DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12-15, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willis et al. (US 10,999,149 B1).
As to claim 1, Willis discloses a method for acquiring a vehicle-mounted audio signal, performed by a terminal device (Col. 4 lines 40-43 and Col. 16 lines 23-29, Figs. 1-2 and 5. “The mobile device 128 may include a smart phone, a tablet, a laptop computer, a portable media player, and/or any suitable mobile computing device.” "Next, a high-level flowchart of an example method 500 for adjusting audio to a plurality of phone zones during a voice call is shown in FIG. 5. In particular, method 500 is described with respect to the in-vehicle entertainment system of FIGS. 1 and 2, including in-vehicle computing system 200. However, in other examples, method 500 may be carried out by other computing systems." Mobile Device is a computing device/system.), comprising:
obtaining a target sampling position of an in-vehicle audio signal, and determining, based on the target sampling position, a target microphone set from a candidate microphone collection (Col. 11 lines 48-51 and Col. 17 lines 7-42, Figs. 3 and 5."Each of the first phone zone 310, the second phone zone 312, the third phone zone 314, and the fourth phone zone 316 may include at least two microphones and at least two speakers." "method 500 continues to step 508 and includes selecting at least one desired phone zone... the controller may determine a location of the mobile device receiving the voice call, and may select the phone zone closest to the determined location."); and
obtaining, by performing enhancement processing on an audio signal acquired by the target microphone set, a target audio signal corresponding to the target sampling position (Col. 17 line 53 - Col. 18 line 12, Figs. 3 and 5. "At step 512, method 500 includes applying signal processing to the selected phone zone microphones and speakers... microphone settings for the at least one selected phone zone may be adjusted to reduce sonic interference. For example, microphones from the at least one selected phone zone may be activated in order to capture outgoing telephone audio, and microphones from unselected phone zones may be muted to reduce interference. In example, rather than completely muting unselected zone microphones, any input captured from those unselected zones can be subtracted from corresponding audio data from the selected zone microphones to actively cancel unwanted input.").
As to claim 2, Willis discloses wherein the determining the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection comprises:
obtaining relative position information between the target sampling position and each candidate microphone in the candidate microphone collection (Col. 17 lines 7-42, Figs. 3 and 5. "the controller may determine a location of the mobile device receiving the voice call, and may select the phone zone closest to the determined location."); and
selecting, based on the relative position information, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection (Col. 17 lines 7-42, Figs. 3 and 5. "the controller may determine a location of the mobile device receiving the voice call, and may select the phone zone closest to the determined location.").
As to claim 3, Willis discloses wherein the relative position information comprises at least one of:
a distance between the target sampling position and the candidate microphone; an angle between the target sampling position and the candidate microphone; or
a spatial occlusion relationship between the target sampling position and the candidate microphone (Col. 17 lines 7-42, Figs. 3 and 5. "the controller may determine a location of the mobile device receiving the voice call, and may select the phone zone closest to the determined location." Distance.).
As to claim 4, Willis discloses wherein the selecting, based on the relative position information, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection comprises: selecting, based on the distance, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection; selecting, based on the angle, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection; or selecting, based on the spatial occlusion relationship, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection (Col. 17 lines 7-42, Figs. 3 and 5. "the controller may determine a location of the mobile device receiving the voice call, and may select the phone zone closest to the determined location." Based on distance.).
As to claim 7, Willis discloses wherein the obtaining the relative position information between the target sampling position and each candidate microphone in the candidate microphone collection comprises: obtaining an in-vehicle position corresponding to the candidate microphone (Col. 17 lines 7-42, Figs. 3 and 5. "the controller may determine a location of the mobile device receiving the voice call, and may select the phone zone closest to the determined location."); and
obtaining at least one of a distance or an angle between the target sampling position and the in-vehicle position (Col. 17 lines 7-42, Figs. 3 and 5. "the controller may determine a location of the mobile device receiving the voice call, and may select the phone zone closest to the determined location.").
Claim 10 is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 13-15 and 18 are rejected under claim 10 using the same rationale as claims 2-4 and 7 above.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under claim 12 using the same rationale as claims 2-4 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis, as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0270631 A1), hereinafter “Chen.”
As to claim 5, Willis discloses selecting, based on the distance, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection (Willis, Col. 17 lines 7-42, Figs. 3 and 5. "the controller may determine a location of the mobile device receiving the voice call, and may select the phone zone closest to the determined location." Based on distance.).
Willis does not expressly disclose selecting, based on the distance and the angle, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection; selecting, based on the distance and the spatial occlusion relationship, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection; or selecting, based on the angle and the spatial occlusion relationship, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection.
Chen discloses wherein the selecting, based on the relative position information, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection comprises: selecting, based on the distance and the angle, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection; or selecting, based on the distance and the spatial occlusion relationship, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection; or selecting, based on the angle and the spatial occlusion relationship, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection (Chen, ¶0064-0065. “The microphone array 101 is used to sample and process spatial characteristics of a sound field, thereby calculating an angle and distance of a target speaker according to audio signals received by the microphone array 101 to further track the target speaker and implement subsequent directional speech pickup. For example, the microphone array 101 can be located in a vehicle.”).
Willis and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to in-vehicle microphones.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the angle and distance between the microphones and the target, as taught by Chen. The motivation would have been to improve speech quality and intelligibility (Chen, ¶0003).
Claim 16 is rejected under claim 14 using the same motivation as claim 5 above.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis, as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, in view of Chen and further in view of Matheja et al. (US 2016/0050488 A1), hereinafter “Matheja.”
As to claim 6, Willis in view of Chen discloses selecting, based on the distance (Willis, Col. 17 lines 7-42, Figs. 3 and 5. "the controller may determine a location of the mobile device receiving the voice call, and may select the phone zone closest to the determined location." Based on distance) and the angle, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection (Chen, ¶0064-0065. “The microphone array 101 is used to sample and process spatial characteristics of a sound field, thereby calculating an angle and distance of a target speaker according to audio signals received by the microphone array 101 to further track the target speaker and implement subsequent directional speech pickup.).
The motivation is the same as claim 5 above.
Willis in view of Chen does not expressly disclose selecting, based on a spatial occlusion relationship, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection.
Matheja disclose selecting, based on a spatial occlusion relationship, the target microphone set from the candidate microphone collection (Matheja, ¶0039 and ¶0062-0064. “microphone identification process 10 may be configured to identify that there is an obstructed microphone.” “Upon determining that one or more microphones are obstructed, microphone identification process 10 may be configured to utilize that determination in order to improve the performance of the microphone array. For example, microphone identification process 10 may be configured to deactivate a microphone that has been deemed obstructed.”).
Willis, Chen and Matheja are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to in-vehicle microphones.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine that a microphone is obstructed/occluded, as taught by Matheja. The motivation would have been to prevent non-uniform microphone characteristics caused by obstruction (Matheja, ¶0002).
Claim 17 is rejected under claim 14 using the same motivation as claim 6 above.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis, as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, in view of Ramirez Flores et al. (US 10,645,517 B1), hereinafter “Ramirez.”
As to claim 8, Willis discloses acquiring an in-vehicle image, identifying the in-vehicle image (Willis, Col. 7 lines 11-14. “the sensor subsystem 210 may include a camera, such as… a cabin camera for identifying a user (e.g., using facial recognition and/or user gestures).)
Willis does not expressly obtaining a spatial occlusion relationship between the target sampling position and the candidate microphone.
Ramirez discloses obtaining a spatial occlusion relationship between the target sampling position and the candidate microphone. (Ramirez, Col. 8 lines 25-38. “Obstructions in the room such as walls or certain furniture may be detected by, e.g., image recognition and microphone(s) 306 and/or speaker(s) 308 nearest the obstruction disabled to divert resources to unobstructed speakers and/or microphones. In such a case, if desired the speaker(s) 308 and microphone(s)306 that are not near (e.g., within a threshold distance of) any obstruction can automatically be supplied with more power from the resources saved by deenergizing other microphones/speakers. This can result in sending all audio to only a subset of speakers 308 on an unobstructed side of a room as well as acquiring all input voice signals from only a subset of microphones 306 closest to one side of the room.”).
Willis and Ramirez are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to optimizing microphone arrays.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine a spatial obstruction, as taught by Ramirez. The motivation would have been to acquire the voice signals from only a subset of microphones that are not obstructed (Ramirez, Col. 8 lines 25-38).
Claim 19 is rejected under claim 13 using the same motivation as claim 8 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis, as applied to claim 1 above
As to claim 11, Willis discloses an electronic apparatus, to perform the method according to claim 1 (Col. 4 lines 40-43 and Col. 6 lines 54-62. “The mobile device 128 may include a smart phone, a tablet, a laptop computer, a portable media player, and/or any suitable mobile computing device.”).
Willis does not expressly disclose the electronic apparatus, comprising a processor; and an interface circuit; wherein the interface circuit is configured to receive a code instruction and transmit the code instruction to the processor; and the processor is configured to run the code instruction.
However, mobile device such as the smart phone disclosed in Willis (Col. 4 lines 40-43) are well-known to have a processor, an interface and run code instructions and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights