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 sent in response to Applicant’s communication received on 06/29/2026 for the application number 18946028. The office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following placed of record in the file: Specification, Abstract, Oath/Declaration and claims.
Status of the claims
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 - 17 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 is dependent upon itself, and thus does not further limit the subject matter of the claim on which it depends. For the sake of examination, the examiner will be treating claim 12 as dependent upon claim 11 instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 depends upon claim ‘q5’ which constitutes being of improper dependent form. For the sake of examination, the examiner will be treating claim 16 as dependent upon claim 15 instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained below.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising: at least one processor system configured to:
receive indication from at least one microphone of input energy, the input energy being of speech picked up by the microphone;
determine an adjustment to the gain of the input energy based on the input energy and a predetermined amplitude;
adjust a gain of the input energy to produce an output energy of the microphone that has an amplitude at least as great as a predetermined amplitude.
Step (a) comprises data gathering. This step merely receives an input used in the
subsequent gain calculation and is thus an insignificant pre-solutional activity.
Step (b) comprises a mathematical concept. This step determines a numerical gain adjustment based on the input and a predetermined amplitude.
Step (c) comprises insignificant post solutional activity. This step merely applies the calculated gain adjustment to produce the resulting output.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any
statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least method. Thus, the claim is a
process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). Step 2A, Prong
One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the
judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of step (b) recites a mathematical concept.
Specifically, Step (b) comprises a mathematical concept because it merely determines a numerical gain adjustment based on the input-energy amplitude, and a predetermined amplitude.
Hence the claim recites a mathematical concept, specifically a mathematical relationship and calculation involving the input-energy amplitude and a predetermined amplitude. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or
whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See
MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recited additional elements including at least one processor system and at least one microphone. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions, such as receiving data, processing data, generating content, and providing output. The use of these elements to gather input-energy information and apply the resulting numerical gain adjustment merely automates the mathematical concept described above using generic computer components. Such implementation does not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or
combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, at least one processor system and at least one microphone comprise additional elements that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities in the field such as receiving data, processing data, generating content, and providing
output. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As known in the art these elements are well understood, routine,
and conventional functions of a computing device. Even when considered in combination these
additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components and
perform insignificant extra - solutional activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites a mathematical concept as the claim merely requires determining a gain adjustment that places the output amplitude within predetermined numerical boundaries.
Claim 3 recites a mathematical concept as the claim merely requires determining a gain adjustment based on a relationship between microphone orientation and gain.
Claim 4 recites a mathematical concept as the claim merely requires correlating orientation to a numerical gain-adjustment factor and normalizing the resulting signal to a desired amplitude.
Claim 5 recites a mathematical concept as the claim uses a machine-learning model to determine a numerical gain adjustment based on orientation and input-energy data.
Claim 6 recites a mathematical concept as the claim trains a mathematical model using orientation values, input-energy values, and corresponding gain values.
Claim 7 does not recite an additional judicial exception, but merely confines performance of the recited gain determination to environment of a processor located in a microphone.
Claim 8 does not recite an additional judicial exception, but merely confines performance of the recited gain determination to environment of a computer game console.
Claim 9 does not recite an additional judicial exception, but merely applies the determined gain adjustment to all frequencies of the input signal.
Claim 10 does not recite an additional judicial exception, but merely applies the determined gain adjustment to selected frequencies of the input signal.
Claim 11 is analogous to claim 3 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 12 is analogous to claim 2 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 13 is analogous to claim 1 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 14 is analogous to claim 4 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 15 is analogous to claim 5 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 16 is analogous to claim 6 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 17 is analogous to claim 10 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for similar 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhaeghe et al. (US20170004845) in view of Zihajehzadeh (US 12225354 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Verhaeghe teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor system configured to (Para 0029, “a microprocessor 16 is added, with memory 17”): receive indication from at least one microphone of input energy (Para 0029, “receives audio signal strength information from the circuit 18”), the input energy being of speech picked up by the microphone (Para 0019, “The microphone 12 may be used for receiving speech input”);
Verhaeghe does not teach adjusting a gain of the input energy to produce an output energy of the microphone that has an amplitude at least as great as a predetermined amplitude.
However, Zihajehzadeh teaches adjusting a gain of the input energy to produce an output energy of the microphone that has an amplitude at least as great as a predetermined amplitude. (Col. 22, Ln. 51-54, “generate, using trained deep learning model, the parameters based on at least the audio signal and the motion signal, and transmit the parameters to the hearing aid.” Where Col. 22, Ln. 46-48, “The parameters can include at least one of a volume level, a gain-frequency response shape”, and Col. 18, Ln. 35-36, “At 612, the hearing aid may be configured to use the generated parameters (e.g., optimal user's settings)” where Zihajehzadeh produces the microphone output according to a generated volume level, thereby producing an output having at least a predetermined amplitude).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Verhaeghe before the effective filing date in order to incorporate the teachings of Zihajehzadeh in order to provide an output suited to the user’s listening needs, improving audibility (Col. 18).
Regarding claim 3, Verhaeghe teaches receiving indication of an orientation of the microphone (Para 0009, “and means for determining an orientation of the device with respect to a horizontal plane”); and using the indication of an orientation of the microphone to adjust the gain of the input energy (Para 0011, “the device is configured to adjust the gain of the audio signal amplifier such that the gain increases with an increasing angle of device with respect to the horizontal plane”).
Regarding claim 5, Verhaeghe does not teach inputting to a machine learning (ML) both the orientation and input energy; and adjusting the gain according to output of the ML model.
However, Zihajehzadeh teaches inputting to a machine learning (ML) both the orientation and input energy (Col. 22, Ln. 65 – Col. 23, Ln. 3, “In an example, the server may be further configured to combine the processed audio signal, … and the processed motion signal… for the ML model.” And Col. 22, Ln. 61-62, “processed motion signal, such as the processed motion signal 504, representing an orientation information”, along with Fig. 6 where both the audio signal (input energy) and the motion signal (orientation) are input into the model); and adjust the gain according to output of the ML model (Col. 22, Ln. 51-54, “generate, using trained deep learning model, the parameters based on at least the audio signal and the motion signal, and transmit the parameters to the hearing aid.” Where Col. 22, Ln. 46-48, “The parameters can include at least one of a volume level, a gain-frequency response shape”, and Col. 18, Ln. 35-36, “At 612, the hearing aid may be configured to use the generated parameters (e.g., optimal user's settings)” also see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6. Thus, when the system adjusts the volume based on the users’ parameters it is adjusting the gain (volume) based on the output of the ML model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Verhaeghe before the effective filing date in order to incorporate the teachings of Zihajehzadeh in order to improve gain accuracy across a wide variety of input conditions (Col. 22).
Regarding claim 6, Verhaeghe does not teach wherein the ML model is trained on data comprising pairs of orientation and input energy along with ground truth gain.
However, Zihajehzadeh teaches wherein the ML model is trained on data comprising pairs of orientation and input energy along with ground truth gain. (Fig. 5 shows the microphone signal (input energy) along with the motion signal (orientation) being input into together into the model for training together; and Col. 16, Ln. 55-59, “The ML model for the hearing aid may be trained using logged training data and logged user settings” where “the training user settings may include … gain-frequency-response which includes intensity (volume)”. Thus, the microphone signal provides input-energy information, the motion signal provides orientation information, and the logged volume/gain/frequency-response setting serves as the ground truth gain for the paired training data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Verhaeghe before the effective filing date in order to incorporate the teachings of Zihajehzadeh in order to improve gain accuracy across a wide variety of input conditions (Col. 22).
Regarding claim 9, Verhaeghe teaches adjust a gain of all frequencies of the input energy to produce the output energy. (Para 0029, the processor may select her appropriate gain value … and set the appropriate gain”, Verhaeghe adjusts the gain of the amplifier generally, without limiting the adjustment to selected frequencies)
Claim 11 is analogous to claim 3 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 is analogous to claim 1 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is analogous to claim 5 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 is analogous to claim 6 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2, 4, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhaeghe (US20170004845) and Zihajehzadeh (US 12225354 B2). as above in claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16 and further in view of McHann (US 8428201 B1)
Regarding claim 2, Verhaeghe does not teach adjusting the gain of the input energy to produce an output energy of the microphone that has an amplitude within a predetermined band of amplitudes.
However, McHann teaches adjusting the gain of the input energy to produce an output energy of the microphone that has an amplitude within a predetermined band of amplitudes. (Col. 6, Ln. 43-50, “increase the gain of a receiver when the measured signal characteristics … violate a specified threshold (e.g., a minimum acceptable peak to peak amplitude threshold) and decrease the gain of the receiver when the signal characteristics … violate another specified threshold (e.g., a maximum or minimum amplitude threshold)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Verhaeghe before the effective filing date in order to incorporate the teachings of McHann in order to maintain a stable microphone output level and avoid distortion or loss of information caused by extreme signals (Col. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Verhaeghe teaches correlating the orientation of the microphone to a first gain adjustment factor to render an orientation-based gain adjusted signal (Para 0026, “In a first basic approach, the tilt of the remote control device is measured using the sensors, and the gain for the microphone amplifier is determined based on the tilt value.”).
Verhaeghe teaches the orientation gain signal.
Verhaeghe does not teach normalizing the gain adjusted signal to be a desired amplitude and/or to be within a band of desired amplitudes.
However, McHann teaches normalizing the gain adjusted signal to be a desired amplitude and/or to be within a band of desired amplitudes. (Col. 6, Ln. 43-50, “increase the gain of a receiver when the measured signal characteristics … violate a specified threshold (e.g., a minimum acceptable peak to peak amplitude threshold) and decrease the gain of the receiver when the signal characteristics … violate another specified threshold (e.g., a maximum or minimum amplitude threshold)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Verhaeghe before the effective filing date in order to incorporate the teachings of McHann in order to provide a more consistent output amplitude (Col. 6).
Claim 12 is analogous to claim 2 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 is analogous to claim 4 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhaeghe (US20170004845) and Zihajehzadeh (US 12225354 B2). as above in claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16 and further in view of Beeman (US 20090305785 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Verhaeghe does not teach wherein the processor system is in the microphone.
However, Beeman teaches wherein the processor system is in the microphone. (Para 0035, The microphone controller 300 includes a transducer 402 configured to receive an acoustic input, such as a human voice…”, and para 0038, “the signals may be provided to a microcontroller 414”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Verhaeghe before the effective filing date in order to incorporate the teachings of Beeman in order to enable local processing within the microphone, thereby allowing faster response to input (Para 0038).
Regarding claim 8, Verhaeghe does not teach wherein the processor system is in a computer game console.
However, Beeman teaches wherein the processor system is in a computer game console. (Para 0024, “game console 200 has a central processing unit (CPU) 201…” and para 0040, “the software that converts the motion data … may reside in the game console 200…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Verhaeghe before the effective filing date in order to incorporate the teachings of Beeman in order to use the greater processing resources of the game console (Para 0040).
Claims 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhaeghe et al. (US20170004845) and McHann (US 8428201 B1) as above in claims 1-4 and further in view of Shaya (US 20190103849 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Verhaeghe does not teach adjusting a gain of at least one frequency but not all frequencies of the input energy to produce the output energy.
However, Shaya teaches adjusting a gain of at least one frequency but not all frequencies of the input energy to produce the output energy (Para 0214, “the correction 1406-1 contains only frequencies below a transition frequency … and thus no correction is applied to frequencies above the transition frequency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Verhaeghe before the effective filing date in order to incorporate the teachings of Shaya in order to selectively certain defective frequencies while leaving desirable frequencies intact (Para 0214).
Claim 17 is analogous to claim 10 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALAN FOSTER JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8874. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00am - 5:00pm, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/MICHAEL A FOSTER JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights