DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 7/22/2026:
Claims 10-16 are pending
Claims 1-9 and 17 are cancelled
35 USC 112d rejection is withdrawn
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the prior art (Miyamori and Kuhara) both fail to teach the amended limitation of “calculating an estimated sound pressure…by subtracting…the reference sound pressure level of the target sound identified using the physical model… (remarks, pg. 7).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claim limitation regarding the “noise calculating section” has been amended to recite the specific step of “subtracting”, this is still being taught by the prior art. The Examiner also notes that the ‘recording control section” has been rewritten to simplify wording without changing the scope. That is, the recording control section still performs the task of starting recording when one or more set conditions are met (i.e. when distance and the posture measured by the measurement section meet the measurement condition).
Regarding the step of “noise calculation section”…by subtracting…, Miyamori (see Fig. 26) discloses a step of collecting sound data (wherein the sound data includes fault data related to a fault of the machine under diagnosis in addition to any and all outside noise (e.g. environment/ambient noise)). The collected sound data is then compared against past data with a waveform that comprises of a known fault (e.g. driving motor fault) as shown in the figure. The act of comparison is seen as explicitly showing a step of subtracting (dictionary definition of comparison is “a consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two things) (see ¶138, 141). Further, given enough time for a skilled person in the art, said person would be able to see the two waveforms (i.e. Fig. 26) and perform either mental calculations or physical calculations to determine the similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two waveforms as well as the differences between the waveforms (i.e. subtraction).
Similarly, Kuhara, ¶105, explicitly teaches the method steps of noise processing. The steps of said noise processing include extracting a noise signal or the target signal by applying various techniques. The result is a separation of the noise from the target (or vice versa). Once the various sources are separated, a further step of noise reduction (i.e. subtracting the noise signal from the collected signal such that the resultant signal is the target signal) can be performed.
Regarding the “recording control section”, Miyamori teaches a step of ensuring proper sound collection by having the user position the microphone in an optimal position (see Fig. 13). Fig. 19 shows the step of starting to record once optimal position being reached. Therefore, the novelty of the “recording control section” is seen as being met.
Response to Amendment
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) 10-16 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 pressure level of the target sound, and calculates an estimated sound pressure level of the noise included in the ambient sound by subtracting, from the detected sound pressure level of the ambient sound detected by the microphone, the reference sound pressure 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 starts recording the ambient sound when the distance and the posture measured by the measurement section meet the measurement conditions (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 by subtracting, from the detected sound pressure level of the ambient sound detected by the microphone, 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 by subtracting, from the detected sound pressure level of the ambient sound detected by the microphone, 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; see also ¶105, extracting a noise signal or the target signal resulting in a separation of the noise from the target (or vice versa) - a further step of noise reduction (i.e. subtracting the noise signal from the collected signal such that the resultant signal is the target signal) can be performed);
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).
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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights