DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torok et al. (US 9,324,322 B1 – cited in parent application), hereinafter “Torok,” in view of Lovitt et al. (US 2020/0135163 A1), hereinafter “Lovitt.”
As to claim 1, Torok discloses a playback device comprising:
one or more processors (processor 204, Fig. 2);
one or more microphones (audio capture device 212, Fig. 2);
a network interface (i/o device interfaces 202, Col. 4 lines 5-7, Fig. 2. “The input/output device interfaces 202 may also include a network connection.”); and
data storage having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors (Col. 2 lines 34-38), cause the playback device to perform operations comprising:
detecting sound via the one or more microphones (Col. 3 lines 9-15, Fig. 2. ASR device 200 may include an audio capture device 212 for capturing spoken utterances and ambient noises for processing. The audio capture device 212 may include one or more microphones.);
capturing first sound data based on the detected sound (Col. 3 lines 36-60 and Col. 4 lines 19-37, Fig. 2. Acoustic data captured and stored.);
obtaining a first noise classification based on the first sound data (Col. 5 lines 27-33, Fig. 4. “Similarly, the acoustic fingerprint engine 242 compares audio interruption data with acoustic fingerprints/acoustic models stored in fingerprint storage 244, searching for a match that exceeds a baseline degree of certainty. Some common acoustic fingerprints/models (e.g. doorbell) may be preprogrammed, while others may be learned on-the-fly.”);
determining a first adjustment of a playback volume based on the first noise classification (Col. 8 lines 30-48 and Col. 10 lines 46-62, Fig. 4. “For example, if a ringing phone is the match, the acoustic fingerprint engine 242 may signal that the audio output is to be muted or paused, based on either a uniform flag for all fingerprint/model matches, or an event selective flag stored in fingerprint storage 244 with the respective fingerprint/model. Thus, while a ringing phone may trigger a pause or muting of audio output, a doorbell might trigger attenuation.” “Examples of “modifying the output” include… altering a characteristic such as attenuating or increasing audio volume...”);
applying the first adjustment of the playback volume to the playback device (Col. 11 lines 6-14. “If the modification or modifications (460) are determined to include adjusting a volume (860a) (which may including loudening, attenuating, or muting the volume) or pausing (860b), then the output is modified accordingly.”);
after obtaining the first noise classification, capturing second sound data based on the detected sound (Col. 3 lines 36-60, Col. 4 lines 19-37 and Col. 11 lines 36-40, Figs. 4-5 and 7-8. Acoustic data captured and stored. “If the device 600 triggers a volume adjustment 860a for an event, then the algorithm in FIG. 8 may be modified to continue to monitor for additional audio interruptions, listening for audio interruptions that trigger a “pause” or “muting” instead of “attenuate” or “louden.”” Operations repeat.);
obtaining a second noise classification based on the second sound data (Col. 5 lines 27-33, Col. 8 lines 30-48 and Col. 11 lines 36-40, Figs. 4-5 and 7-8. “If the device 600 triggers a volume adjustment 860a for an event, then the algorithm in FIG. 8 may be modified to continue to monitor for additional audio interruptions, listening for audio interruptions that trigger a “pause” or “muting” instead of “attenuate” or “louden.”” Operations repeat.);
determining a second adjustment of the playback volume based on the second noise classification (Col. 8 lines 30-48, Col. 10 lines 46-62 and Col. 11 lines 36-40, Figs. 4-5 and 7-8. “Examples of “modifying the output” include… altering a characteristic such as attenuating or increasing audio volume...” “If the device 600 triggers a volume adjustment 860a for an event, then the algorithm in FIG. 8 may be modified to continue to monitor for additional audio interruptions, listening for audio interruptions that trigger a “pause” or “muting” instead of “attenuate” or “louden.”” Operations repeat.); and
applying the second adjustment of the playback volume to the playback device (Col. 11 lines 6-14 and 36-40, Figs. 4-5 and 7-8. “If the device 600 triggers a volume adjustment 860a for an event, then the algorithm in FIG. 8 may be modified to continue to monitor for additional audio interruptions, listening for audio interruptions that trigger a “pause” or “muting” instead of “attenuate” or “louden.”” Operations repeat.).
Torok does not expressly disclose based on the first noise classification, applying a modification to a noise-cancellation algorithm of the playback device; and
processing the second sound data by applying the modified noise-cancellation algorithm to the second sound data.
Lovitt discloses based on the first noise classification, applying a modification to a noise-cancellation algorithm of the playback device (Lovitt, ¶0012 and ¶0071, Fig. 5. “The system may also include an external sound identifying module that identifies, among the noise signals, an external sound whose amplitude is to be reduced by the noise cancellation. A sound analyzer may analyze the identified external sound to determine whether the identified external sound is to be made audible to a user and, upon determining that the external sound is to be made audible to the user, an ANC modification module may modify the noise cancellation so that the identified external sound is made audible to the user.”); and
processing the second sound data by applying the modified noise-cancellation algorithm to the second sound data (Lovitt, ¶0012 and ¶0071, Fig. 5. “The system may also include an external sound identifying module that identifies, among the noise signals, an external sound whose amplitude is to be reduced by the noise cancellation. A sound analyzer may analyze the identified external sound to determine whether the identified external sound is to be made audible to a user and, upon determining that the external sound is to be made audible to the user, an ANC modification module may modify the noise cancellation so that the identified external sound is made audible to the user.” Sound made audible.).
Torok and Lovitt are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to audio output adjustments based on noise.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active noise cancellation based on the external sound, as taught by Lovitt. The motivation would have been so the external sound is made audible to the user (Lovitt, ¶0012).
As to claim 2, Torok in view of Lovitt discloses wherein the first adjustment comprises increasing the playback volume, and the second adjustment comprises decreasing the playback volume (Torok, Col. 9 lines 4-18 and Col. 10 lines 51-55, Figs. 4-5 and 7-8. “For example, when the phone rings, the system may suspend or attenuate audio playback and await user instruction to restore (444), whereas if the recognized noise is a vacuum cleaner, the system may increase the volume of audio playback and automatically restore volume to its original setting when the noise of the vacuum cleaner is no longer present (570).” “For example, the audio output volume may be attenuated or increased, or audio output may be muted or paused. Which modification is made may be based upon a user setting, may be uniform for all events, or may be event dependent.” Operations repeat.).
As to claim 3, Torok in view of Lovitt does not expressly disclose wherein obtaining the first noise classification comprises identifying a first noise level, and wherein obtaining the second noise classification comprises identifying a second noise level lower than the first noise level.
However, Torok does disclose obtaining first and second noise classifications (see at least Col. 5 lines 27-33 and Col. 11 lines 36-40, Figs. 4-5 and 7-8. “If the device 600 triggers a volume adjustment 860a for an event, then the algorithm in FIG. 8 may be modified to continue to monitor for additional audio interruptions, listening for audio interruptions that trigger a “pause” or “muting” instead of “attenuate” or “louden.””).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the second noise to have a level lower than the first. The motivation being it would have been obvious to try due to a finite number of solutions – either higher level, same level, or lower level.
As to claim 4, Torok in view of Lovitt discloses wherein obtaining the first noise classification comprises identifying a first noise source type, and wherein obtaining the second noise classification comprises identifying a second noise source type different from the first noise source type (Torok, Col. 8 lines 30-48 and Col. 11 lines 6-14 and 36-40, Figs. 4-5 and 7-8. “For example, if a ringing phone is the match, the acoustic fingerprint engine 242 may signal that the audio output is to be muted or paused, based on either a uniform flag for all fingerprint/model matches, or an event selective flag stored in fingerprint storage 244 with the respective fingerprint/model. Thus, while a ringing phone may trigger a pause or muting of audio output, a doorbell might trigger attenuation.” “If the device 600 triggers a volume adjustment 860a for an event, then the algorithm in FIG. 8 may be modified to continue to monitor for additional audio interruptions, listening for audio interruptions that trigger a “pause” or “muting” instead of “attenuate” or “louden.”” Different noise sources identified.).
As to claim 21, Torok in view of Lovitt discloses wherein the modification to the noise- cancellation algorithm comprises a down-regulation of the noise-cancellation algorithm (Lovitt, ¶0012 and ¶0071, Fig. 5. “The ANC modification may include reducing the level of active noise cancellation.”
The motivation is the same as claim 1 above.
As to claim 8, it is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 9-11 and 22 are rejected under claim 8 using the same rationale as claims 2-4 and 21 above.
As to claim 15, it is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 16-18 and 23 are rejected under claim 15 using the same rationale as claims 2-4 and 21 above.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torok in view of Lovitt, as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, in view of Gopalakrishnan et al. (US 9,183,845 B1 – cited in parent application), hereinafter “Gopalakrishnan.”
As to claim 6, Torok in view of Lovitt does not expressly disclose based on the first noise classification, adjusting a gain applied to sound data during processing.
Gopalakrishnan discloses based on the first noise classification, adjusting a gain applied to sound data during processing (Gopalakrishnan, Col. 4 lines 50-56. “For example, noise suppression manager 125 may increase a gain for an incoming audio signal on specific frequencies that correspond to those frequencies that are identified in the noise characteristics.”).
Torok, Lovitt and Gopalakrishnan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to audio adjustments based on noise.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust gain, as taught by Gopalakrishnan. The motivation would have been to increase gain in frequencies where human hearing is most attuned to improve voice quality in noise (Gopalakrishnan, Col. 6 lines 33-36).
As to claim 7, Torok in view of Lovitt as modified by Gopalakrishnan discloses based on the first noise classification, modifying equalization settings for audio playback (Gopalakrishnan, Col. 11 lines 25-32, Fig. 5. “At block 520, processing logic adjusts the second audio signal to compensate for the noisy environment based on the noise characteristics. This may include any combination of increasing a volume of the second audio signal and spectrally shaping the audio signal (e.g., performing equalization by selectively increasing the gain for one or more frequencies of the second audio signal).”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the EQ settings, as taught by Gopalakrishnan. The motivation would have been to increase the gain of selective frequencies to improve voice quality in noise (Gopalakrishnan, Col. 11 lines 25-32).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under claim 8 using the same motivation as claims 6-7 above.
Claim 20 is rejected under claim 15 using the same motivation as claim 7 above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights