DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 8/2/2024:
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The recited elements of claim 17 appears to be reworded recitations of certain elements of claim 16 and does not appear to provide additional elements or further limiting elements. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamori et al (US20170176286, hereinafter “Miyamori”) in view of Kuhara et al (US20210200201, hereinafter “Kuhara”).
Regarding claim 10, Miyamori teaches a noise calculation device (Fig. 3, noise calculation device) the ambient sound including a target sound as a sound emitted by the analysis target (¶39, determining a noise signal of an analysis target (e.g. device 20) during repair servicing), the noise calculation device comprising:
a microphone that detects the ambient sound of the analysis target (Fig. 1, device 10 comprising a microphone);
a storage device (Fig. 1, ¶45, device 10 having a program) storing a program;
a processing unit (Fig. 2, device 10 comprising a CPU) configured to execute the program; and
a display device (Fig. 7, display device),
wherein the processing unit includes:
a measurement section that measures a distance between the analysis target and the microphone and a posture of the microphone with respect to the analysis target (abstract, device 10 comprising a distance measuring unit and an orientation measuring unit to determine a distance 10 from analysis target and an orientation with respect to the analysis target);
a measurement condition acquisition section that acquires measurement conditions of the ambient sound of the analysis target, the measurement conditions including an operating state of the analysis target (Fig. 10, analysis target to be turned on to produce the noise signal in question), the distance and the posture measured by the measurement section (Fig. 11, the correct distance and orientation of the measurement device with respect to the analysis target);
a display section that causes the display device to display an operating state of the analysis target and a guidance display for guiding the distance and the posture measured by the measurement section to the measurement conditions (Figs. 14-15, displaying guidance instructions to determine optimal distance and orientation to record analysis target);
a noise calculation section that identifies a reference sound pressure level of the target sound corresponding to a distance from the analysis target to the microphone, using a physical model that defines a relationship between the distance and the reference sound intensity level of the target sound, and calculates an estimated intensity level of the noise included in the ambient sound based on the detected intensity level of the ambient sound detected by the microphone and the reference intensity level of the target sound identified using the physical model (Fig. 20, an intensity level of the noise signal is generated compares it against one or more predetermined noise signal models in order to determine a potential fault/error with the machine 20 (¶138, 141)); and
a recording control section that determines whether the distance and the posture measured by the measurement section meet the measurement conditions and starts recording the ambient sound when the recording control section has determined that the measurement conditions are met (Figs. 14-18, determining an optimal distance and orientation for optimal recording of noise signal from an analysis target).
Miyamori fails to explicitly teach a noise calculation device for calculating a sound pressure level of a noise included in an ambient sound of an analysis target:
a measurement condition acquisition section that acquires a ratio of a reference sound pressure level of the target sound and an estimated sound pressure level of the noise included in the ambient sound detected by the microphone;
a noise calculation section that identifies a reference sound pressure level of the target sound corresponding to a distance from the analysis target to the microphone, using a physical model that defines a relationship between the distance and the reference sound pressure level of the target sound, and calculates an estimated sound pressure level of the noise included in the ambient sound based on the detected sound pressure level of the ambient sound detected by the microphone and the reference sound pressure level of the target sound identified using the physical model;
and the ratio of the reference sound pressure level of the target sound to the estimated sound pressure level of the noise included in the ambient sound detected by the microphone.
Kuhara teaches a noise calculation device for calculating a sound pressure level of a noise included in an ambient sound of an analysis target (¶9, 105, device for determining a noise level including calculating a sound pressure level (SPL)):
a measurement condition acquisition section that acquires a ratio of a reference sound pressure level of the target sound and an estimated sound pressure level of the noise included in the ambient sound detected by the microphone (¶106, a sound quality parameter is generated as a result of a comparison between of SPLs of a target sound relative to the noise’s SPL (i.e. signal-to-noise ratio/SNR));
a noise calculation section that identifies a reference sound pressure level of the target sound corresponding to a distance from the analysis target to the microphone, using a physical model that defines a relationship between the distance and the reference sound pressure level of the target sound, and calculates an estimated sound pressure level of the noise included in the ambient sound based on the detected sound pressure level of the ambient sound detected by the microphone and the reference sound pressure level of the target sound identified using the physical model (Fig. 1, ¶110-111, noise determining module includes identifying SPL of the target sound with respect to a noise SPL while taking into account a distance parameter and wherein a 3D model can be generated using the acquired one or more parameters for further processing);
and the ratio of the reference sound pressure level of the target sound to the estimated sound pressure level of the noise included in the ambient sound detected by the microphone (¶106, a sound quality parameter is generated as a result of a comparison between of SPLs of a target sound relative to the noise’s SPL (i.e. signal-to-noise ratio/SNR)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the diagnostic apparatus (as taught by Miyamori) with the analysis methods (as taught by Kuhara). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of improving a sound collection technique (Kuhara, ¶9).
Regarding claim 11, Miyamori in view of Kuhara teaches wherein the noise calculation section identifies the reference sound pressure level of the target sound using the physical model selected according to an operation status of the analysis target (Miyamori, ¶58-59, an operating status of the device 20 is included in the model selection step in order to identify a possible concern using the detected noise signal(s)).
Regarding claim 12, Miyamori in view of Kuhara teaches wherein the noise calculation section identifies the reference sound pressure level of the target sound using the physical model selected according to a specification of the analysis target (Miyamori, Fig. 7, a model/serial number of the device under diagnosis is input).
Regarding claim 13, Miyamori in view of Kuhara teaches wherein the physical model is represented by a linear function in which the distance is a function of the reference sound pressure level of the target sound (Kuhara, ¶131, equation shown can be rearranged to solve for a distance parameter d which is a linear function).
Regarding claim 14, Miyamori in view of Kuhara teaches wherein the physical model defines the relationship between the distance and the reference sound pressure level of the target sound according to a frequency of the ambient sound, and
wherein the noise calculation device identifies the reference sound pressure level of the target sound using the physical model selected according to the distance and the frequency of the ambient sound (Miyamori, Figs. 20-21, figures shown indicates a captured graph showing the time, frequency, and intensity of the signal; Fig. 7, 14-15, figures shown indicates the ideal distance from the analysis target according to a generated model (determined using the model/serial number of the analysis target)).
Regarding claim 15, Miyamori in view of Kuhara teaches wherein the noise calculation section identifies the reference sound pressure level of the target sound using the physical model selected according to a part of the analysis target (Miyamori, Fig. 58, an operating status includes various information such as operating mode – it does not appear to deviate from Miyamori’s teachings to modify a recording position as a result of an operating mode to further eliminate false positives (e.g. if the service call was related to a copy error then it would be logical to position the diagnostic device near copy-related parts versus other non-copy related parts)).
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The additional elements of a server apparatus and mobile device can be found in Miyamori (Fig. 1, 6, ¶59, server 50 and mobile device 10).
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected similarly as claim 1 and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights