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 .
1. This communication in response to CON application filed 08/21/2024
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
3. The foreign priority verified and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASTYR et al. (Pub.No.: 2020/0357378 A1) in view of Abbott (Pub.No.: 2021/0240145 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, BASTYR teaches an electronic device, method and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, comprising:
a sensor (reads on vibration sensor 508, see Fig. 5 and [0050]);
a plurality of microphones (reads on microphone(s) 512, see [0051]);
one or more processors (reads on processor 128, see [0031]); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (reads on storage 130, see [0031]), cause the electronic device to:
obtain a first sound signal through at least one of the plurality of microphones (reads on receive the time domain error signal e.sub.m [n] and/or frequency domain error signal E.sub.m[k, n] from the microphone(s) 512, see [0051]);
obtain a second sound signal through at least one of a plurality of axes of the sensor (reads on vibration sensor 108, detecting X/Y/Z, see [0026]-[0027]); and
identify a noise level from among a plurality of noise levels based on the first sound signal and the second sound signal (reads on sensor signals 610 may include the noise signal; interior soundscape, see [0055]. Note that error signal e(n) representing the noise present in the cabin of the vehicle, see [0029]).
Note that BASTYR determines noise-related parameters from microphone and sensor signals and modifies system behavior based on thresholds (see [0050]-[0057]).
BASTYR does not specifically teach “control one or more of the plurality of microphones to be turned on or off based on the noise level” and “control one or more of the plurality of axes to be turned on or off based on the noise level”.
Abbot teaches controlling system operations based on sensed conditions (see abstract). Abbott also teaches determining a noise level, comparing it to a threshold, and triggering a control response when a threshold is exceeded (see [0193]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Abbott’s threshold-based control to BASTYR’s sensing system to control operation of sensing components. Including enabling or disabling microphones and sensor axes, as a predictable use of conditional control based on noise conditions.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, the combination of BASTYR in view of Abbott teaches further comprising a communication interface (note that vehicle signals received from a vehicle network bus 612, see BASTYR [0055]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to identify the noise level based on the electronic device being in a call state with an external electronic device using the communication interface (reads on sensor signals indictive of current vehicle operating conditions affecting the interior soundscape, see [0031]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of BASTYR in view of Abbott teaches wherein the plurality of microphones (microphones 112, see BASTYR [0025]) comprise a first microphone, a second microphone, and a third microphone (for all microphone, see BASTYR [0025]), and the sensor comprises a three-axis acceleration sensor (reads on multi-axis accelerometers typically have a separate electrical output (or channel) for vibrations sensed in their X-direction, Y-direction and Z-direction, see BASTYR [0026]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination of BASTYR in view of Abbott teaches wherein the plurality of noise levels (reads on interior soundscape may greatly vary, see BASTYR [0042]) comprise a first noise level (reads on noise signal X(n) representing noise conditions, see BASTYR [0027]) and at least one of a second noise level or a third noise level (reads on different operating conditions/varying noise levels within the interior soundscape, see BASTYR [0042]).
Claims 5 and 14 recite “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to:
based on the noise level being the first noise level:
turn on at least one from among the first microphone, the second microphone, and the third microphone; and
turn off the three-axis acceleration sensor,
based on the noise level being the second noise level:
turn on the first microphone, the second microphone, and the third microphone;
turn on one or more axes of the three-axis acceleration sensor; and turn off one or more other axes of the three-axis acceleration sensor, and
based on the noise level being the third noise level: turn on the first microphone, the second microphone, and the third microphone; and
turn on a first axis, a second axis, and a third axis of the three-axis acceleration sensor”.
Note that BASTYR discloses microphones and multi-axis sensors with varying noise conditions (see [0025] and [0026] and [0042]).
Abbott teaches determining a noise level and triggering control based on threshold comparison (see [0193]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the threshold-based control, as taught by Abbott to the sensing components of BASTYR to selectively control participation of microphones and sensor axes based on different noise levels, including enabling a subset of microphones and reducing participation of the multi-axis sensor at a first noise level, increasing participation of microphones and selectively using sensor axes at a second noise level , and enabling full sensing at a higher noise level. Such selective control represents a predictable use of condition-based operation to manage sensing resources and processing in response to varying noise conditions.
Claims 6 and 15 recite “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to:
based on the noise level being the first noise level, control a processing clock of the processor to be a first clock frequency range,
based on the noise level being the second noise level, control the processing clock of the processor to be a second clock frequency range, and based on the noise level being the third noise level, control the processing clock of the processor to be a third clock frequency range, wherein the first clock frequency range is less than the second clock frequency range, and the second clock frequency range is less than the third clock frequency range”.
BASTYR discloses a processor operating under varying noise conditions (see [0031] and [0042]).
Abbott teaches determining a noise level and controlling operation based on threshold comparison (see [0193]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to adjust processor performance, including clock frequency across levels based on noise level as a predictable resource management technique, using lower, intermediate and higher operating levels corresponding to different noise levels.
Dependent claims 7 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons addressed in dependent claims 5 and 14, Note that Examiner interpreting the “battery level” as a type of operating condition affecting system behavior, see BASTYR [0031] and [0044], this would be is obvious within the combination of BASTYR and Abbott to include battery level as an additional operating condition affecting control decisions, as a battery level is a known parameter influencing operating of electronic devices.
Dependent claims 8 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons addressed in dependent claims 5, 7, 14 and 16, noting that applying conditional branching based on battery level, including different actions of battery levels above or below a threshold, as a routine control variation would be obvious within the combination of BASTYR and Abbott.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of BASTYR in view of Abbott teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to:
identify a first speech section and a first non-speech section in the first sound signal (reads on analyzing data from one or more microphones... interior soundscape...error signal, see BASTYR [0042]);
identify a second speech section and a second non-speech section in the second sound signal (reads on signals from variation sensors, see discussion in BASTYR [0042]); and
identify the noise level based on a difference between a first signal magnitude of the first non-speech section and a second signal magnitude of the second non-speech section (reads on parameter may be an amplitude of the error signal and/or anti-noise signal ... compared to dynamic threshold, see BASTYR [0051]).
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rasha S. AL-Aubaidi whose telephone number is (571) 272-7481. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on (571) 272-7488.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RASHA S AL AUBAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights