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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This is in response to application filed 08/26/2024.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shridhar et al. (Pub.No.: 2010/0124336 A1) in view of Griffin (Pub.No.: 2020/0105242 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shridhar teaches on-vehicle sound control system (reads on vehicle ANC system for passenger cabin noise suppression, see [0029] and [0033]), comprising:
a speaker configured to output canceling sound for canceling noise (reads on loudspeakers generating anti-noise signals, see [0033] and [0040]);
a controller configured to control the speaker (reads on ANC controller generating control signals for speaker, see [0036] and [0043]); and
wherein the controller comprises a control filter configured to generate a control signal for controlling the speaker (reads on adaptive filtering and compensation circuitry producing control signals, see [0043] and [0044]).
Shridhar features already addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Shridhar does not specifically teach “a distance estimation device configured to estimate a distance between the speaker and an ear of an occupant, a control signal correction unit configured to correct the control signal based on the distance and to output a corrected control signal, and the controller controls the speaker based on the corrected control signal” as recited in claim 1.
However, Griffin teaches an active noise control headset system including position sensors configured to detect a position of a speaker relative to a listener’s ears, and processing/filtering circuitry configured to generate a corrected control signal for the speaker based on the detected position (see [0003], [0004], [0010] and [0056]). Griffin further teaches that the controller controls the speaker based on the corrected signal derived from the detected spatial relationship between the speaker and the listener’s ears (see [0010] and [0011]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the ANC system of Shridhar to include Griffin’s position-based control signal correction, including estimating the spatial distance between the speaker and the listener and correcting the control signal accordingly, in order to imp[rove anti-noise performance for varying listener positions and acoustic path conditions, since Griffin expressly teaches that such spatial compensation improves ANC effectiveness (see Griffin [0005] and [0051])
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shridhar in view of Griffin teaches wherein the control signal correction unit is provided with a correction coefficient such that the larger the distance is, the larger an amplitude of the corrected control signal becomes (reads on adjusting attenuation/gain level of anti-noise based on detected listener position, see Griffin [0005], [0075] and [0073]), and the control signal correction unit corrects the control signal with the correction coefficient (reads on filtering circuitry adjusting anti-noise level according to position sensor data, see Griffin [011]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shridhar in view of Griffin teaches an error microphone configured to generate an error signal (reads on microphone detecting combination of anti-noise and ambient sound forming error signal, see Shridhar [0036] and [0043]) from the noise and the canceling sound, wherein the controller further comprises an adaptive update unit configured to perform adaptive update of the control filter based on the error signal (reads on adaptive filtering updating based on feedback signals, see Shridhar [0043] and [0044]) and an update determination unit configured to determine, based on the distance, whether the update by the adaptive update unit may be performed, and the adaptive update unit performs the update only when the update determination unit permits the update (reads on threshold-based switching of control behavior depending on listener spatial position, see Griffin [0074] and [0075]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shridhar in view of Griffin teaches wherein the control signal correction unit corrects the control signal only when the update determination unit does not permit the update (reads on modifying control operation depending on spatial thresholds and disabling certain control modes based on position, see Griffin [0075]) and does not correct the control signal when the update determination unit permits the update (Note that combination of Shridhar adaptive filtering and Griffin spatial switching suggests selectively applying correction versus adaptive update for stability, see Shridhar [0044] and Griffin [0075]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shridhar in view of Griffin teaches wherein the control signal correction unit corrects the control signal with a correction coefficient set depending on the distance (reads on multiple predefined attenuation levels based on spatial position ranges, see Griffin [0011] and [0074]), the update determination unit permits the update when the distance is in a predetermined usual range (reads on switching control operation based on position range thresholds, see Griffin [0074]), and the control signal correction unit does not correct the control signal when the distance is in the usual range (reads on gain/attenuation set to predefined levels depending on spatial range, see Griffin [0074]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shridhar in view of Griffin teaches wherein the correction coefficient monotonically increases with an increase of the distance (Griffin teaches increased gain or attenuation when listener position moves further from reference location, see [0072]-[0073]) and is set to 1 when the distance is in the usual range (Sridhar teaches filter coefficients adjustable and stable operation ranges implying unity or baseline coefficient values, see [0044]), and the control signal correction unit does not correct the control signal by maintaining the correction coefficient to 1 when the distance is in the usual range (the combination of Shridhar adaptive filtering and Griffin predefined attenuation ranges suggests baseline coefficient inside stable spatial region, see Shridhar [0044] and Griffin [0074]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shridhar in view of Griffin teaches wherein the controller further comprises a phase correction unit configured to correct a phase of the control filter based on the distance (reads on adaptive filtering compensating acoustic path including phase and amplitude characteristics, see Shridhar [0043] and [0044]) when the distance is not in the usual range (reads on spatial position dependent control parameter adjustment including attenuation and filtering characteristics, see Griffin [0074]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shridhar in view of Griffin teaches wherein the control signal correction unit corrects the control signal based on an average value of the distance over a predetermined time (reads on adaptive control parameters determined over time using feedback processing and training methods, see Shridhar, see [0043] and [0044]).
Conclusion
4. 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