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) was submitted on 11/05/2024. 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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “preprocessing unit” and “calculation unit” in claims 1-11.
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)(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 1-2, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sontacchi et al. (US 20160353202 A9).
Regarding claim 1: Sontacchi teaches a device for reducing noise when reproducing an audio signal with a near-head audio output device, in particular headphones or a hearing aid (Fig. 5: Headphone with an earpiece 1), with
at least one sensor for detecting a sensor signal based on ambient sound and/or structure-borne sound (Fig. 5: Microphone 2 to sense outside noises);
a preprocessing unit for preprocessing the sensor signal or the sensor signals, wherein the preprocessing unit carries out filtering and/or summation for active noise suppression, active suppression of the occlusion effect and/or an ambient mode (Fig. 5: digitally simulated secondary path S reads on the claimed preprocessing unit);
a filter bank for dividing the sensor signal or the output signal of the preprocessing unit into frequency bands using a plurality of filters (Fig. 5: a first filter bank includes several analog filters H1 . . . Hn and a second filter bank includes several analog filters Ḣ1…Ḣn ; also see para [0025] and [0029]);
one or more calculation units for calculating weighting factors for the individual frequency bands, the weighting factors being calculated based on a measure of the signal of the sensor or the output signal of the preprocessing unit in the respective frequency band and a measure of the noise signal of the sensor or the output signal of the preprocessing unit in silence in this frequency band (Fig. 5: logic implementing a LMS algorithm block reads on the claimed calculation unit and para [0030]);
multipliers, by means of which the individual frequency bands are multiplied by the associated calculated weighting factors (Fig. 5: voltage-controlled amplifiers 4 applying weight factors W generated by LMS to each individual frequency band reads on the claimed multipliers; also see para [0030]);
an adder, by means of which the weighted output signals of the filter bank are summed to form an overall output signal (Fig. 5: adder 5 and para [0030]); and
an output unit for outputting a compensation signal based on the overall output signal (Fig. 5: Speaker 3 and para [0030]).
Regarding claim 2: Sontacchi teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the weighting factors are calculated based on the estimated power or standard deviation of the sensor signal or the output signal of the preprocessing unit in the respective frequency band and the estimated power or standard deviation of the noise signal of the sensor or the output signal of the preprocessing unit in silence in this frequency band (Fig. 5: LMS block generating weight factors W based on the output signal of the digitally simulated secondary path S and the error signal senses by the microphone 7 which considered as a denoised signal).
Regarding claim 9: Sontacchi teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises one or more internal microphones arranged in an earpiece for detecting a sound signal in the ear canal of a user and/or external microphones for detecting a sound signal outside the ear canal and/or acceleration sensors for detecting structure-borne sound which is transmitted to the earpiece via the ear canal, and the output unit comprises at least one loudspeaker (Fig. 5: microphone 7 to detect a sound signal in the ear canal of a user, microphone 2 to detect a sound signal outside the ear canal, and speaker 6).
Regarding claim 11: Sontacchi teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein it is integrated in a near-head audio output device, in particular a headphone or hearing aid (Fig. 5: all device components are integrated inside of earpiece 1).
Regarding claim 12: the device discussed in claim 1 above also supports this corresponding method claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sontacchi et al. (US 20160353202 A9) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 10: Sontacchi teaches the device according to claim 1 but does not teach the filters of the filter bank are realized by cascaded biquadratic filters as low-pass, high-pass and/or band-pass filters.
However, it is well-known in the art that a filter bank is a set of filters that process different frequency bands of a signal, often used in multiband processing and commonly realized with cascaded biquadratic filters, each biquadratic section can be designed to have a specific frequency response (low-pass, high-pass, band-pass, peaking, etc.) and then combined to form a complete filter bank (Official Notice).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Sontacchi in view of Official Notice to have the filter bank realized by cascaded biquadratic filters as low-pass, high-pass and/or band-pass filters.
The motivation of the realization by biquadratic filters is allowing control over passband shape, stopband rejection, and peaking; stable implementation, low sensitivity to coefficient quantization. The motivation of cascading biquadratic filters is to reduce sensitivity to coefficient errors and allows independent tuning of each section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following is the list of prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McCutcheon et al. (US 20220223133 A1)
Rosenkranz (EP 3565270 B1)
Thormundsson et al. (US 11030989 B2)
Christoph et al. (US 20160314778 A1)
Christoph (EP 2996111 A1)
Alves et al. (US 20120170766 A1)
Bakalos et al. (US 20110243344 A1)
Bakalos et al. (US 20100274564 A1)
Sheikhzadeh et al. (EP 1638079 A2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L TON whose telephone number is (571)270-7839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 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 (571)272-7848. 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.
/DAVID L TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights