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 .
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.
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(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (US 2021/0014597 A1 and hereinafter Andersen) in view of Goldstein et al. (US 2014/0341388 A1 and hereafter Goldstein).
Regarding claim 1, Andersen teaches a “noise reduction earphone” by teaching an in-ear headphone with active noise cancellation (ANC) features (see Andersen, abstract, ¶ 0023 and 0045, and figures 1A-1B, unit 4),
“comprising:
a memory configured to store a target frequency response curve and a target frequency response difference corresponding to a sound signal, wherein the sound signal comprises a low frequency signal” by teaching a memory for storing instructions used by a processor for performing the processing disclosed therein, such as determining the difference between a measured frequency response and a target frequency response (see Andersen, ¶ 0039 and 0104, and claims 8-10);
“a speaker” by teaching a speaker for an in-ear headphone (see Andersen, ¶ 0035 and figure 2, units 4 and 22);
“a feedback microphone configured to collect a feedback signal corresponding to the sound signal” by teaching an internal microphone captures sound inside the user’s ear canal (see Andersen, ¶ 0035 and 0037, and figure 2, unit 23); and
“a processor connected to the memory, the speaker and the feedback microphone, and configured to perform a calibration process … after receiving a start signal” by teaching a controller, or microprocessor, that performs an ear tip fitting measurement process after detecting the in-ear presence of the in-ear headphone, such that the detection is a start signal to perform the process (see Andersen, ¶ 0035, 0038, and 0062, and figure 2, unit 26),
“wherein the calibration process for feedback noise reduction comprises the following steps:
(a) controlling the speaker to play the sound signal” by teaching that the speaker is driven by an audio signal, such as a predefined test audio signal (see Andersen, ¶ 0063 and 0080, and figure 4, steps 61-62);
“(b) receiving the feedback signal” by capturing the output audio signal with the internal microphone (see Andersen, ¶ 0063 and figure 4, step 63); [and]
“(c) generating a feedback frequency response curve based on the feedback signal, and obtaining a feedback frequency response difference between the target frequency response curve and the feedback frequency response curve” by teaching a measured frequency response determined from the captured audio and that the measured frequency response is subtracted from a target frequency response (see Andersen, ¶ 0063-0064 and figure 4, steps 63-64).
Herein, Andersen teaches an ear tip fitting process to inform the user if the ear tip correctly fits, and teaches that the ear fitting process repeats until the calculated difference between the feedback frequency response curve detected by the internal microphone and the target frequency response reaches an acceptable threshold (see Andersen, ¶ 0052-0054, 0075, and 0087, and figures 1A-B and 3). While, Andersen teaches the in-ear headphone having an ANC feature (see Andersen, ¶ 0045). Andersen does not appear to teach the features wherein the calibration process is “for feedback noise reduction”, such that Andersen teaches the calibration process is for an ear tip fitting and/or ear tip fitting while performing the ANC processing (see Andersen, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0038, and 0084-0086), and Andersen does not appear to teach the features for “(d) adjusting a low-frequency gain of the feedback microphone when it is determined that the feedback frequency response difference is less than or greater than the target frequency response difference”.
Goldstein teaches an adaptive audio equalization (EQ) processor to adjust an EQ filter for personal listening devices (see Goldstein, abstract and figure 1). Goldstein teaches a combination of active noise cancellation (ANC) and adaptive audio EQ to improve the overall listening experience and provide a consistent low frequency response that loose fitting earbuds create (see Goldstein, ¶ 0003-0005). Herein, Goldstein teaches an adaptive EQ filter that changes the gain of a low frequency shelf filter to provide a level of low frequency boost, where the amount of gain depends on a detected level of acoustic leakage that impacts the low frequency response (see Goldstein, ¶ 0025-0026, figures 2A-2B and 3B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Andersen with the teachings of Goldstein to improve the overall listening experience and provide a consistent low frequency response that loose fitting earbuds create (see Andersen, ¶ 0017 and 0019, in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0003-0005).
Therefore, the combination of Andersen and Goldstein makes obvious the features for:
“a processor connected to the memory, the speaker and the feedback microphone, and configured to perform a calibration process for feedback noise reduction after receiving a start signal” where Andersen teaches a controller, or microprocessor, that performs an ear tip fitting measurement process after detecting the in-ear presence of the in-ear headphone, such that the detection is a start signal to perform the process (see Andersen, ¶ 0035, 0038, and 0062, and figure 2, unit 26), and Goldstein makes obvious that the ear tip fitting measurement is used to adjust, or calibrate, the in-ear headphone for improved feedback noise reduction with varying ear tip fitting conditions (see Goldstein, ¶ 0044-0046),
…
“(d) adjusting a low-frequency gain of the feedback microphone when it is determined that the feedback frequency response difference is less than or greater than the target frequency response difference” because Goldstein makes obvious changing the gain of a low frequency shelf filter (i.e., the adaptive EQ filter) to provide a level of low frequency boost, where the amount of gain depends on a detected level of acoustic leakage that impacts the low frequency response (see Andersen, ¶ 0063-0064 and 0066, in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0025-0026, figures 2A-2B and 3B)that an EQ filter, and
“returning to step (a) until it is determined that the feedback frequency response difference is equal to the target frequency response difference” because the combination makes obvious to continually correct the frequency response based on detected differences (see Andersen, ¶ 0052-0054, 0075, and 0087, in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0031 and 0046).
Regarding claim 2, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “noise reduction earphone according to claim 1, wherein the memory is further configured to store a range of amplitude difference, and the calibration process for feedback noise reduction further comprises the following steps: when it is determined that a difference between the feedback frequency response difference and the target frequency response difference exceeds the range of amplitude difference, not adjusting the low-frequency gain of the feedback microphone” because Andersen teaches that the ear tip fitting process may not be able to find a suitable ear tip seal according to its stored thresholds, and Goldstein teaches a low frequency shelf filter with a finite number of adjustable features stored in a look-up table, where these teachings make obvious that when a difference between the frequency responses exceeds a certain value, then the low frequency shelf filter would not be further adjusted (see Andersen, ¶ 0057, in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 5, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “noise reduction earphone according to claim 1, further comprising a wearing detection sensor connected to the processor and configured to output the start signal to the processor when detecting that the noise reduction earphone is worn by a user” by making it obvious to perform the calibration after detecting the in-ear presence of the in-ear headphone, such that the detection is a start signal to perform the process (see Andersen, ¶ 0035, 0038, and 0062, and figure 2, unit 26).
Regarding claim 6, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 5 above. The combination makes obvious the “noise reduction earphone according to claim 5, wherein the sound signal is a preset audio signal, and the preset audio signal comprises the low frequency signal” by teaching a test audio signal which comprises the necessary frequency content to compare with the target frequency response (see Andersen, ¶ 0068 and 0080).
Regarding claim 9, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. As stated above, Andersen teaches an ear tip fitting process (see Andersen, ¶ 0052-0054, 0075, and 0087, and figures 1A-B and 3), and an ANC feature (see Andersen, ¶ 0045). However, Andersen does not appear to teach the features wherein the calibration process is “for feedback noise reduction”, such that Andersen teaches the calibration process is for an ear tip fitting and/or ear tip fitting while performing the ANC processing (see Andersen, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0038, and 0084-0086), and Andersen does not appear to teach the features for “(d) adjusting a low-frequency gain of the feedback microphone when it is determined that the feedback frequency response difference is less than or greater than the target frequency response difference”.
Goldstein teaches an adaptive audio equalization (EQ) processor to adjust an EQ filter and teaches a combination of active noise cancellation (ANC) and adaptive audio EQ to improve the overall listening experience and provide a consistent low frequency response that loose fitting earbuds create (see Goldstein, ¶ abstract, 0003-0005, and figure 1). Herein, Goldstein teaches an adaptive EQ filter that changes the gain of a low frequency shelf filter to provide a level of low frequency boost, where the amount of gain depends on a detected level of acoustic leakage that impacts the low frequency response (see Goldstein, ¶ 0025-0026, figures 2A-2B and 3 B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Andersen with the teachings of Goldstein to improve the overall listening experience and provide a consistent low frequency response that loose fitting earbuds create (see Andersen, ¶ 0017 and 0019, in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0003-0005).
Therefore, the combination of Andersen and Goldstein makes obvious:
“A calibration method for noise reduction, which is applied to a noise reduction earphone comprising a memory” (see Andersen, abstract, ¶ 0023, 0039, 0045, and 0104, claims 8-10, and figures 1A-1B, unit 4, and see Goldstein, ¶ 0024 and 0049, figure 1, unit 1, figure 3A, unit 22, and figure 3B, unit 24), “a speaker and a feedback microphone” (see Andersen, ¶ 0035 and 0037, and figure 2, units 4 and 22-23, and see Goldstein, ¶ 0027 and figure 3A, unit 9 and ‘error microphone’), “and the calibration method for noise reduction comprising the following steps:
(A) receiving a start signal” by teaching an ear tip fitting measurement process after detecting the in-ear presence of the in-ear headphone, such that the detection is a start signal to perform the process (see Andersen, ¶ 0035, 0038, and 0062, and figure 2, unit 26) and making obvious to perform a calibration in the same manner to improve the overall listening experience and provide a consistent low frequency response that loose fitting earbuds create (see Andersen, ¶ 0062, in view of Goldstein, ¶ abstract, 0003-0005, 0028, and 0031, and figure 1);
“(B) controlling the speaker to play a sound signal, the sound signal includes a low-frequency signal” by playing the user audio content, a predefined test signal, or a dummy signal, such as white or pink noise, where the audio content and the colored noise include low-frequency content (see Andersen, ¶ 0063 and 0080, and figure 4, steps 61-62, and further see Goldstein, ¶ 0025 and 0031, and figure 3B);
“(C) receiving a feedback signal corresponding to the sound signal collected by the feedback microphone” by capturing the output audio signal with the internal microphone (see Andersen, ¶ 0063 and figure 4, step 63);
“(D) generating a feedback frequency response curve based on the feedback signal, and obtaining a feedback frequency response difference between a target frequency response curve corresponding to the sound signal stored in the memory and the feedback frequency response curve” by teaching a measured frequency response determined from the captured audio and that the measured frequency response is subtracted from a target frequency response (see Andersen, ¶ 0063-0064 and figure 4, steps 63-64); and
“(E) adjusting a low-frequency gain of the feedback microphone when it is determined that the feedback frequency response difference is less than or greater than a target frequency response difference stored in the memory” because Goldstein makes obvious changing the gain of a low frequency shelf filter (i.e., the adaptive EQ filter) to provide a level of low frequency boost, where the amount of gain depends on a detected level of acoustic leakage that impacts the low frequency response (see Andersen, ¶ 0063-0064 and 0066, in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0025-0026, figures 2A-2B and 3B)that an EQ filter, and
“returning to step (B) until it is determined that the feedback frequency response difference is equal to the target frequency response difference” because the combination makes obvious to continually correct the frequency response based on detected differences (see Andersen, ¶ 0052-0054, 0075, and 0087, in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0031 and 0046).
Regarding claim 10, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 9 above. The combination makes obvious the “calibration method for noise reduction according to claim 9, wherein the noise reduction earphone further comprises a wearing detection sensor, and the step (A) comprises: receiving the start signal output by the wearing detection sensor when detecting that the noise reduction earphone is worn by a user” by making it obvious to perform the calibration after detecting the in-ear presence of the in-ear headphone, such that the detection is a start signal to perform the process (see Andersen, ¶ 0035, 0038, and 0062, and figure 2, unit 26).
Regarding claim 12, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 9 above. The combination makes obvious the “calibration method for noise reduction according to claim 9, further comprising: when it is determined that a difference between the feedback frequency response difference and the target frequency response difference exceeds a range of amplitude difference stored in the memory, not adjusting the low-frequency gain of the feedback microphone” because Andersen teaches that the ear tip fitting process may not be able to find a suitable ear tip seal according to its stored thresholds, and Goldstein teaches a low frequency shelf filter with a finite number of adjustable features stored in a look-up table, where these teachings make obvious that when a difference between the frequency responses exceeds a certain value, then the low frequency shelf filter would not be further adjusted (see Andersen, ¶ 0057, in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0032-0033).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Andersen and Goldstein as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2020/0336833 A1 and hereafter Cho).
Regarding claim 3, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination of Andersen and Goldstein makes obvious the noise reduction earphone according to claim 1, where a start signal is received by a processor when the ANC mode starts and/or when detecting that the headset is worn (see Andersen, ¶ 0038 and 0062, and figure 2, unit 26). However, the combination does not appear to teach or reasonably suggest the features “wherein when the noise reduction earphone is powered on or the noise reduction earphone is connected to an external electronic device and obtains power, the processor receives the start signal”.
Cho teaches an audio adjustment method and circuit for ANC (see Cho, abstract). In particular, Cho teaches an ANC earphone that adjusts the noise cancelling coefficient according to a current environment, and teaches that the adjustment takes place when the ANC earphone is turned on (see Cho, ¶ 0024-0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination of Andersen and Goldstein with the teachings of Cho for the purpose of adjusting an ANC earphone to the current background noise level and the device components automatically (see Cho, ¶ 0003-0007).
Therefore, the combination of Andersen, Goldstein, and Cho makes obvious the “noise reduction earphone according to claim 1, wherein when the noise reduction earphone is powered on or the noise reduction earphone is connected to an external electronic device and obtains power, the processor receives the start signal” by making it obvious to adjust the ANC earphone settings when it is turned on so that it adjusts to the current environment and conditions (see Andersen, ¶ 0062-0064 in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0031, and further in view of Cho, ¶ 0025).
Regarding claim 4, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 3 above. The combination makes obvious the “noise reduction earphone according to claim 3, wherein the sound signal is a prompt audio signal when the noise reduction earphone is powered on or the noise reduction earphone is connected to the external electronic device and obtains the power, and the prompt audio signal comprises the low frequency signal” by teaching a test audio signal which comprises the necessary frequency content to compare with the target frequency response, and making it obvious to render the test audio signal when the earphone is powered on (see Andersen, ¶ 0068 and 0080, in view of Cho, ¶ 0024-0025).
Regarding claim 13, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 9 above. The combination of Andersen and Goldstein makes obvious the calibration method for noise reduction according to claim 9, where a start signal is received by a processor when the ANC mode starts and/or when detecting that the headset is worn (see Andersen, ¶ 0038 and 0062, and figure 2, unit 26). However, the combination does not appear to teach or reasonably suggest the features “wherein when the noise reduction earphone is powered on or the noise reduction earphone is connected to an external electronic device and obtains power, the processor receives the start signal”.
Cho teaches an audio adjustment method and circuit for ANC (see Cho, abstract). In particular, Cho teaches an ANC earphone that adjusts the noise cancelling coefficient according to a current environment, and teaches that the adjustment takes place when the ANC earphone is turned on (see Cho, ¶ 0024-0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination of Andersen and Goldstein with the teachings of Cho for the purpose of adjusting an ANC earphone to the current background noise level and the device components automatically (see Cho, ¶ 0003-0007).
Therefore, the combination of Andersen, Goldstein, and Cho makes obvious the “calibration method for noise reduction according to claim 9, wherein the step (A) comprises: receiving the start signal when the noise reduction earphone is powered on or the noise reduction earphone is connected to an external electronic device and obtains power” by making it obvious to adjust the ANC earphone settings when it is turned on so that it adjusts to the current environment and conditions (see Andersen, ¶ 0062-0064 in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0031, and further in view of Cho, ¶ 0025).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Andersen and Goldstein as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2023/0080298 A1 and hereafter Yu).
Regarding claim 7, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination of Andersen and Goldstein makes obvious the noise reduction earphone according to claim 1, where Andersen teaches that a user can select a mode, such as the ANC mode, through speech recognition and/or in a user interface (UI) displayed on a display screen, and Goldstein teaches similar features (see Andersen, ¶ 0044-0045 and figure 2, units 9, 21, 26, and 33, and see Goldstein, ¶ 0022 and figure 1, units 2 and 4). However, the combination does not appear to explicitly teach the features of “a noise reduction key connected to the processor and configured to output the start signal to the processor when pressed”.
Yu teaches an ANC method and apparatus, where a group of filtering parameters, selected from a group of filtering parameters based on a wearing state of a headset, are used to perform noise cancellation in a headset (see Yu, abstract and figure 9). Similar to the combination, Yu teaches a touchscreen for enabling the ANC mode of the headset (see Yu, ¶ 0418-0420 and figure 17, units 1701 and 1703). Yu also teaches an alternative, where the headset has a button for enabling the ANC mode (see Yu, ¶ 0422). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination of Andersen and Goldstein with the teachings of Yu for the purpose of providing a different method for enabling the ANC mode that allows a user to enable the mode quicker than using a menu on a touchscreen.
Therefore, the combination of Andersen, Goldstein, and Yu makes obvious the “noise reduction earphone according to claim 1, further comprising a noise reduction key connected to the processor and configured to output the start signal to the processor when pressed” by making it obvious to start the ANC mode with an ANC button on the headset and a start signal is generated to perform the calibration of the ANC filtering (see Andersen, ¶ 0044-0045 and 0062 in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0022, and further in view of Yu, ¶ 0414 and 0422).
Regarding claim 8, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 7 above. The combination makes obvious the “noise reduction earphone according to claim 7, wherein the sound signal is a preset audio signal, and the preset audio signal comprises the low frequency signal” by teaching a test audio signal which comprises the necessary frequency content to compare with the target frequency response (see Andersen, ¶ 0068 and 0080).
Regarding claim 11, see the preceding rejection with respect to claims 7 and 9 above. The combination of Andersen and Goldstein makes obvious the calibration method for noise reduction according to claim 9, where Andersen teaches that a user can select a mode, such as the ANC mode, through speech recognition and/or in a user interface (UI) displayed on a display screen, and Goldstein teaches similar features (see Andersen, ¶ 0044-0045 and figure 2, units 9, 21, 26, and 33, and see Goldstein, ¶ 0022 and figure 1, units 2 and 4). However, the combination does not appear to explicitly teach the features of “a noise reduction key connected to the processor and configured to output the start signal to the processor when pressed”.
Yu teaches an ANC method and apparatus, where a group of filtering parameters, selected from a group of filtering parameters based on a wearing state of a headset, are used to perform noise cancellation in a headset (see Yu, abstract and figure 9), and teaches an alternative method for enabling the ANC mode with a button provided on the headset (see Yu, ¶ 0422). For the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination of Andersen and Goldstein with the teachings of Yu for the purpose of providing a different method for enabling the ANC mode that allows a user to enable the mode quicker than using a menu on a touchscreen (see Andersen, ¶ 0044-0045 and 0062 in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0022, and further in view of Yu, ¶ 0418-0420 and 0422).
Therefore, the combination of Andersen, Goldstein, and Yu makes obvious the “calibration method for noise reduction according to claim 9, wherein the noise reduction earphone further comprises a noise reduction key, and the step (A) comprises: receiving the start signal output when the noise reduction key is pressed” by making it obvious to start the ANC mode with an ANC button on the headset and a start signal is generated to perform the calibration of the ANC filtering (see Andersen, ¶ 0044-0045 and 0062 in view of Goldstein, ¶ 0022, and further in view of Yu, ¶ 0414 and 0422).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumari et al. (US 2020/0014996 A1 and hereafter Kumari) teaches a headphone off-ear detection device and method (see Kumari, abstract and figures 1A-2, 8, and 11-12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel R Sellers whose telephone number is (571)272-7528. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-4:00.
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 C 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.
/Daniel R Sellers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights