DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 10 and 20 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.
Claims 10 and 20 include the limitation that the modified audio signal direction or diffuseness is “more correctly perceived with a user of the device.” Whether or not an audio signal direction/diffuseness is “more correctly perceived” is subjective. The specification lacks an objective standard for measuring the scope of “more correctly perceived,” which therefore renders the claims unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohammad et al. (US 2019/0378491 A1), hereinafter “Mohammad.”
As to claim 1, Mohammad discloses a method for generating audio signals for a device equipped with a transparency mode (¶0058 and ¶0061. “The headphone device 102 may suppress noise originating from the first direction and pass-through or amplify noise originating from the second direction.” “The pass-through operation may include amplifying an audio signal that originates from a non-selected direction for noise cancellation.”), the method comprising:
obtaining at least two external audio signals from at least two microphones located on the device (¶0019-0020 and ¶0029, Figs. 1A-B. “The first feedforward microphone 104 may capture first audio 190 (e.g., first noise) and generate the first signal 114 based on the captured first audio 190. According to one implementation, the first signal 114 is a digital representation of the captured first audio 190. The second feedforward microphone 106 may capture second audio 192 (e.g., second noise) and generate the second signal 116 based on the captured second audio 192. According to one implementation, the second signal 116 is a digital representation of second captured audio 192.”);
determining at least one of sound direction or diffuseness or distance between a first microphone and a second microphone of the at least two microphones based on the at least two external audio signals (¶0020 and ¶0029, Fig. 1B. “Selection of whether to perform noise reduction on the first audio 190 or the second audio 192 may be determined based on an audio phase difference or user selection.” “The phase detector 122 is configured to generate the indication signal 123 based on a phase difference between a first phase of the first audio 190 captured at the first feedforward microphone 104 and a second phase of the first audio 190 captured at the first feedforward microphone 104. Based on the phase difference, the phase detector 122 determines that the first feedforward microphone 104 is closer to a sound source of the first audio 190 than the second feedforward microphone 106. As a result, the indication signal 123 indicates that the first feedforward microphone 104 should be associated with the first audio 190. The phase detector 122 may perform similar operations to determine that the second feedforward microphone 106 should be associated with the second audio 192.” Phase difference between received audio signals used for determining direction.);
modifying at least one of the at least two external audio signals based on the determined at least one of sound direction, diffuseness., or distance (¶0020, ¶0029 and ¶0061, Figs. 1A-B. “The pass-through operation may include amplifying an audio signal that originates from a non-selected direction for noise cancellation. For example, the ANC circuit 108 applies one or more gain amplifier parameters to the second signal 116 to perform noise reduction on the first audio 190 if the selection signal 125 has the first value.”); and
rendering the at least one modified audio signal (¶0061. “When output by the speaker 110, audio related to the second amplified signal amplifies the second audio 192 such that the wearer of the headphone device 102 more clearly hears the second audio 192.”).
As to claim 2, Mohammad discloses wherein the at least two microphones located on the device are located on one side of the device (Fig. 1A. Microphones 104 and 106 on one side of headphone device 102.).
As to claim 4, Mohammad discloses obtaining at least one internal audio signal, and modifying at least one of the at least two external audio signals is further based on the at least one internal audio signal (¶0020, ¶0034 and ¶0036, Figs. 1A-B. “A feedback microphone 160 is configured to capture audio at an output of the speaker 110 and to provide a feedback signal 162 to the ANC circuit 108.”).
As to claim 7, Mohammad discloses wherein the device comprises one of:
a smartphone;
a headphone (headphone device 102, Fig. 1A);
a vehicle equipped with the at least two microphones;
a helmet equipped with the at least two microphones; and
a personal protection equipment equipped with the at least two microphones (¶0066, Fig. 5. “The mobile device 500 may include a headset, …a smart phone, …a vehicle, a component of a vehicle, or any combination thereof, as illustrative, non-limiting examples.).
As to claim 8, Mohammad discloses wherein the first microphone and the second microphone of the at least two microphones are left and right side device microphones (¶0018, Fig. 1A. Microphones 104 and 106 on left and right sides of speaker housing 103.).
As to claim 10, Mohammad discloses the modified audio signal direction or diffuseness is more correctly perceived with a user of the device (¶0034. “When output by the speaker 110, audio related to the second amplified signal amplifies the second audio 192 such that the wearer of the headphone device 102 more clearly hears the second audio 192.”).
Claim 11 is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 12, 14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under claim 11 using the same rationale as claims 2, 4, 7-8 and 10 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammad, as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, in view of Alexander et al. (US 2019/0179604 A1), hereinafter “Alexander.”
As to claim 3, Mohammad does not expressly disclose wherein the at least two microphones located on the device are located on opposite sides of the device.
Alexander discloses wherein the at least two microphones located on the device are located on opposite sides of the device (Alexander, ¶0089-0090, Fig. 3. “In some examples, a control system of the apparatus 100b or the headset 305 may be capable of determining a direction of a sound source based, at least in part, on microphone data from two or more microphones, such as the microphones 320a and 320b.” Microphones 320a and 320b on opposite sides of the headphone device.).
Mohammad and Alexander are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to pass-through headphones.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use microphone on opposite devices sides, as taught by Alexander. The motivation would have been it was obvious to try, choosing from the finite, predictable solutions of having the microphones on the same side of different sides, both with reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 5, Mohammad in view of Alexander discloses modifying the at least one of the at least two external audio signals further based on a frequency profile to modify the at least two external audio signals more in lower frequencies (Alexander, ¶0016. “The adjusting may involve only boosting the levels of one or more of the plurality of frequency bands of the microphone input audio data. However, in some examples the adjusting may involve both boosting the levels of one or more of the plurality of frequency bands of the microphone input audio data and attenuating the levels of one or more of the plurality of frequency bands of the media input audio data.” Adjusting more in lower frequency bands than higher frequency bands is a simple design choice.
The motivation would have been to improve the perceived loudness (Alexander, ¶0016).
As to claim 9, Mohammad in view of Alexander discloses wherein the first microphone is a first set of microphones and the second microphone is a second set of microphones (¶0089-0090, Fig. 3. “Microphone data from two or more microphones, such as the microphones 320a and 320b.” May be multiple sets of microphones.).
The motivation would have been a simple duplication of parts and using more microphones to capture external signals to improve the accuracy of the output to the user.
Claims 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under claim 11 using the same motivation as claims 3, 5 and 9 above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammad, as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0292062 A1), hereinafter “Li.”
As to claim 6, Mohammad does not expressly disclose determining a distance between at least one of the at least two microphones located on the device and an associated speaker, wherein modifying at least one of the at least two external audio signals is based on the distance between at least one of the at least two microphones located on the device and the associated speaker.
Li discloses determining a distance between at least one of the at least two microphones located on the device and an associated speaker, wherein modifying at least one of the at least two external audio signals is based on the distance between at least one of the at least two microphones located on the device and the associated speaker (Li, ¶0075, Fig. 2. “Because the distance between the microphone and the loudspeaker of the wearable device is too close to achieve complete isolation, it is easy to cause feedback howl when the gain of the external sound signals is large. Therefore, the present embodiment can detect howling points in the external sound signals, and can simultaneously detect 20 howling frequency points and conduct wave trapping processing (maximum 60 dB) to achieve the purpose of eliminating the howl.”).
Mohammad and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to hearing devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the external sound signal for the distance between the microphone and speaker, as taught by Li. The motivation would have been to eliminate howl caused by the microphone and speaker being close to each other (Li, ¶0075).
As to claim 16, it is rejected under claim 11 using the same motivation as claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chi et al. (US 2024/0137720 A1) ¶0054 discloses using phase difference between microphones to determine direction of arrival.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695