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 01/23/2026; 12/17/2025; 11/07/2025; 07/18/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 07/18/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,998,872 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-14 of US 10,998,872 B2 disclose the limitations of claim 1-5, 8-12, 15-18 of the present application.
#18776970
US 12,081,833 B2
1. A tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform a set of operations comprising:
applying an equalization adjustment to an audio signal to generate an equalized audio signal;
detecting an irregularity in a frequency representation of the equalized audio signal, the irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a set of frequency values exceeding a threshold; and
adjusting a volume at a first frequency value of the set of frequency values to reduce the irregularity.
1. A computing system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising: applying an equalization adjustment to an audio signal to generate an equalized audio signal; detecting an irregularity in a frequency representation of the equalized audio signal, the irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a set of frequency values exceeding a threshold, wherein the set of frequency values includes adjacent frequency values; selecting the adjacent frequency values in the set of frequency representation of the audio signal; determining volume values associated with the adjacent frequency values; determining the change in volume between the adjacent frequency values; and in response to determining that an absolute value of the change in volume exceeds the threshold, adjusting the volume at the first frequency value of the adjacent frequency values to reduce the irregularity.
claim 3, the tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the change in volume is represented by a value of a second derivative of volume over the set of frequency values.
2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the change in volume is represented by a value of a second derivative of volume over the set of frequency values.
2.The tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the irregularity corresponds to at least one of a short-term peak or a short-term dip of volume values across the set of frequency values that may result in a perceptible artifact in the audio signal.
4. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the irregularity corresponds to at least one of a short-term peak or a short-term dip of volume values across the set of frequency values, wherein the irregularity results in a perceptible artifact in the audio signal.
5, the tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the first frequency value is a central one of the set of frequency values and the set of operations further comprises: adjusting the volume at the first frequency value to be a midpoint between volume levels at other ones of the set of frequency values
3. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the first frequency value is a central one of the set of frequency values and the set of operations comprises: adjusting the volume at the first frequency value to be a midpoint between volume levels at other ones of the set of frequency values.
4, the tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the threshold is a first threshold and the set of operations further comprises: detecting and reducing at least one additional irregularity in the frequency representation of the audio signal until a number of remaining irregularities in the frequency representation of the audio signal satisfies a second threshold.
5. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the threshold is a first threshold and the set of operations further comprises: detecting and reducing at least one additional irregularity in the frequency representation of the audio signal until a number of remaining irregularities in the frequency representation of the audio signal satisfies a second threshold.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi et al (US 2016/0276994 A1) in view of Matsuura et al (JP 2013-009066 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yagi et al disclose a method comprising tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising (Yagi et al; Fig 1; Para [0036]; storage 11 ): applying an equalization adjustment to an audio signal to generate an equalized audio signal (Yagi et al; Fig 1; Para [0034] equalizer 1 adjust audio signal from input 7); detecting an irregularity in a frequency representation of the equalized audio signal (Yagi et al; Fig 1; difference detection 5 in a frequency representation of the equalized signal at output of equalizer 1 to detect distortion); and adjusting a volume at a first frequency value of the set of frequency values to reduce the irregularity (Yagi; Fig 1; loudness adjustment 2); but do not expressly disclose tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform a set of operations; the irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a set of frequency values exceeding a threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuura et al disclose a device comprising tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform a set of operations (Matsuura et al; page 3 ; lines 30-45); the irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a set of frequency values exceeding a threshold providing, the irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a set of frequency values exceeding a threshold (Matsuura et al; page 3 ; lines 35-55). 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 distortion compensation taught by Matsuura as distortion compensation in the device taught by Yagi. The motivation to do so would have been to provide distortion reduction (Matsuura et al; Page 2; lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, Yagi et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the irregularity corresponds to at least one of a short-term peak or a short-term dip of volume values across the set of frequency values that may result in a perceptible artifact in the audio signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuura et al disclose a device wherein the irregularity corresponds to at least one of a short-term peak or a short-term dip of volume values across the set of frequency values that may result in a perceptible artifact in the audio signal (Matsuura et al; Fig 3; page 4; lines 20-45; short term peak of volume across a set of frequency). 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 distortion compensation taught by Matsuura as distortion compensation in the device taught by Yagi. The motivation to do so would have been to provide distortion reduction (Matsuura et al; Page 2; lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi et al (US 2016/0276994 A1) in view of Matsuura et al (JP 2013-009066 A) and further in view of Abel et al (US 8,014,541 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Yagi et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the change in volume is represented by a value of a second derivative of volume over the set of frequency values. However, in the same field of endeavor, Abel et al disclose a device wherein the change in volume is represented by a value of a second derivative of volume over the set of frequency values (Abel et al; col 8; lines 10-20). 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 distortion detection taught by Abel as distortion detection in the device taught by Yagi. The motivation to do so would have been to provide computationally efficient equalizer (Abel et al; col 2; lines 40-50).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi et al (US 2016/0276994 A1) in view of Matsuura et al (JP 2013-009066 A) and further in view of Mihelich et al (US 2012/0237045 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yagi et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the threshold is a first threshold and the set of operations further comprises: detecting and reducing at least one additional irregularity in the frequency representation of the audio signal until a number of remaining irregularities in the frequency representation of the audio signal satisfies a second threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mihelich et al disclose a device wherein the threshold is a first threshold and the set of operations further comprises: detecting and reducing at least one additional irregularity in the frequency representation of the audio signal until a number of remaining irregularities in the frequency representation of the audio signal satisfies a second threshold (Mihelich et al; Para [0092]). 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 distortion detection taught by Abel as distortion detection in the device taught by Yagi. The motivation to do so would have been minimizing or eliminating possible compromise of the integrity of the hardware (Mihelich et al; Para [0009]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi et al (US 2016/0276994 A1) in view of Matsuura et al (JP 2013-009066 A) and further in view of Jot et al (US 2017/0126194 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yagi et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first frequency value is a central one of the set of frequency values and the set of operations further comprises: adjusting the volume at the first frequency value to be a midpoint between volume levels at other ones of the set of frequency values. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jot et al disclose a device wherein the first frequency value is a central one of the set of frequency values and the set of operations further comprises: adjusting the volume at the first frequency value to be a midpoint between volume levels at other ones of the set of frequency values (Jot et al; Fig 8A; Fig 8B Para [0053]). 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 distortion compensation taught by Jot as distortion compensation in the device taught by Yagi. The motivation to do so would have been to provide low complexity and minimal processing overhead Equalizer design (Jot et al; Para [0035]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi et al (US 2016/0276994 A1) in view of Matsuura et al (JP 2013-009066 A) and further in view of Thormundsson et al (US 2012/0106750 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yagi et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the set of operations further comprises: detecting a second irregularity in the frequency representation of the equalized audio signal, the second irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a second set of frequency values exceeding the threshold; and adjusting a volume at a second frequency value of the second set of frequency values to reduce the second irregularity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Thormundsson et al disclose a device wherein the set of operations further comprises: detecting a second irregularity in the frequency representation of the equalized audio signal, the second irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a second set of frequency values exceeding the threshold (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073][0147]); and adjusting a volume at a second frequency value of the second set of frequency values to reduce the second irregularity (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073][0147]). 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 distortion compensation taught by Thormundsson et al as distortion compensation in the device taught by Yagi. The motivation to do so would have been to prevent distortion (Thormundsson et al; Para [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, Yagi et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the set of operations further comprises: iteratively analyzing the equalized audio signal after adjusting the volume at the first frequency value of the frequency values to detect an additional irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between frequency values exceeding the threshold; and adjusting the set of frequency values to reduce the additional irregularity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Thormundsson et al disclose a device wherein the set of operations further comprises: iteratively analyzing the equalized audio signal after adjusting the volume at the first frequency value of the frequency values to detect an additional irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between frequency values exceeding the threshold (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073]); and adjusting the set of frequency values to reduce the additional irregularity (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073]). 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 distortion compensation taught by Thormundsson et al as distortion compensation in the device taught by Yagi. The motivation to do so would have been to prevent distortion (Thormundsson et al; Para [0058]).
Claim(s) 8-9, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wihardja et al (US 2010/0215193 A1) in view of Matsuura et al (JP 2013-009066 A).
Regarding claim 8, Wihardja et al disclose a computer implemented method comprising (Wihardja et al; Para [0005]): applying an equalization adjustment to an audio signal to generate an equalized audio signal (Wihardja et al; Fig 5 apply equalizer 506 to an audio signal at input of the equalizer 506); detecting an irregularity in a frequency representation of the equalized audio signal (Wihardja et al; Fig 5; Para [0006][0041]), and adjusting a volume at a first frequency value of the set of frequency values to reduce the irregularity (Wihardja et al; Fig 5; Para [0006][0041]); but do not expressly disclose the irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a set of frequency values exceeding a threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuura et al disclose a device comprising the irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a set of frequency values exceeding a threshold (Matsuura et al; page 3 ; lines 35-55). 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 distortion compensation taught by Matsuura as distortion compensation in the device taught by Wihardja et al. The motivation to do so would have been to provide distortion reduction (Matsuura et al; Page 2; lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computer implemented method of claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the irregularity corresponds to at least one of a short-term peak or a short-term dip of volume values across the set of frequency values that may result in a perceptible artifact in the audio signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuura et al disclose a device wherein the irregularity corresponds to at least one of a short-term peak or a short-term dip of volume values across the set of frequency values that may result in a perceptible artifact in the audio signal (Matsuura et al; Fig 3; page 4; lines 20-45; short term peak of volume across a set of frequency). 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 distortion compensation taught by Matsuura as distortion compensation in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been to provide distortion reduction (Matsuura et al; Page 2; lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, Wihardja et al disclose a computing device (Wihardja et al; Para [0005]) comprising: at least one processor (Wihardja et al; Para [0005]; computer has processor); and tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform a set of operations comprising (Wihardja et al; Para [0005]; computer has non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform a set of operations): applying an equalization adjustment to an audio signal to generate an equalized audio signal (Wihardja et al; Fig 5 apply equalizer 506 to an audio signal at input of the equalizer 506); detecting an irregularity in a frequency representation of the equalized audio signal (Wihardja et al; Fig 5; Para [0006][0041]); and adjusting a volume at a first frequency value of the set of frequency values to reduce the irregularity (Wihardja et al; Fig 5; Para [0006][0041]); but do not expressly disclose the irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a set of frequency values exceeding a threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuura et al disclose a device comprising the irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a set of frequency values exceeding a threshold (Matsuura et al; page 3 ; lines 35-55). 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 distortion compensation taught by Matsuura as distortion compensation in the device taught by Wihardja et al. The motivation to do so would have been to provide distortion reduction (Matsuura et al; Page 2; lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 16, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computing device of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the irregularity corresponds to at least one of a short-term peak or a short-term dip of volume values across the set of frequency values that may result in a perceptible artifact in the audio signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuura et al disclose a device wherein the irregularity corresponds to at least one of a short-term peak or a short-term dip of volume values across the set of frequency values that may result in a perceptible artifact in the audio signal (Matsuura et al; Fig 3; page 4; lines 20-45; short term peak of volume across a set of frequency). 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 distortion compensation taught by Matsuura as distortion compensation in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been to provide distortion reduction (Matsuura et al; Page 2; lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wihardja et al (US 2010/0215193 A1) in view of Matsuura et al (JP 2013-009066 A) and further in view of Abel et al (US 8,014,541 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computer implemented method of claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the change in volume is represented by a value of a second derivative of volume over the set of frequency values. However, in the same field of endeavor, Abel et al disclose a method wherein the change in volume is represented by a value of a second derivative of volume over the set of frequency values (Abel et al; col 8; lines 10-20). 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 distortion detection taught by Abel as distortion detection in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been to provide computationally efficient equalizer (Abel et al; col 2; lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 17, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computing device of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the change in volume is represented by a value of a second derivative of volume over the set of frequency values. However, in the same field of endeavor, Abel et al disclose a device wherein the change in volume is represented by a value of a second derivative of volume over the set of frequency values (Abel et al; col 8; lines 10-20). 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 distortion detection taught by Abel as distortion detection in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been to provide computationally efficient equalizer (Abel et al; col 2; lines 40-50).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wihardja et al (US 2010/0215193 A1) in view of Matsuura et al (JP 2013-009066 A) and further in view of Mihelich et al (US 2012/0237045 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computer implemented method of claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the threshold is a first threshold and the method further comprises: detecting and reducing at least one additional irregularity in the frequency representation of the audio signal until a number of remaining irregularities in the frequency representation of the audio signal satisfies a second threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mihelich et al disclose a method wherein the threshold is a first threshold and the set of operations further comprises: detecting and reducing at least one additional irregularity in the frequency representation of the audio signal until a number of remaining irregularities in the frequency representation of the audio signal satisfies a second threshold (Mihelich et al; Para [0092]). 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 distortion detection taught by Mihelich as distortion detection in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been minimizing or eliminating possible compromise of the integrity of the hardware (Mihelich et al; Para [0009]).
Claim(s) 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wihardja et al (US 2010/0215193 A1) in view of Matsuura et al (JP 2013-009066 A) and further in view of Jot et al (US 2017/0126194 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computer implemented method of claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first frequency value is a central one of the set of frequency values and the method further comprises: adjusting the volume at the first frequency value to be a midpoint between volume levels at other ones of the set of frequency values. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jot et al disclose a method wherein the first frequency value is a central one of the set of frequency values and the set of operations further comprises: adjusting the volume at the first frequency value to be a midpoint between volume levels at other ones of the set of frequency values (Jot et al; Fig 8A; Fig 8B Para [0053]). 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 distortion compensation taught by Jot as distortion compensation in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been to provide low complexity and minimal processing overhead Equalizer design (Jot et al; Para [0035]).
Regarding claim 18, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computing device of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first frequency value is a central one of the set of frequency values and the set of operations further comprises: adjusting the volume at the first frequency value to be a midpoint between volume levels at other ones of the set of frequency values. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jot et al disclose a method wherein the first frequency value is a central one of the set of frequency values and the set of operations further comprises: adjusting the volume at the first frequency value to be a midpoint between volume levels at other ones of the set of frequency values (Jot et al; Fig 8A; Fig 8B Para [0053]). 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 distortion compensation taught by Jot as distortion compensation in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been to provide low complexity and minimal processing overhead Equalizer design (Jot et al; Para [0035]).
Claim(s) 13-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wihardja et al (US 2010/0215193 A1) in view of Matsuura et al (JP 2013-009066 A) and further in view of Thormundsson et al (US 2012/0106750 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computer implemented method of claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the method further comprises: detecting a second irregularity in the frequency representation of the equalized audio signal, the second irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a second set of frequency values exceeding the threshold; and adjusting a volume at a second frequency value of the second set of frequency values to reduce the second irregularity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Thormundsson et al disclose a method wherein the method further comprises: detecting a second irregularity in the frequency representation of the equalized audio signal, the second irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a second set of frequency values exceeding the threshold (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073][0147]); and adjusting a volume at a second frequency value of the second set of frequency values to reduce the second irregularity (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073][0147]). 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 distortion compensation taught by Thormundsson et al as distortion compensation in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been to prevent distortion (Thormundsson et al; Para [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computer implemented method of claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the method further comprises: iteratively analyzing the equalized audio signal after adjusting the volume at the first frequency value of the frequency values to detect an additional irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between frequency values exceeding the threshold; and adjusting the set of frequency values to reduce the additional irregularity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Thormundsson et al disclose a method wherein the method further comprises: iteratively analyzing the equalized audio signal after adjusting the volume at the first frequency value of the frequency values to detect an additional irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between frequency values exceeding the threshold (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073]); and adjusting the set of frequency values to reduce the additional irregularity (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073]). 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 distortion compensation taught by Thormundsson et al as distortion compensation in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been to prevent distortion (Thormundsson et al; Para [0058]).
Regarding claim 19, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computing device of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the set of operations further comprises: detecting a second irregularity in the frequency representation of the equalized audio signal, the second irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a second set of frequency values exceeding the threshold; and adjusting a volume at a second frequency value of the second set of frequency values to reduce the second irregularity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Thormundsson et al disclose a device wherein the set of operations further comprises: detecting a second irregularity in the frequency representation of the equalized audio signal, the second irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between a second set of frequency values exceeding the threshold (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073][0147]); and adjusting a volume at a second frequency value of the second set of frequency values to reduce the second irregularity (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073][0147]). 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 distortion compensation taught by Thormundsson et al as distortion compensation in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been to prevent distortion (Thormundsson et al; Para [0058]).
Regarding claim 20, Wihardja et al in view of Matsuura et al disclose the computing device of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the set of operations further comprises: iteratively analyzing the equalized audio signal after adjusting the volume at the first frequency value of the frequency values to detect an additional irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between frequency values exceeding the threshold; and adjusting the set of frequency values to reduce the additional irregularity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Thormundsson et al disclose a device wherein the set of operations further comprises: iteratively analyzing the equalized audio signal after adjusting the volume at the first frequency value of the frequency values to detect an additional irregularity corresponding to a change in volume between frequency values exceeding the threshold (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073]); and adjusting the set of frequency values to reduce the additional irregularity (Thormundsson et al; Fig 3; Para [0073]). 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 distortion compensation taught by Thormundsson et al as distortion compensation in the device taught by Wihardja. The motivation to do so would have been to prevent distortion (Thormundsson et al; Para [0058]).
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
Prosecution Insights