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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 8/25/26 and 6/23/26 have been considered.
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 1, 5-9, 11-17 and 19-25 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.
Each of independent claims 1 and 14 have been amended to include limitations of “at least one microphone” and “the one or more microphones”. It is not clear from the language set forth if these phrases refer to the same microphone(s) or if these phrases refer to different microphone(s). Clarification is needed. Similarly, claim 15 has been amended to set forth “plural microphones” and “at least one microphone”. It is not clear from the language set forth if these phrases refer to the same microphone(s) or if these phrases refer to different microphone(s). If they (the phrases) do refer to the same microphone(s) then consistent terminology must be set forth in the claim; and if they are meant to refer to different microphone(s) then the claim should clearly distinguish one microphone(s) from the other microphone(s). Dependent claims 5-9, 11-13, 16, 17, 19 and 20-25 inherit this confusing language without clarification. Claim 15 sets forth “the stereo audio”, lines 5-6 which lacks positive antecedent basis.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11-17 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Each of independent claims 1 and 14 have been amended (by the use of language “at least one” and “one or more”) that provides an interpretation that only one signal is used for beamforming processing. This is not supported by the original written disclosure and therefore considered as new matter that must be cancelled. The process of beamforming requires at least two signals that are inputted and not as set forth the possibility of only one inputted signal. See for example applicants figure 18. Also, each of claims 1 and 14 set forth “noise reduction” from a signal from “one or more microphones’ or from “one or more signals” from at least one microphone. Claim 15 has been amended to include limitations directed to “beamforming on signals from the plural microphones” and “noise reduction on the signals from at least one microphone”. These phrases can be interpreted as one microphone used for noise reduction. This amended language is not supported by the original written disclosure and therefore considered as new matter that must be cancelled. It appears that noise reduction is performed on the signals from plural microphones and not only a single microphone as set forth. See for example applicants figure 18. Claims 5-9, 11-13, 16, 17, 19 and 20-25 inherit the languge with the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-9, 11-17 and 19-25 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.
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 ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 9/24/26
