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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/30/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the following information referred to therein has not been considered:
AU 2022308681
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-7, Supreme Court precedent1 indicates that a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.C. 101 must (1) be tied to another statutory category (such as a particular apparatus), or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to a different state or thing. While claims 1-7 recite a series of steps or acts to be performed, the claims neither transform underlying subject matter nor are positively tied to another statutory category that accomplishes the claimed method steps, and therefore do not qualify as a statutory process. For example, the method is of sufficient breadth that it would be reasonably interpreted as a series of steps completely performed mentally, verbally or without a machine. The applicant has provided no explicit and deliberate definitions of "detecting" and "generating" to limit the steps to necessarily being tied to one of the other three statutory categories of invention.
Claims 8-16 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 8-16 recite a computer program product that is not embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium or other machine capable of carrying out the instructions of the program. Since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process and a claim for a computer program, without the computer-readable medium needed to realize the computer program’s functionality, is nonstatutory functional descriptive material. See MPEP § 2106.01.
Regarding claim 17-20, the recitation of a computer readable storage media can be interpreted to encompass a carrier wave or signal which are each non-statutory subject matter. Applicant’s specification does not limit a computer readable medium to be non-transitory. Applicant may overcome the rejection by specifically reciting that the medium is a "non-transitory computer readable medium.2"
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Athanas (US 20110274283).
Regarding claim 1, Athanas teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: detecting, using a sensor (microphone, [0044]) installed within a building (installed in an office or restaurant, [0082]), a first position of a first noise source (determining distance of course, [0033]); generating a first noise control configuration comprising a first directional acoustic loudspeaker and a first frequency and first amplitude of a first acoustic tone (band-limited noise cancellation, [0037]), the first frequency (the array 210 reduces perceived noise associated with the wavefront by more than 6 dB for all frequency components of the wavefront 205 that are below the -6 dB frequency, [0038]) and first amplitude (amplitude, [0032]) of the first acoustic tone, when generated by the first directional acoustic loudspeaker (directional loudspeaker, [0044]), selected to attenuate the first noise source at a first distance from the first position (relative time delay increases for the outputs 220 of each other noise cancellation device 225 in proportion to the distance from that noise cancellation device 225 to the crossing point of the wavefront apex 215, [0033]; D represents distance to between the offending noise source and the nearest point of the array 210 in meters, [0037]); and generating, according to the first noise control configuration, the first acoustic tone e(ach cell 305 is configured to produce an output having a particular amplitude and time delay such that the outputs of the cells 305 of the array 210 cumulatively provide active noise cancellation of any wavefront which crosses the array 210, [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Athanas teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first noise control configuration comprises a conference area enclosed by a sound wall (restaurant booth is a conference area, [0082]), the sound wall formed using a line of directional acoustic loudspeakers including the first directional acoustic loudspeaker (fig 3), the line of directional acoustic loudspeakers selected from a set of directional acoustic loudspeakers installed within the building (wall, [0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Athanas teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first noise control configuration comprises a noise attenuation area within a sound footprint of the first directional acoustic loudspeaker (fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Athanas teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting, using the sensor, that the first noise source has moved to a second position; generating, responsive to the detecting, a second noise control configuration comprising a second directional acoustic loudspeaker and a second frequency and second amplitude of a second acoustic tone, the second frequency and second amplitude of the second acoustic tone, when generated by the second directional acoustic loudspeaker, selected to attenuate the first noise source at a second distance from the second position; and generating, according to the second noise control configuration, the second acoustic tone (source A and source B, [0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Athanas teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting, using the sensor, that the first noise source has altered by more than a specified amount, the altering resulting in a second noise source at the first position; generating, responsive to the detecting, a third noise control configuration comprising the first directional acoustic loudspeaker and a third frequency and third amplitude of a third acoustic tone, the third frequency and third amplitude of the third acoustic tone, when generated by the first directional acoustic loudspeaker, selected to attenuate the second noise source at a third distance from the first position; and generating, according to the third noise control configuration, the third acoustic tone (a desired level of active noise cancellation given the frequency characteristics of the offending source's output, [0038]).
Claims 18 and 17 are each substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 11 and 18 are each substantially similar to claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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) 3, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athanas and DeLuca (US 6434239).
Regarding claim 3, Athanas teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: detecting, using a microphone, audio within a first portion of the conference area (cell 305 comprises a microphone 405, [0044]); and transmitting, using a first directional loudspeaker, the audio to a second portion of the conference area (D represents distance to between the offending noise source and the nearest point of the array 210 in meters, [0037]).
Although Athanas does not explicitly teach that the directional speaker is ultrasonic, DeLuca teaches ultrasonic frequencies as a way of obtaining directivity in noise cancellation (DeLuca, col 1, ln 50-58 and col; 2, ln 15-23) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ultrasonic frequencies since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Claims 12 and 19 are each substantially similar to claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athanas, DeLuca, and Jones (US 20150056961).
Regarding claim 4, Athanas and DeLuca teach the computer-implemented method of claim 3.
Although Athanas and DeLuca do not teach further comprising: translating, using a trained machine translation model, the audio to a second language, the translating resulting in translated audio; and transmitting, using a second directional ultrasonic loudspeaker, the translated audio to a third portion of the conference area, Jones teaches a solution for providing the announcements of a public address system as wireless communications messages to mobile devices, translated to the native language of the mobile device, as necessary (Jones, [0012]) wherein it is performed by a machine that knows how to translate (Jones, fig 3) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use translation since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Claims 13 and 20 are each substantially similar to claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athanas.
Regarding claim 9, Athanas teaches the computer program product of claim 8.
Although Athanas does not teach wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the method by data networking as only involving routine skill and creativity.
Regarding claim 10, Athanas teaches the computer program product of claim 8.
Although Athanas does not teach wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising: program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art where the computing is provided as a remote server system with charges for data usage since doing so only involved routine skill and creativity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kile Blair whose telephone number is (571)270-3544. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/KILE O BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
1 Bilski v. Kappos 561 U.S. __(2010); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787-88 (1876).
2 See 1351 OG 212 (February 23, 2010).
Prosecution Insights