Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
limitations of claims 1 and 11 defining what the “ambient transmitting device” and “non-ambient devices” are. The claims are indefinite because the metes and bounds of the limitations “ambient” and “non-ambient” are unclear because the limitations can be interpreted in an indefinite number of ways. For example, “ambient transmitting device” can be interpreted as
a device that transmits a microphone signal, while “non-ambient device” can be interpreted as a device without a microphone, since a conventional microphone receives sound from the environment, it is considered an ambient device.
a device that transmits specific background sounds from the environment, while “non-ambient device” is a device that does not relate to said background sound from the environment.
a device that transmits something to an environment while “non-ambient device” is not related to said environment.
Limitations of claims 1 and 11 defining what the “the effect of the controllable acoustic echo canceller” is. The claims are indefinite because the metes and bounds of the limitation “the effect of the controllable acoustic echo canceller” is unclear because the limitation can be interpreted in an indefinite number of ways. For example : the effects an echo canceller may be reduced echo, improved quality of audio communication, improved speech clarity, reduced distortion in a speaker’s voice, and etc…
limitations of claims 1 and 11 defining what yields the limitation “delay difference.” A difference would require a comparison or subtraction of at least two components, but the claims omits these components that yields a difference.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratmanski (US 2009/0252315) in view of Rama (US 2012/0076287).
Regarding claim 1, Ratmanski teaches A method for a communications system between at least three devices (Ratmanski figure 1, conferencing devices 101, 103, 105), the method comprising: determining at least one device of the at least three devices is an ambient transmitting device (Ratmanski ¶0033, The primary device directly communicates with the far-end conferencing device, with the BRI transmitting signals to a device in a remote environment can be considered an ambient transmitting device), the ambient transmitting device configured with a controllable acoustic echo canceller to reduce echoes (Ratmanski figure 3 and ¶0049, “The acoustic signal processors (ASPs) shown in FIG. 3 (318 of device A 301, 358 of device B 305, and 338 of device C 303), is a signal processing module used, among other tasks, for acoustic echo cancellation”), wherein the at least one ambient transmitting device is configured to generate at least one ambient audio signal (Ratmanski figure 3, microphone 354 and Mic mixer 368), and wherein the remaining at least two devices are non-ambient devices (Ratmanski figure 3 and ¶0039, “non-primary conferencing device” Device A 301 and Device C 303, with BRI non primary devices do not send the audio signal to the far-end devices for reproduction into the environment and therefore are non-ambient devices); and applying at least one delay difference to at least one communications path between non-ambient devices (Ratmanski figure 3, Delay D 322,342), however does not explicitly teach controlling the at least one ambient transmitting device to reduce the effect of the controllable acoustic echo canceller.
Rama teaches controlling the at least one ambient transmitting device to reduce the effect of the controllable acoustic echo canceller (Rama ¶0011, “The amount of echo is detected by an echo classifier module by measuring the power or voltage of the incoming and outgoing communication paths. Based on the classifier's determination of the severity of the echo, the classifier selects one of several echo control modes of operation to apply to each endpoint. The pass through mode of operation is used when the classifier deems that no additional echo control is needed. The suppression mode of operation is used when a relatively small amount of echo is detected from the endpoint. The full cancellation mode of operation is used when a relatively large amount of echo is detected”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Rama to improve the known method of Ratmanski to achieve the predictable result of reducing the waste of processing resource when reducing echo cancellation when not needed.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Ratmanski in view of Rama teach wherein applying the at least one delay difference to the at least one communications path between non-ambient devices is such that the at least one delay difference applied to the at least one communications path between non-ambient devices aims to reduce the effect of artifacts produced by the controllable acoustic echo canceller (Ratmanski ¶0013, “The conferencing system is adapted to delay loudspeaker signal corresponding to each conferencing device such that the playback at each near-end conferencing device is substantially simultaneous”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ratmanski in view of Rama teach wherein determining at least one device of the at least three devices is the ambient transmitting device comprises at least one of: determining the at least one audio signal captured with respect to an audio scene surrounding the at least one ambient device; determining one device whose audio is transmitted spatially; selecting the at least one ambient transmitting device based on a user input (Ratmanski ¶0048, “reconfiguring selected switches”); and selecting the at least one ambient transmitting device based on an analysis of audio signals from the at least three devices.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ratmanski in view of Rama teach wherein applying the at least one delay difference to communications paths between non-ambient devices comprises at least one of: applying a same delay difference to more than two communications paths between non-ambient devices (Ratmanski figure 3, Delay D 322,342. The delay is either same or different); applying a smallest of the at least one delay difference; applying an average of the at least one delay difference; and applying a separate one of the at least one delay difference to communications paths for each pair of non-ambient devices (Ratmanski figure 3, Delay D 322,342).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ratmanski in view of Rama teach wherein the at least one delay difference to communications paths for each pair of non-ambient devices is further based on at least one of: network conditions between non-ambient devices; device hardware capability for the non-ambient devices; and codec delays for the non-ambient devices (Ratmanski ¶0038).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ratmanski in view of Rama teach wherein controlling the at least one ambient transmitting device to reduce the effect of the acoustic echo canceller comprises controlling ratio inputs for a mixing of an acoustic echo canceller audio signal with a microphone audio signal to control a component of the acoustic echo canceller audio signal in an output from the acoustic echo canceller (Rama ¶0013).
Regarding claim 11, Ratmanski teaches An apparatus for a communications system between at least three devices (Ratmanski figure 1, conferencing devices 101, 103, 105), the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: determine at least one device of the at least three devices is an ambient transmitting device (Ratmanski ¶0033, The primary device directly communicates with the far-end conferencing device, with the BRI transmitting signals to a device in a remote environment can be considered an ambient transmitting device), the ambient transmitting device configured with a controllable acoustic echo canceller to reduce echoes (Ratmanski ¶0033, The primary device directly communicates with the far-end conferencing device, with the BRI transmitting signals to a device in a remote environment can be considered an ambient transmitting device), wherein the at least one ambient transmitting device is configured to generate at least one ambient audio signal (Ratmanski figure 3, microphone 354 and Mic mixer 368), and wherein the remaining at least two devices are non-ambient devices (Ratmanski figure 3 and ¶0039, “non-primary conferencing device” Device A 301 and Device C 303, with BRI non primary devices do not send the audio signal to the far-end devices for reproduction into the environment and therefore are non-ambient devices); and apply at least one delay difference to at least one communications path between non-ambient devices (Ratmanski figure 3, Delay D 322,342), however does not explicitly teach control the at least one ambient transmitting device to reduce the effect of the controllable acoustic echo canceller.
Rama teaches control the at least one ambient transmitting device to reduce the effect of the controllable acoustic echo canceller (Rama ¶0011, “The amount of echo is detected by an echo classifier module by measuring the power or voltage of the incoming and outgoing communication paths. Based on the classifier's determination of the severity of the echo, the classifier selects one of several echo control modes of operation to apply to each endpoint. The pass through mode of operation is used when the classifier deems that no additional echo control is needed. The suppression mode of operation is used when a relatively small amount of echo is detected from the endpoint. The full cancellation mode of operation is used when a relatively large amount of echo is detected”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Rama to improve the known method of Ratmanski to achieve the predictable result of reducing the waste of processing resource when reducing echo cancellation when not needed.
Regarding claim 19, Ratmanski in view of Rama teaches determine at least one delay between a pair of non-ambient devices (Ratmanski figure 3, Delay D 322,342 is between the path of two non-ambient device); determine at least one further delay between the at least one ambient transmitting device and at least one non-ambient device; and determine the at least one at least one delay difference based on the at least one delay and at least one further delay.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratmanski (US 2009/0252315) in view of Rama (US 2012/0076287) in further view of Deetz (US 2018/0277133).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Ratmanski in view of Rama does not explicitly teach wherein selecting the at least one ambient transmitting device based on an analysis of audio signals from the at least three devices comprises identifying at least one of: a most music like audio signal; and a least noise-like audio signal.
Deetz teaches identifying at least one of: a most music like audio signal; and a least noise-like audio signal (Deetz ¶0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Deetz to improve the known method of Ratmanski in view of Rama to achieve the predictable result of optimized audio signal for the current context of the user device (Deetz ¶0008).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratmanski (US 2009/0252315) in view of Rama (US 2012/0076287) in further view of Volcker (US 2015/0201087).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Ratmanski in view of Rama does not explicitly teach wherein determining at least one device of the at least three devices is the ambient transmitting device comprises determining at least one further ambient transmitting device whose audio signals are at least one of: a non-spatial audio signal; and a mono channel audio signal.
Volcker teaches wherein determining at least one device of the at least three devices is the ambient transmitting device comprises determining at least one further ambient transmitting device whose audio signals are at least one of: a non-spatial audio signal; and a mono channel audio signal (Volcker ¶0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Volcker to improve the known method of Ratmanski in view of Rama to achieve the predictable result of improved echo cancellation (Volcker ¶0045).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the closest prior art either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed limitation of “determining at least one delay between a pair of non-ambient devices; determining at least one further delay between the at least one ambient transmitting device and at least one non-ambient device; and determining the at least one at least one delay difference based on the at least one delay and at least one further delay” in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by the applicant.
Claims 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the closest prior art either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed limitation of “wherein the at least one delay between a pair of non-ambient devices is at least one non-ambient communication delay between the pair of non-ambient devices, and the at least one further delay between the at least one ambient transmitting device and at least one non-ambient device is at least one ambient communication delay” in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by the applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
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.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693