DETAILED ACTION
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 (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 07/03/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 1-20 introduces “a sum energy comprising an energy of the first audio signal and an energy of the second audio signal” and “an energy difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal”. The sum energy s(t) and the energy difference d(t) could be defined using the three following ways:
PNG
media_image1.png
64
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
It appears the description does not indicate any detailed way of carrying out the invention: there are no formula for defining the sum energy and the energy difference. Therefore, the applicant is advised to define the sum energy and the energy difference in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 4, 13, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Zakis et al in view of Ivanov and further in view of Cheng et al and further in view of Keane disclose a system comprising: a wearable device; a first sensor coupled to the wearable device; a second sensor coupled to the wearable device; and one or more processors coupled to the wearable device, the one or more processors, individually or collectively, being configured to: receive, at the first sensor, a first audio signal; receive, at the second sensor, a second audio signal; and determine a condition of the wearable device based, at least in part, on a sum energy comprising an energy of the first audio signal and an energy of the second audio signal in a frequency range and on an energy difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range; wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to: determine a gain difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range; and apply a gain to the first audio signal to effectively compensate for the gain difference and form a scaled first audio signal; wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to: determine an energy of the scaled first audio signal in the frequency range; determine a scaled sum energy that comprises the energy of the scaled first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal; and determine a scaled energy difference between the scaled first audio signal and the second audio signal; wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to determine the condition of the wearable device by: determining a first ratio using the sum energy and the energy difference; but do not expressly disclose the limitation “determining a second ratio using the scaled sum energy and the scaled energy difference; determining a third ratio using the first ratio and the second ratio; and determining that the condition of the wearable device is blocked when at least one of: the gain is above a gain threshold, the scaled energy difference is less than the energy difference by an energy threshold, or the third ratio is greater than a ratio threshold.”
None of the prior art of record disclose in their entirety or in combination the claimed limitation “determining a second ratio using the scaled sum energy and the scaled energy difference; determining a third ratio using the first ratio and the second ratio; and determining that the condition of the wearable device is blocked when at least one of: the gain is above a gain threshold, the scaled energy difference is less than the energy difference by an energy threshold, or the third ratio is greater than a ratio threshold.”
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant's claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakis (US 2015/0055788 A1) in view of Ivanov et al (US 2011/0317848 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zakis discloses a system comprising: a wearable device (Zakis; Para [0024]; headset interpreted as wearable); a first sensor coupled to the wearable device (Zakis; Para [0024]; first microphone interpreted as first sensor); a second sensor coupled to the wearable device (Zakis; Para [0024]; second microphone interpreted as second sensor); and one or more processors coupled to the wearable device, the one or more processors, individually or collectively, being configured to (Zakis; Para [0074]; DSP system interpreted as processor): receive, at the first sensor, a first audio signal (Zakis; Para [0005]); receive, at the second sensor, a second audio signal (Zakis; Para [0005]); and determine a condition of the wearable device (Zakis; Para [0010]) but do not expressly disclose based, at least in part, on a sum energy comprising an energy of the first audio signal and an energy of the second audio signal in a frequency range and on an energy difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ivanov et al disclose a device comprising determine a condition of the wearable device (Ivanov et al; Fig 3B; Para [0017]; microphone occlusion detection interpreted as condition) based, at least in part, on a sum energy comprising an energy of the first audio signal and an energy of the second audio signal in a frequency range (Ivanov et al; Para [0023]) and on an energy difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range (Ivanov et al; Para [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the microphone condition detection taught by Ivanov et al as microphone condition detection in the device taught by Zakis. The motivation to do so would have been to mitigate the interference without the user being aware of the interference (Ivanov et al; Para [0013]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakis (US 2015/0055788 A1) in view of Ivanov et al (US 2011/0317848 A1) and further in view of Cheng et al (US 2011/0069846 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zakis et al in view of Ivanov et al disclose the system of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to: determine a gain difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range; and apply a gain to the first audio signal to effectively compensate for the gain difference and form a scaled first audio signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng et al disclose a device wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to: determine a gain difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range (Cheng et al; Para [0027]); and apply a gain to the first audio signal to effectively compensate for the gain difference and form a scaled first audio signal (Cheng et al; Para [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the microphone condition detection taught by Cheng et al as microphone condition detection in the device taught by Zakis. The motivation to do so would have been to be capable of handling noises with different characteristics (Cheng et al; Para [0005]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakis (US 2015/0055788 A1) in view of Ivanov et al (US 2011/0317848 A1) and further in view of Cheng et al (US 2011/0069846 A1) and further in view of Keane et al (US 2013/0156224 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zakis et al in view of Ivanov et al and further in view of Cheng et al disclose the system of claim 2, but do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to: determine an energy of the scaled first audio signal in the frequency range; determine a scaled sum energy that comprises the energy of the scaled first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal; and determine a scaled energy difference between the scaled first audio signal and the second audio signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Keane et al discloses a device wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to: determine an energy of the scaled first audio signal in the frequency range (Keane et al; Fig 2; energy detector for scaled au88888dio signal outputted from amplifier 210; Para [0038]); determine a scaled sum energy that comprises the energy of the scaled first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal (Keane et al; Fig 2; scaled sum energy outputted by unit 218; Para [0038]) and determine a scaled energy difference between the scaled first audio signal and the second audio signal (Keane et al; Fig 2; scaled energy difference outputted by unit 242; Para [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the energy processing taught by Keane as energy processing in the device taught by Zakis. The motivation to do so would have been to provide less computationally intensive and expensive solutions (Keane et al; Para [0030]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakis (US 2015/0055788 A1) in view of Ivanov et al (US 2011/0317848 A1) and further in view of Thyssen et al (US 2012/0123772 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zakis et al in view of Ivanov et al disclose the system of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein a noise of the first audio signal and a noise of the second audio signal are both above a noise threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Thyssen et al discloses a device wherein a noise of the first audio signal and a noise of the second audio signal are both above a noise threshold (Thyssen et al; Para [0157]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the noise floor estimation taught by Thyssen as noise floor estimation in the device taught by Zakis. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the interference reduction in the system.
Claim(s) 10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulvey et al (US 10,748,521 B1) in view of Ivanov et al (US 2011/0317848 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mulvey et al disclose a method for audio signal processing in a wearable device (Mulvey et al; Fig 2), the method comprising: receiving, at a first sensor included in the wearable device, a first audio signal (Mulvey et al; Fig 2; receiving audio signals at microphone Lff 120a); receiving, at a second sensor included in the wearable device, a second audio signal (Mulvey et al; Fig 2; receiving audio signals at microphone Lfb 140a); and determining a condition of the wearable device (Mulvey et al; Fig 7; signal 724 indicate a condition of the wearable device 100b; col 11; lines 10-25) but do not expressly disclose based, at least in part, on a sum energy comprising an energy of the first audio signal and an energy of the second audio signal in a frequency range and on an energy difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ivanov et al disclose a method comprising and determining a condition of the wearable device (Ivanov et al; Fig 3B; Para [0017]; microphone occlusion detection interpreted as condition) based, at least in part, on a sum energy comprising an energy of the first audio signal and an energy of the second audio signal in a frequency range (Ivanov et al; Para [0023]) and on an energy difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range (Ivanov et al; Para [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the microphone condition detection taught by Ivanov et al as microphone condition detection in the device taught by Mulvey. The motivation to do so would have been to mitigate the interference without the user being aware of the interference (Ivanov et al; Para [0013]).
Regarding claim 16, Mulvey et al disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wearable device, cause the wearable device to perform a method for audio signal processing (Mulvey et al; Fig 2; col 1; lines 50-55), the method comprising: receiving, at a first sensor included in the wearable device, a first audio signal (Mulvey et al; Fig 2; receiving audio signals at microphone Lff 120a); receiving, at a second sensor included in the wearable device, a second audio signal (Mulvey et al; Fig 2; receiving audio signals at microphone Lfb 140a); but do not expressly disclose and determining a condition of the wearable device based, at least in part, on a sum energy comprising an energy of the first audio signal and an energy of the second audio signal in a frequency range and on an energy difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ivanov et al disclose a method comprising and determining a condition of the wearable device (Ivanov et al; Fig 3B; Para [0017]; microphone occlusion detection interpreted as condition) based, at least in part, on a sum energy comprising an energy of the first audio signal and an energy of the second audio signal in a frequency range (Ivanov et al; Para [0023]) and on an energy difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range (Ivanov et al; Para [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the microphone condition detection taught by Ivanov et al as microphone condition detection in the device taught by Mulvey. The motivation to do so would have been to mitigate the interference without the user being aware of the interference (Ivanov et al; Para [0013]).
Claim(s) 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulvey et al (US 10,748,521 B1) in view of Ivanov et al (US 2011/0317848 A1) and further in view of Cheng et al (US 2011/0069846 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mulvey et al in view of Ivanov disclose the method of claim 10, but do not expressly disclose comprising: determining a gain difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range; and applying a gain to the first audio signal to effectively compensate for the gain difference and form a scaled first audio signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng et al disclose a method comprising: determining a gain difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range (Cheng et al; Para [0027]); and applying a gain to the first audio signal to effectively compensate for the gain difference and form a scaled first audio signal (Cheng et al; Para [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the microphone condition detection taught by Cheng et al as microphone condition detection in the device taught by Mulvey. The motivation to do so would have been to be capable of handling noises with different characteristics (Cheng et al; Para [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Mulvey et al in view of Ivanov disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, but do not expressly disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining a gain difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range; and applying a gain to the first audio signal to effectively compensate for the gain difference and form a scaled first audio signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng et al disclose a method comprising: determining a gain difference between the energy of the first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal in the frequency range (Cheng et al; Para [0027]); and applying a gain to the first audio signal to effectively compensate for the gain difference and form a scaled first audio signal (Cheng et al; Para [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the microphone condition detection taught by Cheng et al as microphone condition detection in the device taught by Mulvey. The motivation to do so would have been to be capable of handling noises with different characteristics (Cheng et al; Para [0005]).
Claim(s) 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulvey et al (US 10,748,521 B1) in view of Ivanov et al (US 2011/0317848 A1) and further in view of Cheng et al (US 2011/0069846 A1) and further in view of Keane et al (US 2013/0156224 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Mulvey et al in view of Ivanov and further in view of Cheng disclose the method of claim 11, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: determining an energy of the scaled first audio signal in the frequency range; determining a scaled sum energy that comprises the energy of the scaled first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal; and determining a scaled energy difference between the scaled first audio signal and the second audio signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Keane et al discloses a method further comprising: determining an energy of the scaled first audio signal in the frequency range (Keane et al; Fig 2; energy detector for scaled audio signal outputted from amplifier 210; Para [0038]); determining a scaled sum energy that comprises the energy of the scaled first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal (Keane et al; Fig 2; scaled sum energy outputted by unit 218; Para [0038]) determining a scaled energy difference between the scaled first audio signal and the second audio signal (Keane et al; Fig 2; scaled energy difference outputted by unit 242; Para [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the energy processing taught by Keane as energy processing in the device taught by Mulvey. The motivation to do so would have been to provide less computationally intensive and expensive solutions (Keane et al; Para [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Mulvey et al in view of Ivanov and further in view of Cheng et al disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, but do not expressly disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining an energy of the scaled first audio signal in the frequency range; determining a scaled sum energy that comprises the energy of the scaled first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal; and determining a scaled energy difference between the scaled first audio signal and the second audio signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Keane et al discloses a method further comprising: determining an energy of the scaled first audio signal in the frequency range (Keane et al; Fig 2; energy detector for scaled audio signal outputted from amplifier 210; Para [0038]); determining a scaled sum energy that comprises the energy of the scaled first audio signal and the energy of the second audio signal (Keane et al; Fig 2; scaled sum energy outputted by unit 218; Para [0038]) determining a scaled energy difference between the scaled first audio signal and the second audio signal (Keane et al; Fig 2; scaled energy difference outputted by unit 242; Para [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the energy processing taught by Keane as energy processing in the device taught by Mulvey. The motivation to do so would have been to provide less computationally intensive and expensive solutions (Keane et al; Para [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692