DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-16 are currently pending and examined below.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed on 11/12/2024 have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Statements (IDSs) filed on 11/12/2024, 11/05/2025 have been accepted/considered and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Priority
4. The Applicants priority to Japanese Patent Application # 2022-084452, filed on May 24, 2022, has been accepted and considered in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. Claims 1-16 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. Claim limitations in these claims (spatial filter control unit, an acoustic processing unit, voice spatial correlation calculating unit, noise spatial correlation calculating unit, spatial filter calculating unit etc.) have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “unit…” coupled with functional language “controls, calculates, suppresses, emphasizes, outputs etc.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claims 1-16 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq., MPEP § 2181 (subsection I), and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). The Examiner would like to reiterate in the end that this is an interpretation and not a rejection.
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 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.
6. Claims 1-2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Higuchi (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP019045576). This Application is part of the record as it is disclosed by the Applicant in their IDS filed on 11/05/2025.
With regards to claim 1, Higuchi teaches an acoustic signal processing device comprising one or more hardware processors configured to function as a spatial filter control unit that outputs a spatial filter used for emphasizing a target voice component and for suppressing a noise component with respect to N number of temporally-synchronized acoustic signals recorded at different positions, N being an integer equal to or greater than 2 (Para 10, teaches calculating a noise suppression filter. Para 14, teaches that it is assumed that M acoustic signals, where M is an integer greater than or equal to 2. Paragraphs 118-128, teach the use of hardware elements including processors, memory devices and computers etc.)
a spatial filter storing unit that stores therein the spatial filter (Para 10, teaches a noise suppression step of calculating a noise suppression filter based on the noisy target signal spatial covariance matrix and the noise spatial covariance matrix, and applying the noise suppression filter to the input audio signal to extract the target speech. This application of said filter inherently means that the filter is stored, even if temporarily);
and an acoustic processing unit that, using the spatial filter read from the spatial filter storing unit, emphasizes a target voice component in an acoustic signal, and suppresses a noise component in the acoustic signal (Para 10, teaches a noise suppression step of calculating a noise suppression filter based on the noisy target signal spatial covariance matrix and the noise spatial covariance matrix, and applying the noise suppression filter to the input audio signal to extract the target speech);
wherein the spatial filter control unit includes a determining unit that determines whether the acoustic signal represents a target voice or a noise (Para 4, teaches a spatial covariance calculation unit that calculates a time-frequency mask that
indicates whether the target speech or noise is dominant at each time-frequency point);
a voice spatial correlation calculating unit that calculates a voice spatial correlation matrix using a voice section which, among the acoustic signals, is determined to represent the target voice (Para 4, further teaches that the spatial covariance calculation unit next uses the time-frequency mask to calculate the features of the acoustic signal at the time-frequency points where the target speech is dominant);
a noise spatial correlation calculating unit that calculates a noise spatial correlation matrix using a noise section which, among the acoustic signals, is determined to represent the noise (Para 4, further teaches that the spatial covariance calculation unit also uses the time-frequency mask to calculate the features of the acoustic signal at time-frequency points where noise is dominant);
a spatial correlation storing unit that stores therein the voice spatial correlation matrix and the noise spatial correlation matrix (Para 4, further teaches calculating the spatial covariance matrix of the target signal under noise, which is the spatial covariance matrix of the acoustic signal containing both the target speech and noise, based on the features);
and a spatial filter calculating unit that, from the voice spatial correlation matrix and the noise spatial correlation matrix read from the spatial correlation storing unit, calculates the spatial filter used for emphasizing the target voice component and for suppressing the noise component (Paragraphs 4-5, teach calculating a noise spatial covariance matrix, which is the spatial covariance matrix of the acoustic signal containing only noise, based on the features. The noise suppressor then calculates a noise suppression filter based on the acoustic signal, the noisy target signal space covariance matrix, and the noise space covariance matrix, and applies the calculated noise suppression filter to the observed signal to extract the target speech).
With regards to claim 2, Higuchi teaches acoustic signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein at least the voice spatial correlation calculating unit, when the determining unit determines that the acoustic signal represents the target voice, performs a voice spatial correlation matrix updating operation of reading the voice spatial correlation matrix from the spatial correlation storing unit, updating the voice spatial correlation matrix, and writing the updated voice spatial correlation matrix in the spatial correlation storing unit;
or the noise spatial correlation calculating unit, when the determining unit determines that the acoustic signal represents the noise, performs a noise spatial correlation matrix updating operation of reading the noise spatial correlation matrix from the spatial correlation storing unit, updating the noise spatial correlation matrix, and writing the updated noise spatial correlation matrix in the spatial correlation storing unit (Paragraphs 78-102, detail the process of updating the noisy target signal spatial covariance matrix and the noise spatial covariance matrix using the time frequency mask).
With regards to claim 15, this is a method claim for the corresponding device claim 1. These two claims are related as device and method of using the same, with each claimed device element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 15 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to device claim 1.
With regards to claim 16, this is a computer program product (CPP) claim for the corresponding device claim 1. These two claims are related as device and CPP of using the same, with each claimed CPP element's function corresponding to the claimed device step. Accordingly, claim 16 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to device claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 3-14 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. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not currently suggest or teach the invention as outlined in these claims. More detailed reasons for allowance will be outlined as and when the Application proceeds to allowability because final allowed claim language maybe different from the instant claim scope.
Conclusion
8. The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kinoshita (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0366502 A1), Wilson (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2009/0132245 A1). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). In case you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJ SHARMA whose contact information is given below. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis-Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799 (Direct Phone). The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NEERAJ SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
571-270-5487 (Direct Phone)
571-270-6487 (Direct Fax)
neeraj.sharma@uspto.gov (Direct Email)
Prosecution Insights