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 correspondence filed 16 July 2026 in reference to application 18/910,778. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 16 July 2026 has been accepted and considered in this office action. Claim 1, 3, 8, 10, 14, and 17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5, 12, and 19 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.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 each specify “computing the current volume based on an average value of maximum absolute amplitudes associated with a set of audio frames that are previous to the current audio frame in the plurality of audio frames in the far-end sound.” However the independent claims from which these claims depend specify “the current volume equals a maximum absolute amplitude of all samples in the current audio frame when the current audio frame includes speech.” Both cannot be true and the current volume cannot be calculated in two different manners at the same time. Therefore these claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US PAP 2023/0162754) in view of Nathan et al. (US Patent 7,107,109).
Consider claim 1, Yeh teaches a computer-implemented method for audio limiting in a call downlink (abstract), comprising:
receiving far-end sound from a far-end device through an audio limiting module at a near-end device (0022, input audio stream);
performing voice activity detection on the far-end sound to detect whether speech is included in the far-end sound (0024, VAD voice detection on input stream);
for a current audio frame of a plurality of audio frames in the far-end sound, adjusting a current volume for the current audio frame by calculating a difference between the current volume and a target volume to compute a gain (0027-34, calculating loudness of the signal and setting the gain, ant 0044, the gain may be a difference between target loudness and signal loudness), and
applying the gain to the current audio frame to generate an adjusted far-end sound (0036, applying the gains to the signal); and
playing the adjusted far-end sound via a speaker of the near-end device (0036-37, 0068, playing streaming signal to a user, 0068, output may be over speaker configurations.).
Yeh does not specifically teach wherein the current volume equals a maximum absolute amplitude of all samples in the current audio frame when the current audio frame includes speech.
In the same field of automatic volume control, Nathan teaches wherein the current volume equals a maximum absolute amplitude of all samples in the current audio frame when the current audio frame includes speech (col 3 lines 45-52, determining volume be calculating the maximum voltage in absolute values, processed on a per frame basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use absolute value of maximum to determine loudness in order to determine loudness in a simple way that requires minimal computation.
Consider claim 6, Yen teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein applying the gain to the current audio frame further comprises:
limiting the gain to a range between an upper threshold and a lower threshold (0033-34, limiting gain based on range of desired loudness, alternatively, ); and
smoothing the gain that is applied to the current audio frame (0036, smoothed gains applied).
Consider claim 8, Yeh teaches A system for audio limiting in a call downlink (abstract), comprising:
an audio limiting module of a near-end device configured to (see figure 1, figure 4):
receive far-end sound from a far-end device through an audio limiting module at a near-end device (0022, input audio stream);
perform voice activity detection on the far-end sound to detect whether speech is included in the far-end sound (0024, VAD voice detection on input stream);
for a current audio frame of a plurality of audio frames in the far-end sound, adjust a current volume for the current audio frame by calculating a difference between the current volume and a target volume to compute a gain (0027-34, calculating loudness of the signal and setting the gain, ant 0044, the gain may be a difference between target loudness and signal loudness), and
applying the gain to the current audio frame to generate an adjusted far-end sound (0036, applying the gains to the signal); and
a speaker configured to play the adjusted far-end sound (0036-37, 0068, playing streaming signal to a user, 0068, output may be over speaker configurations.).
Yeh does not specifically teach wherein the current volume equals a maximum absolute amplitude of all samples in the current audio frame when the current audio frame includes speech.
In the same field of automatic volume control, Nathan teaches wherein the current volume equals a maximum absolute amplitude of all samples in the current audio frame when the current audio frame includes speech (col 3 lines 45-52, determining volume be calculating the maximum voltage in absolute values, processed on a per frame basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use absolute value of maximum to determine loudness in order to determine loudness in a simple way that requires minimal computation.
Claim 13 contains similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 15, Yeh teaches A non-transient computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a near-end device, cause the one or more processors to execute audio limiting in a call downlink (0073-74, computer readable media and programs) by performing the steps of:
receiving far-end sound from a far-end device through an audio limiting module at a near-end device (0022, input audio stream);
performing voice activity detection on the far-end sound to detect whether speech is included in the far-end sound (0024, VAD voice detection on input stream);
for a current audio frame of a plurality of audio frames in the far-end sound, adjusting a current volume for the current audio frame by calculating a difference between the current volume and a target volume to compute a gain (0027-34, calculating loudness of the signal and setting the gain, ant 0044, the gain may be a difference between target loudness and signal loudness), and
applying the gain to the current audio frame to generate an adjusted far-end sound (0036, applying the gains to the signal); and
playing the adjusted far-end sound via a speaker of the near-end device (0036-37, 0068, playing streaming signal to a user, 0068, output may be over speaker configurations.).
Yeh does not specifically teach wherein the current volume equals a maximum absolute amplitude of all samples in the current audio frame when the current audio frame includes speech.
In the same field of automatic volume control, Nathan teaches wherein the current volume equals a maximum absolute amplitude of all samples in the current audio frame when the current audio frame includes speech (col 3 lines 45-52, determining volume be calculating the maximum voltage in absolute values, processed on a per frame basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use absolute value of maximum to determine loudness in order to determine loudness in a simple way that requires minimal computation.
Claim 20 contains similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen and Nathan as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US Patent 11,162,592).
Consider claim 2, Yen and Nathan teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and although Yen discusses using SNR, Yen and Nathan do not specifically teach wherein performing the voice activity detection comprises:
calculating a signal-to-noise ratio of the current audio frame through noise estimation; and
upon determining that the signal-to-noise ratio is higher than a predetermined threshold, determining that the current audio frame includes speech.
In the same field of speech signal normalization, Wu teaches wherein performing the voice activity detection comprises:
calculating a signal-to-noise ratio of the current audio frame through noise estimation (Col 18 lines 29-46, figure 8c, determining an SNR based on loudness estimates and noise estimates); and
upon determining that the signal-to-noise ratio is higher than a predetermined threshold, determining that the current audio frame includes speech (Col 18 lines 29-46, figure 8c, if SNR is above a threshold then speech is detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use a SNR based VAD as taught by Wu in the system of Yen and Nathan in order to use a simple and well-known technique to perform VAD.
Consider claim 4, Yen and Nathan teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, and although Yen discusses using SNR, Yen and Nathan do not specifically teach wherein performing the voice activity detection comprises:
calculating a signal-to-noise ratio of the current audio frame through noise estimation; and
upon determining that the signal-to-noise ratio is not higher than a predetermined threshold, determining that the current audio frame does not include speech.
In the same field of speech signal normalization, Wu teaches wherein performing the voice activity detection comprises:
calculating a signal-to-noise ratio of the current audio frame through noise estimation (Col 18 lines 29-46, figure 8c, determining an SNR based on loudness estimates and noise estimates); and
upon determining that the signal-to-noise ratio is not higher than a predetermined threshold, determining that the current audio frame does not include speech (Col 18 lines 29-46, figure 8c, if SNR is below a threshold then speech not detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use a SNR based VAD as taught by Wu in the system of Yen and Nathan in order to use a simple and well-known technique to perform VAD.
Claim 9 contains similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 11 contains similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 contains similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18 contains similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen and Nathan and Wu as applied to claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Christoph (US PAP 2020/0227065).
Consider claim 3, Yen and Nathan and Nathan and Wu teach The computer-implemented method of claim 2, but does not specifically teach wherein adjusting the current volume for the current audio frame further comprises computing the current volume based on a maximum absolute amplitude of all samples in the current audio frame.
In the same field of audio signal normalization, Christoph teaches herein adjusting the current volume for the current audio frame further comprises computing the current volume based on a maximum absolute amplitude of all samples in the current audio frame (0051, using maximum absolute value to determine loudness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use maximum absolute amplitude as taught by Christoph in the system of Yen and Nathan and Wu in order to provide a simple method of calculating the loudness of the signal.
Consider claim 5, Yen and Nathan and Wu teach The computer-implemented method of claim 4, but does not specifically teach wherein adjusting the current volume for the current audio frame further comprises computing the current volume based on an average value of maximum absolute amplitudes associated with a set of audio frames that are previous to the current audio frame in the plurality of audio frames in the far-end sound.
In the same field of audio signal normalization, Christoph teaches wherein adjusting the current volume for the current audio frame further comprises computing the current volume based on an average value of maximum absolute amplitudes associated with a set of audio frames that are previous to the current audio frame in the plurality of audio frames in the far-end sound (0051, if VAD set to 0, previous frames RMS values used for level calculation. Thus where there are multiple frames with no voice activity, the level would represent the “average” of those previous frames as they keep repeating the same value.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use maximum absolute amplitude and repeat previous loudness values for unvoiced frames as taught by Christoph in the system of Yen and Nathan and Wu in order to provide a simple method of calculating the loudness of the signal and to prevent unwanted amplification of noise.
Claim 10 contains similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 contains similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17 contains similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 contains similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen and Nathan in view of Lee (US Patent 10,674,265).
Consider claim 7, Yen and Nathan teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the near-end device is an earphone, the far-end device is a mobile phone, and the near-end device is connected to the far-end device via a Bluetooth connection.
In the same field of automatic level control Lee teaches wherein the near-end device is an earphone, the far-end device is a mobile phone, and the near-end device is connected to the far-end device via a Bluetooth connection (col 4 lines 45 col 5 line 10, near end device may be Bluetooth headset connect to another device such as a mobile phone for streaming audio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to perform volume control in a Bluetooth headset as taught by Lee in the system of Yen and Nathan in order to enhance the listening experience of a user using portable electronic headsets.
Claim 14 contains similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DOUGLAS C GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-1451. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-5pm Monday-Thursday.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
DOUGLAS GODBOLD
Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/DOUGLAS GODBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights