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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority based on PCT applications PCT/JP2022/009774 filed on 03/07/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directing toward non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1 and 6 recite corresponding methods (“process”). Claim 8 recites an audio processing system (“machine”). Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program (“manufacture”).
To distinguish ineligible claims that merely recite a judicial exception from eligible claims that require an implementation of judicial exception, the Supreme Court uses a two-step framework: Step One (Step 2A), determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts; and Step Two (Step 2B), if so, ask “what else is there in the claims?” to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
Step One (Step 2A) is a two prong test that requires the determination of whether the claims at issue are directed to an enumerated patent ineligible concept. See MPEP 2106.04.
Specifically, Step 2A Prong (1) requires the determination of the specific limitations in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea and determining whether the identified limitations falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
The enumerated patent ineligible concepts comprising:
(a) Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles / practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules / instructions) and
(c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a).
If the claim recites an enumerated patent ineligible concept, then Prong (2) of Step One (Step 2A) requires the determination of whether the claim integrates the patent ineligible concept into a practical application. Individually and in combination, identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Under Step Two (Step 2B), if the claim does not integrate the ineligible concept into a practical application and therefore directed to a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim provides an inventive concept by determining whether there are additional elements, individually and in ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See MPEP 2106.04.
Step 2A Prong (1)
The “directed to” inquiry does not ask whether the claims involve a patent ineligible concept but, considered in light of the specification, whether the claim as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter or directed to an improvement to computer functionality. Enfish L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, Prong (1) of Step 2A requires identifying specific limitations in the claims that recites (“describes” or “set forth”) an abstract idea and determine whether the identified limitations falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated. See MPEP 2106.04 (“Thus, it is sufficient for this analysis for the examiner to identify that the claimed concept (the specific claim limitation(s) that the examiner believes may recite an exception) aligns with at least one judicial exception”).
In particular, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation”.
Under Prong (1), claim 1 recites an audio processing method realized by a computer system, the audio processing method comprising:
(1) acquiring a first audio signal including percussive components and non-percussive components; and
(2) serially executing a plurality of stages of adaptive notch filter processing on the first audio signal, thereby generating a second audio signal in which the non-percussive components in the first audio signal are suppressed.
Claim 8 recites an audio processing system comprising an electronic controller including at least one processor configured to perform (1) and (2).
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer system to execute a process, the process comprising (1) and (2).
Claim 6 recites an audio processing method realized by a computer system, the method comprising:
(1)(a) generating, from a first audio signal containing percussive components and non-percussive components, a first band signal in a first frequency band, and a second band signal in a second frequency band that is different from the first frequency band;
(2)(a) serially executing a plurality of stages of first adaptive notch filter processing on the first band signal, thereby generating a third band signal in which the non-percussive components in the first band signal are suppressed;
(2)(b) serially executing a plurality of stages of second adaptive notch filter processing on the second band signal, thereby generating a fourth band signal in which the non-percussive components in the second band signal are suppressed; and
(3) synthesizing the third band signal and the fourth band signal, thereby generating a second audio signal.
With respect to (1) and (1)(a), individually and considered in light of the specification at Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
615
817
media_image1.png
Greyscale
According to the specification US 2024/0420721 A1 at ¶24, “Non-percussive components are acoustic components in which the signal strength (energy) in the frequency domain is locally high compared to its surroundings” and “the percussive components are non-harmonic components other than the harmonic components”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, (1) in claims 1, 8, and 13 and (1)(a) in claim 6 correspond to collecting data comprising first audio signal and recognizing percussive components and non-percussive components, where (1)(a) in claim 6 additionally requires generating / recognizing first band signal in a first frequency band and second band signal in a second frequency band.
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory are drawn to an abstract idea. Content Extraction and Trans. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)IIIA (“a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind”).
Therefore, (1) in claims 1, 8, and 13 and (1)(a) in claim 6 are practically mental analysis steps where a human mind can use Matlab to perform analysis of first audio signal and to analyze / recognize the first audio signal comprising first band signal in the first frequency band and second band signal in the second frequency band.
With respect to (2), individually and considered in light of the specification at US 2024/0420721 A1 at ¶34 “The filter unit 33 is a notch filter that suppresses components of the signal Q_n within the stopband to generate the signal Q_n+1” and at ¶35 “Specifically, the filter unit 33 is a recursive filter including a plurality of addition units 41 (41a, 41b, 41c, 41d, 41c), a plurality of multiplication units 42 (42a, 42b, 42c, 42d, 42c), and a plurality of delay units 43 (43a, 43b)”:
PNG
media_image2.png
449
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, (2) in claims 1, 8, and 13 and (2)(a), (2)(b) in claim 6 correspond to applying mathematical / logical filtering to collected data to calculate mathematical representations of audio signals that are essentially mental process to make mathematical calculations.
In particular, analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are treated as essentially mental process within the abstract-idea category. Electric Power Grp., L.L.C. v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
With respect to (3) in claim 6, individually and considered in light of the specification at US 2024/0420721 A1 at ¶47: “The signal synthesizing unit 233 synthesizes the audio signal Yp′ after the first process and the audio signal Yh′ after the second process to generate the audio signal Z. For example, the signal synthesizing unit 233 uses the weighted sum of the audio signal Yp′ and the audio signal Yh′ to generate the audio signal Z”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, (3) in claim 6 corresponds to mathematical calculation to calculate a sum of the mathematical representation of the third band signal and the mathematical representation of the fourth band signal. Such analysis by mathematical algorithms is essentially mental process with the abstract idea category.
In ordered combination, steps (1)-(2) in claims 1, 8, and 13 and steps (1)(a), (2)(a)-(2)(b), and (3) in claim 6 correspond to collecting data (mathematical representations of first audio signal), recognizing the data (mathematically classify the first audio signal according to frequency band analysis), apply mathematical filter to the collected data, and apply mathematical summing of filtered data.
Thus, claims 1, 6, 8, and 13 described patent ineligible subject matter enumerated under category (a) Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and category (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong (2).
Under Prong (2) of Step 2A, the goal is to determine whether the claim is directed to the recited exception by evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04II(A).
In particular, evaluating integration into a practical application requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements, individually and in combination, to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The Supreme Court held that when a claim containing a mathematical formula (i.e., an abstract idea) implements or applies that math formula / abstract idea in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e. g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the requirements of §101. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981); See MPEP 2106.04(d)I (“Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b)”). See also Benson, 409 U.S. at 70 (“Transformation and reduction of an article "to a different state or thing" is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines”).
In particular, the Supreme Court looked to how the claims used that equation in a process designed to solve a technological problem in conventional industry practice. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In Diehr, the claims involved a method for curing rubber by using Arrhenius equation to constantly measure actual temperature inside a mold and feeding the temperature measurements into a computer to repeatedly recalculate the cure time to open the press. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178-79. Since the Supreme Court viewed the claims not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula, but to an industrial process for molding of rubber products, the claims were statutory. Id. at 192-93.
The key here, as noted by the CAFC, is that the Supreme Court in Diehr looked to how the claims "used that equation in a process designed to solve a technological problem in `conventional industry practice.'" McRO, 837 F.3d at 1312. When looked at as a whole, "the claims in Diehr were patent eligible because they improved an existing technological process, not because they were implemented on a computer." Id. at 1312-13.
In McRO, the CAFC noted that prior art method of generating (i.e., calculating) morph weight set with values between “0” and “1” for computer animation of facial expressions are manually determined. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1304-5. The claimed improvement in McRO allows computers to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators through the automated use of rules, rather than artists, to set the morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1313.
Specifically, the claims are directed to the incorporation of claimed rules, not the use of the computer that improved existing technological process by allowing automation of further tasks that goes beyond merely organizing existing information into a new form. Id. at 1314-15.
In other words, the claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters that prevent pre-emption of all processes for achieving automated lip-synchronization of 3-D characters. Id. at 1315. Therefore, the CAFC held that the ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules that relate sub-sequences of phonemes, timing, and morph weight sets is patent eligible. Id. at 1302-3.
On the other hand, in Flook, the claims involved a method for updating the value of at least one alarm limit on at least one process variable involved in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons using the mathematical formula ‘‘B1=B0 (1.0–F) + PVL(F)’’. Flook, 437 U.S. at 596. The Supreme Court noted that the application simply provided a new and presumably better method for calculating alarm limit values. Id. at 594-95. Citing the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the Supreme Court held that "if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.". Id. at 595 (citing In re Richman, 563 F.2d 1026, 1030 (CCPA 1977)).
In the instant application, claims 1, 8, and 13 set forth steps (1)-(2) and claim 6 set forth steps (1)(a), (2)(a)-(2)(b), and (3) correspond to collecting data (mathematical representations of first audio signal), recognizing the data (mathematically classify the first audio signal according to frequency band analysis), apply mathematical filter to the collected data, and apply mathematical summing of filtered data.
Unlike the particular means or method for applying the Arrhenius equation (i.e., an abstract idea) in a particular industrial process for curing rubber in Diehr, claims 1, 6, 8, and 13 do not recite any particular technological or industrial application because an audio processing method and audio processing system only set forth mathematical analysis / calculations of the respective mathematical representations of the first audio signal ((1) and (1)(a), (2) and (2)(a), (2)(b)) and mathematical calculation steps to generate weighted sum corresponding to the second audio signal.
Simply put, the claims lacked any particular limitation setting forth either a specifically asserted technological application or particular limitations improving a specifically asserted technology.
Unlike the incorporation of particular rules to the generated (i.e., calculated) morph weights to automate the “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” in McRO, the instant claims do not describe any particular technological application of how the synthesized audio signal is applicable to solve a specifically asserted technical problem.
Rather, applying notch filter processing (i.e., a series of mathematical logical operations) and using weighted sum mathematical operations to synthesize second audio signal are like the calculation of alarm limit values using a novel math formula for catalytic conversion in Flook. In other words, the claims were wholly focused on mathematical analysis with a broad statement to require a computer processor, attending software instruction to apply steps (1)(a), (2)(a)-(2)(b), and (3) in claim 6 and steps (1)-(2) in claims 1, 8, and 13.
Finally, to the extent that claims 1, 6, 8, and 13 recited computer, audio processing system with electronic controller / processor, and attending software (i.e., program), the Supreme Court held that mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
For example, in Alice, the Supreme Court held that data processing systems with communication controller, data storage unit, and transmission units were purely functional and generic because nearly every computer will include a "communications controller" and "data storage unit" capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions and such recitation of hardware failed to offer any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of a method to a particular technological environment. Id. at 2360. See MPEP 2106.04(d)I (“Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)”). Neither stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” nor limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment is enough for patent eligibility. Id. at 2350.
Much like the data processing systems with data storage unit performing basic calculations in Alice, the recitation of computer system, audio processing system with electronic controller / processor, and program in the instant claims are purely functional and generic that failed to offer any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the claims to computers .
Therefore, claims 1, 6, 8, and 13 are directed to collecting data (mathematical representations of first audio signal), recognizing the data (mathematically classify the first audio signal according to frequency band analysis), apply mathematical filter to the collected data, and apply mathematical summing of filtered data that are essentially mental processes within the abstract idea category.
Step 2B Inventive Concept.
The Guideline stated that if the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.04IIA and MPEP 2106.05.
Further, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, 827, F3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In BASCOM, the CAFC held that filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior similar to concepts previously found to be abstract. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348. However, the CAFC determined that the claims did not merely recite filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the internet or on a set of generic computer components, nor did the claims preempt all ways of filtering content on the internet. Id. at 1350.
Rather, the inventive concept described and claimed was the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user that gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on an internet service provider “ISP” server. Id. By taking a prior art filter solution (one size fits all filter at internet service provider “ISP” server) and making it more dynamic and efficient (providing individualized filtering at the ISP server), the claimed invention improves the performance of the computer system itself. Id. at 1351.
On the other hand, implementation via computers does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims”). Intellectual Ventures I L.L.C. v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Steps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent-eligibility).
Similarly, limiting an abstract idea to one field of use do not convert otherwise ineligible concept into an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I L.L.C. v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither does adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1367 (citing Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Insurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter”)).
Individually, in the instant application, claims 1, 6, 8, and 13 set forth collecting data (mathematical representations of first audio signal), recognizing the data (mathematically classify the first audio signal according to frequency band analysis), apply mathematical filter to the collected data, and apply mathematical summing of filtered data.
Claim 13 requires non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer system to execute the process of collecting data (mathematical representations of first audio signal) and apply mathematical filter to the collected data.
Such individual recitation of generic computer components (processor / controller, software / program instructions) are purely functional and generic because nearly every computer will include such processor and data storage unit capable of performing basic calculation necessary for calculating mathematical representations of first audio signal, mathematically classify the first audio signal according to frequency band analysis, apply mathematical filter to the collected data, and apply mathematical summing of filtered data.
As an ordered combination, unlike BASCOM that describes an unconventional combination of a conventional ISP server with a customized filter specific to each user that is remote from end-users to provide both the benefits of a filter on a conventional local computer and the benefits of a filter on the conventional ISP server, using computer processor / controller, software program instructions and computer / audio processing system to perform (1)-(3) do not involve a unconventional combination of conventional pieces because the combination amounts to “apply it on a computer”.
To the extent that implementing audio processing with computer system and audio processing system with processor and program stored in non-transitory computer readable medium result in reduction in memory requirement and computational requirement, merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 9-12, and do not recite any specifically asserted technological structure that goes beyond apply mathematical filter to the collected data that are essential mental processes.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are not eligible for a patent.
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) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bathgate et al. (US 2013/0336494 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 13, Bathgate discloses an audio processing system (¶24, electronic device comprising a reception unit configured to receive an audio input signal for rendering at the electronic device) comprising:
an electronic controller including at least one processor (¶25 and claim 12, a processor / computer executing software program on the electronic device) configured to acquire a first audio signal (¶56, receive signal 311) including percussive components (Figs. 2b and 4, ¶41, energy or power of emitted audio signal at non-harmonic frequencies other than the local maxima 221) and non-percussive components (Figs. 2b and 4, ¶41, energy or power of emitted audio signal at particular fundamental frequency f comprising local maxima 221 lie within frequency ranges 220), and
serially execute a plurality of stages of adaptive notch filter processing on the first audio signal, thereby generating a second audio signal in which the non-percussive components in the first audio signal are suppressed (Fig. 4 and ¶57, cascading one or more notch filters to provide shaped response filter 412; per ¶56, filter 412 as a frequency dependent AGC filter 412 using a set of filter coefficients to attenuate signal 311 within problematic frequency ranges 220, which corresponds to local maxima 221 per ¶41).
Further regarding claim 13, Bathgate discloses non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer system to execute the process of claims 1 and 8 (¶26).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Bathgate discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to control a frequency of a stopband in accordance with an output signal of each stage of the adaptive notch filter processing such that the frequency of the stopband approaches a frequency of non-percussive components in an input signal that is processed by each stage of the adaptive notch filter processing (¶56, the frequency dependent AGC filter 412 is adapted to attenuate the receive signal 311 relatively more within the problematic frequency ranges 220 corresponding to maxima 221 (see Figs. 2b and 4); ¶57, filter 412 corresponds to a cascading one or more notch filters; i.e., per Fig. 4, in a cascade of one or more notch filters, apply a first notch filter to signal 311 to attenuate the first problematic frequency range 220 / first stopband corresponding to the first local maxima 221 w0, apply a second notch filter to filtered signal 311 outputted by the first notch filter to attenuate the second problematic frequency range 220 / second stopband corresponding to the second local maxima 221 w1, and apply a third notch filter to filtered signal 311 outputted by the second notch filter to attenuate the third problematic frequency range 220 / third stopband corresponding to the third local maxima 221 w2).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Bathgate discloses wherein the non-harmonic components contain a plurality of harmonic components (¶40, acoustic signal comprises signal power at higher harmonic frequencies of fundamental frequency f; Fig. 2a and Fig. 4 show at least the fundamental frequency, the second harmonic, and the third harmonic; compare Fig. 2 of the specification), and the at least one processor is configured to control the frequency of the stopband such that the frequency of the stopband approaches a frequency corresponding to one of the plurality of harmonic components, in each stage of the adaptive notch filter processing (¶41, determine total harmonic distortion (THD) of the audio signal at the fundamental frequency f and from energy or power of the audio signal at all the higher and lower harmonic (and possibly non-harmonic) frequencies; ¶56, the frequency dependent AGC filter 412 is adapted to attenuate the receive signal 311 relatively more within the problematic frequency ranges 220 corresponding to maxima 221 (see Figs. 2b and 4); ¶57, filter 412 corresponds to a cascading one or more notch filters; i.e., per Fig. 4, in a cascade of one or more notch filters, apply a first notch filter to signal 311 to attenuate the first problematic frequency range 220 / first stopband corresponding to the first local maxima 221 w0, apply a second notch filter to filtered signal 311 outputted by the first notch filter to attenuate the second problematic frequency range 220 / second stopband corresponding to the second local maxima 221 w1, and apply a third notch filter to filtered signal 311 outputted by the second notch filter to attenuate the third problematic frequency range 220 / third stopband corresponding to the third local maxima 221 w2).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Bathgate discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the frequency of the stopband in each stage of the adaptive notch filter processing such that frequencies of a plurality of stopbands that includes the stopband are arranged on a frequency axis at equal intervals, and the plurality of stages of adaptive notch filter processing have the plurality of stopbands, respectively (¶52, Figs 2b and 3 shows bumps representing problem areas 220 or predetermined frequency range where each problem area 220 is described by center frequencies w0, w1, w2 (i.e., each problem area 220 corresponds to a predetermined frequency range {i.e., equal interval} centered at w0, w1, w2 respectively); ¶¶56-57, apply a cascading one or more notch filters to attenuate problematic frequency ranges 220 centered at w0, w1, w2; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Bathgate discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to subtract the second audio signal from the first audio signal, thereby generating a third audio signal (¶56, Fig. 4, apply frequency dependent AGC filter 412 (i.e., second audio signal) to signal 311 (i.e., first audio signal) in AGC filter unit 404 to yield the attenuated receive signal 413).
Regarding Claim 6, Bathgate discloses an audio processing method realized by a computer system (¶24, electronic device comprising a reception unit configured to receive an audio input signal for rendering at the electronic device), the method comprising:
generating, from a first audio signal (¶56, receive signal 311; e.g., ¶40, acoustic signal emitted by speaker 204 which is excited by a sinusoid at a particular fundamental frequency f, comprising signal power at the fundamental frequency f and at higher harmonic frequencies of the fundamental frequency f) containing percussive components (Figs. 2b and 4, ¶41, energy or power of emitted audio signal at non-harmonic frequencies other than the local maxima 221) and non-percussive components (Figs. 2b and 4, ¶41, energy or power of emitted audio signal at particular fundamental frequency f comprising local maxima 221 lie within frequency ranges 220, the local maxima 221 lie within frequency ranges 220, the frequency range 220 having a certain bandwidth / frequency interval around the center frequency within which total harmonic distortion “THD” (f) curve 206 exhibits a relative elevation leading to the local maximum 221), a first band signal in a first frequency band (Fig. 2a, a first plurality of frequency ranges 220 with respective bandwidth / frequency intervals of the four frequency ranges 220), and a second band signal in a second frequency band that is different from the first frequency band (Fig. 2a, a second plurality of frequency ranges 220 with respective bandwidth / frequency intervals of the four frequency ranges 220);
serially executing a plurality of stages of first adaptive notch filter (Fig. 4 and ¶57, cascading one or more notch filters to provide shaped response filter 412) processing on the first band signal, thereby generating a third band signal in which the non-percussive components in the first band signal are suppressed (¶56, filter 412 as a frequency dependent AGC filter 412 using a set of filter coefficients to attenuate signal 311 within problematic frequency ranges 220, which corresponds to local maxima 221 per ¶41; e.g., configuring a first notch filter to filter the first local maxima 221 and a second notch filter to filter the second local maxima 221 in Fig. 2b);
serially executing a plurality of stages of second adaptive notch filter processing on the second band signal (Fig. 4 and ¶57, cascading one or more notch filters to provide shaped response filter 412), thereby generating a fourth band signal in which the non-percussive components in the second band signal are suppressed (¶56, filter 412 as a frequency dependent AGC filter 412 using a set of filter coefficients to attenuate signal 311 within problematic frequency ranges 220, which corresponds to local maxima 221 per ¶41; e.g., configuring a third notch filter to filter the third local maxima 221 and a fourth notch filter to filter the fourth local maxima 221 in Fig. 2b); and
synthesizing the third band signal and the fourth band signal, thereby generating a second audio signal (¶56, apply frequency dependent AGC filter 412 to receive signal 311 in an AGC filter unit 404 to yield attenuated receive signal 413).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bathgate et al. (US 2013/0336494 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Bathgate discloses wherein the first frequency band is lower than the second frequency band (Fig. 2b, the first two frequency intervals 220 and corresponding local maxima 221 being lower in frequency than the second two frequency intervals 220 and corresponding local maxima 221).
Bathgate does not suggest that the number of the plurality of stages of the first adaptive notch filter processing is greater than the number of the plurality of stages of the second adaptive notch filter processing.
Bathgate does suggest that the number of frequency intervals corresponding to problem areas may comprise five different frequency intervals (¶52, in case of N problem areas (e.g., N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)).
Applying the established function of cascading one or more notch filters with respective filter coefficients to attenuate receive signal 311 within the problematic frequency ranges / intervals (¶¶56-57), the plurality of frequency intervals / problematic frequency ranges 220 can be predictably divided as follows:
(1) first frequency band comprises frequency intervals N = 1, 2, 3 and second frequency band comprises frequency intervals N = 4, 5; or
(2) first frequency band comprises frequency intervals N = 1, 2 and second frequency band comprises frequency intervals N = 3, 4, 5,
In scenario (1), the first frequency band would require a cascade of 3 notch filters with respective filter coefficients to attenuate frequency intervals 220 at N = 1, 2, 3 and the second frequency band would require a cascade of 2 notch filters with respective filter coefficients to attenuate frequency intervals 220 at N = 4, 5 such that the number of the plurality of stages of the first adaptive notch filter processing (notch filters for N = 1, 2, 3) being greater than the number of the plurality of stages of the second adaptive notch filter processing (notch filters for N = 4, 5).
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the cascade of one or more notch filters such that the number of the plurality of stages of the first adaptive notch filter processing is greater than the number of the plurality of stages of the second adaptive notch filter processing in order to attenuate problematic frequency ranges / intervals (Bathgate, ¶56) when the number of N problematic frequency ranges / intervals are N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (Bathgate, ¶52).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2011/0206226 A1 discloses a hearing aid system using adaptive notch filters to track spectral peaks of offending frequencies corresponding to unstable behavior of the hearing aid system, the adaptive notch filters will converge to the offending frequencies and stay in their vicinities until the energy in such spectral components is reduced, the adaptive notch filters operate in series (cascade) (¶24).
US 2013/0322644 A1 discloses sound processing apparatus processing original sound signal SX to generate harmonic sound signal SH and percussive sound signal SP (¶34) by calculating a cepstrum C[n, t] of Sx (¶38) split the cepstrum into low order region having a low quefrency QA and high order region having high quefrency QB (¶40), and a frequency suppressor suppresses peaks of the high order region QB in the cepstrum C[n, t] (¶41).
US 2021/0193104 A1 discloses wearable electronic device (¶97) using a series of filters, each configured as band-stop filters (including band-reject filters and notch filters) (¶21) corresponding to one or more stop bands adjacent to one or more passbands (¶11, configure first filter with one or more first passbands, including an upper first passband at one or more integer multiples of a first frequency value / fundamental frequency and a second passband above upper passband in the first passband) to suppress noises between or below harmonic frequencies (¶13).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Richard Z. Zhu whose telephone number is 571-270-1587 or examiner’s supervisor Hai Phan whose telephone number is 571-272-6338. Examiner Richard Zhu can normally be reached on M-Th, 0730:1700.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD Z ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654 03/06/2026