DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on March 4, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 7-8 and 14-15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 being rejected and claims 4, 7, 11, 14 and 18 being objected to. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Terminal Disclaimer
3. The terminal disclaimer filed on March 4, 2026 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2017/0303043 A1 to Young et al. (“Young”) in view of US Patent Pub No 2025/0004582 A1 to Terävä et al. (“Terävä”).
As to claim 1, Young discloses a method for improving audio quality comprising: determining a current field of view (FOV) of a camera based on an output from at least one sensor of the camera (see pg. 3, ¶ 0069; pg. 14, ¶ 0214, ¶ 0218; pg. 19, claims 16-17); activating a subset of microphones disposed on the camera based on the output (see pg. 14, ¶ 0214, ¶ 0218); and excluding from activation microphones other than the subset of microphones based on the output (see pg. 14, ¶ 0214 - ¶ 0215, ¶ 0218).
Young does not expressly disclose restricting a recording of audio originating outside of the current FOV, however it does disclose the pair of selected front-facing microphones being unidirectional, so they do not pick up sound well in their rear direction (see pg. 14, ¶ 0219), and further wherein beamforming can be used for these microphones to adjust the audio pickup angle in accordance with the image capture angle (see pg. 14, ¶ 0222). Restricting recording of audio outside the current FOV is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Young, particularly as Young already teaches the selection of front-facing unidirectional microphones, in order to provide audio corresponding to the image capture angle and not from rear directions, thereby providing audio with low background noise (see pg. 14, ¶ 0219, ¶ 0222).
Young further discloses the pair of selected front-facing microphones being dynamically selected and changed from a plurality of microphones to provide the best recording (see pg. 14, ¶ 0214, ¶ 0218), but does not disclose wherein the subset excludes at least one microphone determined to be occluded relative to a region of interest within the current FOV. However such a configuration is considered obvious, as taught by Terävä, which discloses a handheld device with a plurality of microphones, and further discloses in instances where a given microphone is determined to be blocked, said microphone is disabled and another available microphone that is not covered is selected for use (see pg. 3, ¶ 0051). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide clear audio in the event a given microphone is determined to be occluded, and further to save power by disabling or not operating the microphone that has been determined to be occluded (Terävä pg. 3, ¶ 0051).
As to claim 5, Young in view of Terävä further discloses the method further comprising: arranging audio beamforming to match an area covered by the current FOV of the camera, wherein the audio beamforming matches a direction a lens is pointed and sound outside the current FOV is attenuated (Young pg. 14, ¶ 0220, ¶ 0222).
As to claim 6, Young in view of Terävä further discloses the method further comprising: switching from a first mode of matching audio beamforming to the current FOV to a second mode of receiving omnidirectional audio (Young front and rear pickup with omnidirectional microphone, see pg. 14, ¶ 0220).
As to claim 8, Young discloses a computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to (see pg. 12, ¶ 0177; pg. 17, ¶ 0257): determine a current field of view (FOV) of a camera based on an output from at least one sensor of the camera (see pg. 3, ¶ 0069; pg. 14, ¶ 0214, ¶ 0218; pg. 19, claims 16-17); activate a subset of microphones disposed on the camera based on the output (see pg. 14, ¶ 0214, ¶ 0218); and exclude from activation microphones other than the subset of microphones based on the output (see pg. 14, ¶ 0214 - ¶ 0215, ¶ 0218).
Young does not expressly disclose restricting a recording of audio originating outside of the current FOV, however it does disclose the pair of selected front-facing microphones being unidirectional, so they do not pick up sound well in their rear direction (see pg. 14, ¶ 0219), and further wherein beamforming can be used for these microphones to adjust the audio pickup angle in accordance with the image capture angle (see pg. 14, ¶ 0222). Restricting recording of audio outside the current FOV is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Young, particularly as Young already teaches the selection of front-facing unidirectional microphones, in order to provide audio corresponding to the image capture angle and not from rear directions, thereby providing audio with low background noise (see pg. 14, ¶ 0219, ¶ 0222).
Young further discloses the pair of selected front-facing microphones being dynamically selected and changed from a plurality of microphones to provide the best recording (see pg. 14, ¶ 0214, ¶ 0218), but does not disclose wherein the subset excludes at least one microphone determined to be occluded relative to a region of interest within the current FOV. However such a configuration is considered obvious, as taught by Terävä, which discloses a handheld device with a plurality of microphones, and further discloses in instances where a given microphone is determined to be blocked, said microphone is disabled and another available microphone that is not covered is selected for use (see pg. 3, ¶ 0051). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide clear audio in the event a given microphone is determined to be occluded, and further to save power by disabling or not operating the microphone that has been determined to be occluded (Terävä pg. 3, ¶ 0051).
As to claim 12, Young in view of Terävä further discloses wherein the instructions further configure the apparatus to: arrange audio beamforming to match an area covered by the current FOV of the camera, wherein the audio beamforming matches a direction a lens is pointed and sound outside the current FOV is attenuated (Young pg. 14, ¶ 0220, ¶ 0222).
As to claim 13, Young in view of Terävä further discloses wherein the instructions further configure the apparatus to: switch from a first mode of matching audio beamforming to the current FOV to a second mode of receiving omnidirectional audio (Young front and rear pickup with omnidirectional microphone, see pg. 14, ¶ 0220).
As to claim 15, Young discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to (see pg. 17, ¶ 0252, ¶ 0257): determine a current field of view (FOV) of a camera based on an output from at least one sensor of the camera (see pg. 3, ¶ 0069; pg. 14, ¶ 0214, ¶ 0218; pg. 19, claims 16-17); activate a subset of microphones disposed on the camera based on the output (see pg. 14, ¶ 0214, ¶ 0218); and exclude from activation microphones other than the subset of microphones based on the output (see pg. 14, ¶ 0214 - ¶ 0215, ¶ 0218).
Young does not expressly disclose restricting a recording of audio originating outside of the current FOV, however it does disclose the pair of selected front-facing microphones being unidirectional, so they do not pick up sound well in their rear direction (see pg. 14, ¶ 0219), and further wherein beamforming can be used for these microphones to adjust the audio pickup angle in accordance with the image capture angle (see pg. 14, ¶ 0222). Restricting recording of audio outside the current FOV is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Young, particularly as Young already teaches the selection of front-facing unidirectional microphones, in order to provide audio corresponding to the image capture angle and not from rear directions, thereby providing audio with low background noise (see pg. 14, ¶ 0219, ¶ 0222).
Young further discloses the pair of selected front-facing microphones being dynamically selected and changed from a plurality of microphones to provide the best recording (see pg. 14, ¶ 0214, ¶ 0218), but does not disclose wherein the subset excludes at least one microphone determined to be occluded relative to a region of interest within the current FOV. However such a configuration is considered obvious, as taught by Terävä, which discloses a handheld device with a plurality of microphones, and further discloses in instances where a given microphone is determined to be blocked, said microphone is disabled and another available microphone that is not covered is selected for use (see pg. 3, ¶ 0051). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide clear audio in the event a given microphone is determined to be occluded, and further to save power by disabling or not operating the microphone that has been determined to be occluded (Terävä pg. 3, ¶ 0051).
As to claim 19, Young in view of Terävä further discloses wherein the instructions further configure the computer to: arrange audio beamforming to match an area covered by the current FOV of the camera, wherein the audio beamforming matches a direction a lens is pointed and sound outside the current FOV is attenuated (Young pg. 14, ¶ 0220, ¶ 0222).
As to claim 20, Young in view of Terävä further discloses wherein the instructions further configure the computer to: switch from a first mode of matching audio beamforming to the current FOV to a second mode of receiving omnidirectional audio (Young front and rear pickup with omnidirectional microphone, see pg. 14, ¶ 0220).
5. Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Terävä, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2015/0326748 A1 to Tisch et al. (“Tisch”).
As to claim 2, Young in view of Terävä discloses the method of claim 1.
Young in view of Terävä does not disclose the method further comprising: analyzing audio from one or more microphones on the camera to determine signal amplitudes within the audio; and selecting the subset of microphones to be activated based on the one or more microphones with a highest signal amplitude or lowest average level of noise.
Tisch discloses a similar device and method, and further discloses selecting one or more microphones based on motion data (see Abstract), and further based on an analysis of background noise over a time interval as received by the one or more microphones, where microphones exceeding a threshold amount of noise are not selected to capture audio (see pg. 3, ¶ 0033; pg. 4, ¶ 0043; pg. 5, ¶ 0048).
Young in view of Terävä and Tisch are analogous art because they are drawn to audio capture methods for camera devices.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate noise level analysis as taught by Tisch in the method as taught by Young in view of Terävä. The motivation being to adapt and record audio signals using microphones with the least amount of noise, such as wind noise (Tisch pg. 3, ¶ 0033; pg. 4, ¶ 0043; pg. 5, ¶ 0048).
As to claim 3, Young in view of Terävä and Tisch further discloses the method further comprising: determining, based on sensor data from an accelerometer and a gyroscope of the camera, a direction of incident light received by a lens of the camera; and selecting the subset of microphones disposed on the camera to record audio based on the direction of incident light received by the lens (Young pg. 14, ¶ 0214; Tisch pg. 2, ¶ 0030; pg. 3, ¶ 0037; pg. 4, ¶ 0041).
As to claim 9, Young in view of Terävä and Tisch further discloses wherein the instructions further configure the apparatus to: analyze audio from one or more microphones on the camera to determine signal amplitudes within the audio; and select the subset of microphones to be activated based on the one or more microphones with a highest signal amplitude or lowest average level of noise (Tisch pg. 3, ¶ 0033; pg. 4, ¶ 0043; pg. 5, ¶ 0048).
As to claim 10, Young in view of Terävä and Tisch further discloses wherein the instructions further configure the apparatus to: determine, based on sensor data from an accelerometer and a gyroscope of the camera, a direction of incident light received by a lens of the camera; and select the subset of microphones disposed on the camera to record audio based on the direction of incident light received by the lens (Young pg. 14, ¶ 0214; Tisch pg. 2, ¶ 0030; pg. 3, ¶ 0037; pg. 4, ¶ 0041).
As to claim 16, Young in view of Terävä and Tisch further discloses wherein the instructions further configure the computer to: analyze audio from one or more microphones on the camera to determine signal amplitudes within the audio; and select the subset of microphones to be activated based on the one or more microphones with a highest signal amplitude or lowest average level of noise (Tisch pg. 3, ¶ 0033; pg. 4, ¶ 0043; pg. 5, ¶ 0048).
As to claim 17, Young in view of Terävä and Tisch further discloses wherein the instructions further configure the computer to: determine, based on sensor data from an accelerometer and a gyroscope of the camera, a direction of incident light received by a lens of the camera; and select the subset of microphones disposed on the camera to record audio based on the direction of incident light received by the lens (Young pg. 14, ¶ 0214; Tisch pg. 2, ¶ 0030; pg. 3, ¶ 0037; pg. 4, ¶ 0041).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4, 7, 11, 14 and 18 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.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights