DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the application on 11/06/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 should recite “a method for detecting an audio…”
Claim 21, is objected to as lacking antecedent basis for “a method”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: In Fig 3, most of the numerical boxes are not linked to any structural element within the specification. Also, the applicant can place within each of those boxes with the numbers, a description of what those numbers represent. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: 30.n not shown in the drawings, 30 not shown in the drawings, “feedback suppressor module 40” instead of “feedback suppression module 40”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an audio feedback suppression module configured for detecting…" in claim 21. The examiner interprets the processor disclosed in the specification as the structure performing the function of the audio feedback suppression module. Also on page 13, the feedback suppression module 40 is called feedback suppressor module 40.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Steele et al (US 2024/0334133 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Steele et al disclose a method of detecting an audio feedback condition in a wearable audio device (Steele et al; Para [0005]; hearing device interpreted as wearable audio device), comprising: receiving a series of time frames of a time-domain audio signal, each pair of consecutive time frames of the series of time frames being, at least partly, shifted in time by a time interval (Steele et al; Para [0033]; consecutives time frames is interpreted as frames shifted in time by a time interval), detecting a presence of a pure tone in the series of time frames (Steele et al; Para [0010]-[0011]) including: determining in a frequency domain, a phase spectrum for each time frame over a plurality of frequency bands (Steele et al; Para [0053][0014][0083]), for each frequency band of the plurality of frequency bands, determining a phase correlation across the determined phase spectra (Steele et al; Para [0083]), and generating a pure tone detection signal in case a predefined phase correlation criterion is met (Steele et al; Para [0014]; [0087]; fixed phase difference across frame interpreted as a predefined phase correlation criterion is met).
Regarding claim 2, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the phase correlation is determined, while accounting for a phase change corresponding to the time interval between each pair of consecutive time frames (Steele et al; Para [0014]; [0087]; consistent phase value interpreted as accounting for a phase change corresponding to the time interval between each pair of consecutive time frames).
Regarding claim 3, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 1, wherein in case the phase associated with a frequency band is substantially equal across all phase spectra, within a predefined correlation range, a pure tone detection signal is generated (Steele et al; Para [0014]; [0087]; consistent phase interpreted as the phase associated with a frequency band is substantially equal across all phase spectra).
Regarding claim 5, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising, in case the pure tone detection signal is generated, interacting with the audio signal in the frequency domain, for determining whether the detected pure tone originates from audio feedback (Steele et al; Para [0110]).
Regarding claim 7, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 6, comprising eliminating or relieving the selective suppressing in case the pure tone is sustained (Steele et al; Para [0110]).
Regarding claim 8, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 1 wherein the series of time frame signals spans a time period of between 2-50 milliseconds (Steele et al; Para [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Steele et al disclose a method of suppressing an audio feedback condition in a wearable audio device (Steele et al; Para [0011]; hearing aid interpreted as wearable audio device), comprising: detecting an audio feedback condition in the wearable audio device according to the method of claim 1 (Steele et al discloses claim 1); and in case an audio feedback condition is detected at a frequency band, selectively suppressing the magnitude of the audio signal at said frequency band (Steele et al; Para [0110]).
Regarding claim 20, Steele et al disclose a wearable audio device (Steele et al; Para [0014]; hearing aid interpreted as wearable audio device), comprising an audio feedback detection module configured for executing the method of claim 1 (Steele discloses claim 1).
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) 4, 9, 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 2024/0334133 A1) in view of Blamey et al (US 2004/0240690 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising, in case the predefined phase correlation criterion is met for a frequency band, determining a magnitude value for each time frame at said frequency band, and determining a magnitude correlation across the determined magnitude values at said frequency band, and generating the pure tone detection signal only in case a predefined magnitude correlation criterion is met. However, in the same field of endeavor, Blamey et al disclose a method further comprising, in case the predefined phase correlation criterion is met for a frequency band (Blamey et al; Para [0045]), determining a magnitude value for each time frame at said frequency band, and determining a magnitude correlation across the determined magnitude values at said frequency band (Blamey et al; Para [0042]; [0065] amplitude change is interpreted as magnitude correlation), and generating the pure tone detection signal only in case a predefined magnitude correlation criterion is met (Blamey et al; Para [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the magnitude correlation taught by Blamey as tone detection in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to have a circuit that can quickly identify an oscillation and its frequency (Blamey et al; Para [0017]).
Regarding claim 9, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the series of time frame signals includes at least 3 time frame signals -preferably at least 4 time frame signals, more preferably at least 6 time frame signals. However, in the same field of endeavor, Blamey et al disclose a method wherein the series of time frame signals includes at least 3 time frame signals -preferably at least 4 time frame signals, more preferably at least 6 time frame signals (Blamey et al; Para [0028]; one or more time windows interpreted as frames signals includes at least 3 time frame signals). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the magnitude correlation taught by Blamey as tone detection in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to have a circuit that can quickly identify an oscillation and its frequency (Blamey et al; Para [0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein the magnitude of the audio signal is suppressed by filtering the audio signal with a notch-filter centered at said feedback frequency band. However, in the same field of endeavor, Blamey et al disclose a method wherein the magnitude of the audio signal is suppressed by filtering the audio signal with a notch-filter centered at said feedback frequency band (Blamey et al; Para [0014][0063]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the feedback suppression taught by Blamey as feedback suppression in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to have a circuit that can quickly identify an oscillation and its frequency (Blamey et al; Para [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein the suppression is released upon detecting a predetermined maximum number of new audio feedback conditions. However, in the same field of endeavor, Blamey et al disclose a method wherein the suppression is released upon detecting a predetermined maximum number of new audio feedback conditions (Blamey et al; Para [0065]; feedback suppression triggered when counting of feedback reaches a value M interpreted as predetermined maximum). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the feedback suppression taught by Blamey as feedback suppression in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to have a circuit that can quickly identify an oscillation and its frequency (Blamey et al; Para [0017]).
Regarding claim 16, Steele et al in view of Blamey et al disclose the method of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the maximum number of new audio feedback condition detections is predetermined to be in a predetermined range, e.g. between one and ten. However, in the same field of endeavor, Blamey et al disclose a method wherein the maximum number of new audio feedback condition detections is predetermined to be in a predetermined range, e.g. between one and ten (Blamey et al; Para [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the feedback suppression taught by Blamey as feedback suppression in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to have a circuit that can quickly identify an oscillation and its frequency (Blamey et al; Para [0017]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 2024/0334133 A1) in view of Kuriger et al (US 2019/0132686 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising selectively suppressing the magnitude of the audio signal at said feedback frequency band; monitoring the suppressed magnitude and/or the phase of the audio signal at the feedback frequency band over a further series of time frames; and determining whether the detected pure tone is sustained in the further series of time frames based on the monitored magnitude and/or phase. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kuriger et al disclose a method further comprising selectively suppressing the magnitude of the audio signal at said feedback frequency band (Kuriger et al; Para [0179]); monitoring the suppressed magnitude and/or the phase of the audio signal at the feedback frequency band over a further series of time frames (Kuriger et al; Para [0179]); and determining whether the detected pure tone is sustained in the further series of time frames based on the monitored magnitude and/or phase (Kuriger et al; Para [0179]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the feedback suppression taught by Kuriger as feedback suppression in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to minimize the error signal (Kuriger et al; Para [0066]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 2024/0334133 A1) in view of Sheich (US 2013/0223638 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein each phase spectrum is obtained by a 2N-point Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of a respective time frame, and divided into N frequency bands. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sheikh et al disclose a method wherein each phase spectrum is obtained by a 2N-point Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of a respective time frame, and divided into N frequency bands (Sheikh; Para [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the frequency conversion taught by Sheikh as frequency conversion in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a computationally effective and reliable method for the detection of whistling (Sheikh; Para [0008]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 2024/0334133 A1) in view of Pandey et al (US 2011/0206226 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein the magnitude of the audio signal is suppressed at one or more frequency bands adjacent said feedback frequency band. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pandey et al disclose a method wherein the magnitude of the audio signal is suppressed at one or more frequency bands adjacent said feedback frequency band (Pandey et al; Para [0024][0030][0052] adaptive notch filter near vicinity of offending frequency interpreted as magnitude of the audio signal is suppressed at one or more frequency bands adjacent said feedback frequency band). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the feedback suppression taught by Pandey as feedback suppression in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to suppress the offending frequency (Pandey et al; Para [0006]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 2024/0334133 A1) in view of Arndt et al (US 2011/0228960 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Steele et al disclose the method of claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein the magnitude at said feedback frequency band is suppressed for a predefined time period, and the suppression is released upon expiry of the predefined time period. However, in the same field of endeavor, Arndt et al disclose a method wherein the magnitude at said feedback frequency band is suppressed for a predefined time period, and the suppression is released upon expiry of the predefined time period (Arndt et al; Para [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the feedback suppression taught by Arndt as feedback suppression in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to increase an adjustment speed of the algorithm for feedback suppression (Arndt et al; Para [0072]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 2024/0334133 A1) in view of Blamey et al (US 2004/0240690 A1) and further in view of Grafenberg et al (US 2010/0226516 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Steele et al in view of Blamey et al disclose the method of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the maximum number of new audio feedback condition detections is automatically adjustable. However, in the same field of endeavor, Grafenberg et al disclose a method wherein the maximum number of new audio feedback condition detections is automatically adjustable (Grafenberg et al; Para [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the feedback detection taught by Grafenberg as feedback detection in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been provides for a simple prediction as to when the acceptance value is likely to be achieved (Grafenberg et al; Para [0015]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 2024/0334133 A1) in view of Arndt et al (US 2011/0228960 A1) and further in view of Junius et al (US 2012/0148078 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Steele et al in view of Arndt disclose the method of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein the magnitude of the audio signal at said feedback frequency band is permanently suppressed, in case a feedback condition is determined again at a said feedback frequency band within a predefined time period after release of the suppression. However, in the same field of endeavor, Junius et al disclose a method wherein the magnitude of the audio signal at said feedback frequency band is permanently suppressed, in case a feedback condition is determined again at a said feedback frequency band within a predefined time period after release of the suppression (Junius et al; Para [0017][0032]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the feedback suppression taught by Junius as feedback suppression in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to enhance the user satisfaction (Junius et al; Para [0012]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 2024/0334133 A1) in view of Arndt et al (US 2011/0228960 A1) and further in view of Junius et al (US20120148078 A1) and further in view of Pandey et al (US 2011/0206226 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Steele et al in view of Arndt and further in view of Junius et al disclose the method of claim 18, but do not expressly disclose wherein the suppression tracks a frequency shift of the feedback frequency band. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pandey et al disclose a method wherein the suppression tracks a frequency shift of the feedback frequency band (Pandey et al; Para [0024][0030][0052]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the feedback suppression taught by Pandey as feedback suppression in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to suppress the offending frequency (Pandey et al; Para [0006]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 2024/0334133 A1) in view of Klinkby et al (US 2006/0291681 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Steele et al disclose the wearable audio device of claim 20, comprising an audio feedback suppression module configured for executing a method of detecting an audio feedback condition in the wearable audio device (Steele et al; Para [0005]; hearing device interpreted as wearable audio device), according to a method comprising: receiving a series of time frames of a time-domain audio signal, each pair of consecutive time frames of the series of time frames being, at least partly, shifted in time by a time interval (Steele et al; Para [0033]; consecutives time frames is interpreted as frames shifted in time by a time interval), detecting a presence of a pure tone in the series of time frames (Steele et al; Para [0010]-[0011]) including: determining in a frequency domain, a phase spectrum for each time frame over a plurality of frequency bands (Steele et al; Para [0053][0014][0083]), for each frequency band of the plurality of frequency bands, determining a phase correlation across the determined phase spectra (Steele et al; Para [0083]), and generating a pure tone detection signal in case a predefined phase correlation criterion is met (Steele et al; Para [0014]; [0087]; fixed phase difference across frame interpreted as a predefined phase correlation criterion is met) but do not expressly disclose and wherein the audio feedback suppression module configured for, in case an audio feedback condition is detected at a frequency band, selectively suppressing the magnitude of the audio signal at said frequency band. However, in the same field of endeavor, Klinkby et al disclose a method wherein the audio feedback suppression module configured for, in case an audio feedback condition is detected at a frequency band, selectively suppressing the magnitude of the audio signal at said frequency band (Klinkby et al; Para [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the feedback suppression taught by Klinkby as feedback suppression in the device taught by Steele. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a faster and more uniform adaptation speed of the feedback cancellation system (Klinkby et al; Para [0013]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights