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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1,4-8, 11-15, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1,4-8, 11-15, 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. (11, 711,061). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim(s) are merely a broader variation of the patented claim(s) language, which would have anticipated the instant claim of the application as cited.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. (11, 711,061) and Toguri (US 11,153,685 B2)
The method of claim 1, comprising: outputting a test signal from each channel of the amplifier to a corresponding speaker of the plurality of speakers to generate a speaker output.
However, the prior art never specify of the test signal to be outputted sequentially. But, it shall be noted the prior art as in Toguri disclose of the similar analogy regarding the test signal to be outputted sequentially (col.7 line 25-30). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect concerning the test signal to be outputted sequentially so as to individually tune each corresponding speakers accordingly.
The method of claim 2, comprising: simultaneously monitoring the speaker output by the one or more microphones to detect operational speakers and each channel of the amplifier (see claim 1 of prior patent).
The claims(s) 9-10, 16-17 which cite the same feature as in claim(s) 2-3 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 1,4-8, 11-15, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1,4-8, 11-15, 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. (12, 081,183). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim(s) are merely a broader variation of the patented claim(s) language, which would have anticipated the instant claim of the application as cited.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. (12, 081,183) and Toguri (US 11,153,685 B2)
The method of claim 1, comprising: outputting a test signal from each channel of the amplifier to a corresponding speaker of the plurality of speakers to generate a speaker output.
However, the prior art never specify of the test signal to be outputted sequentially. But, it shall be noted the prior art as in Toguri disclose of the similar analogy regarding the test signal to be outputted sequentially (col.7 line 25-30). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect concerning the test signal to be outputted sequentially so as to individually tune each corresponding speakers accordingly.
The method of claim 2, comprising: simultaneously monitoring the speaker output by the one or more microphones to detect operational speakers and each channel of the amplifier (see claim 1 of prior patent).
The claims(s) 9-10, 16-17 which cite the same feature as in claim(s) 2-3 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
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, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a (1) as being anticipated Choisel (US 10,893,363 B2).
A method, comprising: identifying, in a room environment, a plurality of speakers, one or more microphones, and an amplifier that are controlled by a controller (fig.1 (PA, 4, 7); col.2 line 45-67); generating information regarding a frequency response of each microphone of the one or more microphones based on a plurality of speaker outputs (abstract; col.2 line 29-37/the impulse or equivalently transfer function may be obtained); and calculating tuning parameters for each speaker of the plurality of speakers based on background noise level and noise spectrum of the room environment (col.3 line 38-67; col.4 line 5-30/the noise level or spectrum used to implement the tuning parameters).
8. An apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: identify, in a room environment, a plurality of speakers, one or more microphones, and an amplifier that are controlled by a controller (fig.1 (PA, 4, 7); col.2 line 45-67); generate information regarding a frequency response of each microphone of the one or more microphones based on a plurality of speaker outputs (abstract; col.2 line 29-37/the impulse or equivalently transfer function may be obtained); and calculate tuning parameters for each speaker of the plurality of speakers based on background noise level and noise spectrum of the room environment (col.3 line 38-67; col.4 line 5-30/the noise level or spectrum used to implement the tuning parameters).
15. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store one or more instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform: identifying, in a room environment, a plurality of speakers, one or more microphones, and an amplifier that are controlled by a controller (fig.1 (PA, 4, 7); col.2 line 45-67); generating information regarding a frequency response of each microphone of the one or more microphones based on a plurality of speaker outputs (abstract; col.2 line 29-37/the impulse or equivalently transfer function may be obtained); and calculating tuning parameters for each speaker of the plurality of speakers based on background noise level and noise spectrum of the room environment (col.3 line 38-67; col.4 line 5-30/the noise level or spectrum used to implement the tuning parameters).
.
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) 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choisel (US 10,893,363 B2) and Toguri (US 11,153,685 B2).
The method of claim 1, comprising: outputting a test signal from each channel of the amplifier to a corresponding speaker of the plurality of speakers to generate a speaker output (col.3 line 1-37).
However, the prior art never specify of the test signal to be outputted sequentially. But, it shall be noted the prior art as in Toguri disclose of the similar analogy regarding the test signal to be outputted sequentially (col.7 line 25-30). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted aspect concerning the test signal to be outputted sequentially so as to individually tune each corresponding speakers accordingly.
The method of claim 2, comprising: simultaneously monitoring the speaker output by the one or more microphones to detect operational speakers and each channel of the amplifier (ch-col.3 line 30-35 & col.4 line 55-67).
The machine claim(s) 9-10, 16-17 which in substance disclose of the same features as noted claim(s) 2-3 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choisel (US 10,893,363 B2) and Porter et al. (US 9,859,858 B2).
The method of claim 1, comprising: establishing the frequency response for each speaker of the plurality of speakers and a sensitivity level of a corresponding speaker of the plurality of speakers (abstract; col.3 line 29-35; col.5 line 60-65).
However, the prior art never mentioned of sensitivity level of the amplifier being established. Porter et al. disclose of certain correction wherein sensitivity level of the amplifier being established (col.4 line 25-35). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such aspect related to establishing sensitivity level of amplifier so as to tune the device component and thereby automatically achieved the desired audio output.
The method of claim 4, wherein the sensitivity level is based on a target sound pressure level (SPL) of the room environment (Port-col.4 line 60-67/so as to achieve desired output for the room).
The machine claim(s) 11-12, 18-19 which in substance disclose of the same features as noted claim(s) 4-5 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choisel (US 10,893,363 B2) and Porter et al. (US 9,859,858 B2) and Hayashi et al. (US 10,469,973 B2).
The method of claim 5, comprising identifying: an acoustic echo cancellation parameter that is optimal for the room environment (col.2 line 35-40).
However, the prior art never mentioned of additional parameters including a per-speaker channel level setting to achieve the target SPL; a per-speaker channel equalization setting to normalize each speaker frequency response and to achieve a target room frequency response.
However, Hayashi et al. disclose of similar concept related to identifying: a per-speaker channel level setting to achieve the target SPL; a per-speaker channel equalization setting to normalize each speaker frequency response and to achieve a target room frequency response (col.6 line 54-60). Thu, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such aspect related to identifying: a per-speaker channel level setting to achieve the target SPL; a per-speaker channel equalization setting to normalize each speaker frequency response and to achieve a target room frequency response so as to fine tune the steering accordingly.
However, the prior art never mentioned of additional parameters including identifying a distance from each of the one or more microphones to each speaker of the plurality of speakers; a room reverberation time of the room environment; a noise reduction parameter that is optimal to reduce background noise detected by the one or more microphones for the room environment; and a non-linear processing parameter that is optimal to reduce background noise when no voice is detected in the room environment.
But, the examiner takes official notice implementing such added parameters including identifying a distance from each of the one or more microphones to each speaker of the plurality of speakers; a room reverberation time of the room environment; a noise reduction parameter that is optimal to reduce background noise detected by the one or more microphones for the room environment; and a non-linear processing parameter that is optimal to reduce background noise when no voice is detected in the room environment is well known in the art. Thus ,one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such additional aspect regarding identifying a distance from each of the one or more microphones to each speaker of the plurality of speakers; a room reverberation time of the room environment; a noise reduction parameter that is optimal to reduce background noise detected by the one or more microphones for the room environment; and a non-linear processing parameter that is optimal to reduce background noise when no voice is detected in the room environment for achieving the expected result as to fine tune the steering accordingly based on particular criteria.
The machine claim(s) 13, 20 which in substance disclose of the same features as noted claim(s) 6 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choisel (US 10,893,363 B2) and Porter et al. (US 9,859,858 B2) and Hayashi et al. (US 10,469,973 B2) and Nguyen et al. (US 10,241, 667 B2).
The method of claim 6, comprising: initiating a verification procedure as an iterative procedure that continues for each speaker of the plurality of speakers, wherein the verification procedure comprises detecting additional test signals at the one or more microphones controlled by the controller to verify the target SPL and the target room frequency response.
Nguyen et al. disclose of similar method wherein initiating a verification procedure as an iterative procedure that continues for each speaker of the plurality of speakers, wherein the verification procedure comprises detecting additional test signals at the one or more microphones controlled by the controller to output response (fig.9; col.15 line 55-col.16 line 3). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted method wherein initiating a verification procedure as an iterative procedure that continues for each speaker of the plurality of speakers, wherein the verification procedure comprises detecting additional test signals at the one or more microphones controlled by the controller to output response so as to accurately produce the sound based on all designated speakers according to particular configuration.
The machine claim(s) 14 which in substance disclose of the same features as noted claim(s) 7 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Chin, Vivian can be reached at (571) 272-7848. 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695