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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 08/13/2026.
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, 8, 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gauger, Jr et al. (US 20160351183 A1).
Regarding claim 11: Gauger teaches a headphone for controlling output to allow a user to perceive ambient sounds, the headphone comprising:
a microphone (Fig. 3: external microphone 108 and feedback system microphone 106); and
a controller connected to the microphone, the controller comprising:
a processor (para [0017]), and
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program (Fig. 1: Storage 124 and para [0038]) that, when executed the processor causes the controller to:
simultaneously initiate operation of an active noise cancellation link and a first transparent transmission link (Fig. 3: Feedforward filter Kff and feedback filter Kfb read on the claimed active noise cancellation link; and active hear-through filter Kht reads on the claimed first transparent transmission link);
acquire, via the microphone, external audio signals (Fig. 3: external sounds are picked up by the microphone 108 and remained external sounds picked up by the microphone 106);
perform, by the active noise cancellation link, active noise cancellation on the external audio signals to obtain anti-noise signals (Fig. 3: external microphone 108 audio signals filtered by Feedforward filter Kff; and microphone 106 audio signals filtered by feedback filter Kfb);
output, via a speaker, the anti-noise signals (Fig. 3: Filtered signals of filter Kff and filter Kfb are output via speaker 104);
perform, by the first transparent transmission link, noise reduction on a non-target-type audio signal in the external audio signals using a noise reduction model to obtain a noise-reduced audio signal, which corresponds to predicted speech signals of target-type audio signals, the predicted speech signals being output by the noise reduction model (Fig. 3: Microphone 108 audio signals filtered by filter Kht; also see para [0098]-[0100]: the user speech and the response party’s speech reads on the claimed predicted speech signals of target-type audio signals; and para [0053]: filter Kht defined by mathematical presentation according to Equations (1) and (2) reads on the claimed noise reduction model); and
output, via the speaker, the noise-reduced audio signal, which corresponds to the predicted speech signals (Fig. 3: Filtered signals of filter Kht are output via speaker 104).
Regarding claim 18: Gauger teaches the headphone according to claim 11, wherein the computer program, when executed, causes the controller to, based on receiving a trigger command of a selective transparent transmission mode, simultaneously initiate operation of the active noise cancellation link and the first transparent transmission link (para [0098]: checking the correlation and the level of the signals for values consistent with the user speaking, the headphones can determine when the user is speaking, and activate the active hear-through system accordingly).
Regarding claims 1 and 8: the headphone discussed in claims 11 and 18 above also supports these corresponding method claims.
Regarding claim 20: the headphone discussed in claim 11 above also supports this corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium 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 Gauger, Jr et al. (US 20160351183 A1) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 10: Gauger teaches the headphone control method according to claim 1, wherein the external audio signals are analyzed and processed based on the signal spectrum and frequency range (para [0057]).
Gauger does not explicitly teach before performing noise reduction, performing at least one of: framing the external audio signals by dividing the audio signals into segments; converting the external audio signals from a time domain to a frequency domain; and dynamically compressing the external audio signals.
However, it is well-known in the art, in order to analyze and process the external audio signals based on the signal spectrum and frequency range, the external audio signals are commonly converted from a time domain to a frequency domain (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 modify Gauger in view of Official Notice to convert the external audio signals from a time domain to a frequency domain. The motivation is to provide a proper form of the external audio signals for analyzing and processing the signals based on the signal spectrums and frequency ranges.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9, 12-17, and 19 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
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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 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