The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim 1 is objected to on line 13 because “)b)” should be “(b)”.
Claim 3 is objected to on line 3 because “being able to be applied” should be changed to “being applied”.
Claim 3 is further objected to on lines 3-4 because “before the neural layer” should be changed to “before the at least one neural layer”.
Claim 9 is objected to on line 14 because “determining the presence” should be changed to “determining presence”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite on line 19 because it is not understood what one means by “a first convolutional neural”. Perhaps the claim should be amended to be “a first convolutional neural network” to clarify the claim language.
Claim 1 is further indefinite on line 20, on line 21, and on line 22, for using the phrase “able to”. Since the phrase “able to” indicates that something has the capability to do something, but does not necessarily mean that it is actually going to be done, it is unclear what one is exactly claiming here.
Claim 3 is indefinite on line 1 because the claim depends from a canceled claim.
Claim 5 is indefinite on line 4 because for using the phrase “able to”. Since the phrase “able to” indicates that something has the capability to do something, but does not necessarily mean that it is actually going to be done, it is unclear what one is exactly claiming here.
Claim 8 is indefinite on line 4 for using the phrase “able to”. Since the phrase “able to” indicates that something has the capability to do something, but does not necessarily mean that it is actually going to be done, it is unclear what one is exactly claiming here.
Claim 9 is indefinite on line 9 because there is no positive antecedent basis for “the directions of arrival”.
Claim 9 is further indefinite on line 10 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the speaker”. Is one referring to one of “the loudspeakers” recited herein, and if so which specific loudspeaker of the “at least one loudspeaker” is one referring to herein, or is one referring to an element different from the at least one loudspeaker? Perhaps the claim should be amended to be “a spectrogram of directions of arrival of the received audio signal, from the received audio signal acquired by each of the plurality of microphones,” as recited in similar claim 1 to clarify the claim language.
Claim 9 is further indefinite on line 17 because it is not understood what one means by “a first convolutional neural”. Perhaps the claim should be amended to be “a first convolutional neural network” to clarify the claim language.
Claim 9 is further indefinite on line 18, on line 19, and on line 20, for using the phrase “able to”. Since the phrase “able to” indicates that something has the capability to do something, but does not necessarily mean that it is actually going to be done, it is unclear what one is exactly claiming here.
Claim 11 is indefinite throughout the claim for similar reasons as explained with reference to claim 1 and claim 8 as explained above and as explained in the non-final rejection mailed March 30, 2026. Claim 11 should be rewritten to include amended claim 1 and amended claim 8, as rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in the Office actions.
Claims 1 and 3-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the objections to the claims, set forth in this Office action.
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered, but the amendments to the claims do not overcome all the 112 rejections as set forth in the last office action. Please address all the 112 rejections AND the objections to the claims as explained above to put the application in conditions for allowance.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
July 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights