation steps in the device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected as being unpatentable over Vitt in view of Christoph for the reasons mentioned in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitt et al. (US Patent
No. 11809774B1) in view of Christoph (US Pub. No. 20080181422A1) in further review of Bloom (US Patent No. 11184695B2).
Vitt in view of Christoph teaches all the limitations previously set forth in claim1’s 103 rejection.
Vitt in view of Christoph further teaches a second detector configured to detect an approach of an object in a vicinity of the second outputter (the detector is a microphone, see Element 140, Fig. 1, also see “the detector 205 may determine whether an object is at least partially covering a speaker and/or a microphone based on a change in a sound characteristic of the microphone signal”, Vitt: col. 7, ln. 35-38; a second detector, i.e. “another microphone”, is configured to detect an approach of an object in a vicinity of the second outputter 136, see “the user may perform a dual cupped hand gesture, whereby the user is covering a left ear with a left hand and a right ear with a right hand. To illustrate, referring to FIG. 1, user 1 may cover the left speaker 135 and the microphone 140 with a left hand and cover the right speaker 136 and another microphone (not shown) with a right hand”, Vitt: col. 15, ln. 26-32).
Vitt in view of Christoph also teaches “…on a basis of the second detector detecting the approach of the object” ( “another microphone” is the second detector, see “…cover the right speaker 136 and another microphone (not shown) with a right hand … at least some of the operations of process 300 may be performed (e.g., again) for the right speaker 136”, col. 15, ln. 30-42).
Vitt in view of Christoph does not teach the controller is configured to cause the second outputter to output the first sound and cause the first outputter to output the second sound on a basis of the second detector detecting the approach of the object.
Bloom teaches the controller is configured to cause the second outputter to output the first sound and cause the first outputter to output the second sound on a basis of sensor inputting (the 1st Audio Channel and the 2nd Audio Channel correspond to the first sound and the second sound respectively, see “Processor 1072 can be configured to swap the 1st Audio Channel with the 2nd Audio Channel in accordance with information received from first and second orientation sensors 1078 and 1080”, col. 19, ln. 14-18).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have swapped the first sound and the second sound as taught by Bloom on a basis of the second detector detecting the approach of the object Vitt in view of Christoph. It would have yielded an improved sound output device with new “design features” (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “improve the overall user experience” (col. 1, ln. 19).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitt et al. (US Patent
No. 11809774B1) in view of Christoph (US Pub. No. 20080181422A1) in further review of Steele et al. (US Pub. No. 20190355341A1).
Vitt in view of Christoph teaches all the limitations including “the controller is configured to output, as the first sound…” recited by claim 8previously set forth in claim1’s 103 rejection. Vitt in view of Christoph further teaches “storage configured to store sound…” (see “the
controller 200 may retrieve the audio content from local memory”, col. 7, ln. 4-6).
Vitt in view of Christoph does not teach the underlined limitations “storage configured to store sound of a surrounding environment of the first outputter, wherein the controller is configured to output, as the first sound, sound that includes the sound of the surrounding environment stored in the storage”.
Steele teaches ““storage configured to store sound of a surrounding environment … sound that includes the sound of the surrounding environment stored in the storage” (data memory is the storage to buffer i.e. store ambient sounds, which are the sound of the surrounding environment, see “An apparatus for playback of captured ambient sounds . The apparatus comprises a controller comprising a first input coupled to a respective first microphone for receiving an audio signal generated by the microphone, the audio signal representative of captured ambient sounds … and an output coupled to speaker. The apparatus further comprises data memory comprising a data structure for continuously buffering a most recent portion of the audio signal as an audio snippet”, Abstract).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have stored a sound of a surrounding environment as taught by Steele, which would have been generated by the left microphone (Vitt: Element 140, Fig. 1 ) near the left speaker (Vitt: Element 135, Fig. 1 ), i.e. the first outputter and outputted as the first sound in the sound output device as taught by Vitt in view of Christoph. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “… so that he / she can hear the announcement in its entirety and if desired , more than once” ([0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goubran et al. (US Pub. No. 20030103632A1) teaches a sound masking system that generates white noise with a matching frequency spectrum to mask undesired sound (Element 13, 16, Fig. 1; Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 pm ET.
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.
/SHIN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695