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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent.
Claims 2-10 depend from Claim 1.
Claims 12-19 depend from Claim 11.
This Application was published as U.S. 2025/0246198.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 Aug 2025 and 11 Feb 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 5 Dec 2024 and 14 Aug 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Applicant specification Par [0053] states “FIG. 2 is a block diagram 200” that is not included in any drawings. Fig 2 refers to reference item “100.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that either use the “means for” format or while not using the word “means,” are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are: the “processing circuitry” and “communication circuitry” in Claim 1. These limitations are generic in the context of the art and don’t refer to any specific structure and only serve as placeholders for the structure that performs the associated function(s) without providing any information about what that structure is. MPEP 2181 I A says:
For a term to be considered a substitute for "means," and lack sufficient structure for performing the function, it must serve as a generic placeholder and thus not limit the scope of the claim to any specific manner or structure for performing the claimed function. It is important to remember that there are no absolutes in the determination of terms used as a substitute for "means" that serve as generic placeholders. The examiner must carefully consider the term in light of the specification and the commonly accepted meaning in the technological art. Every application will turn on its own facts.
Based on the ordinary skill in the art and description of functions of these components in the Specification, they refer to an processing circuitry (Par [0032]); and communication circuit or circuitry (Par [0086]) which are generic modules used to perform a specific task which can be implemented on a combination of generic software and hardware.
PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a rejection. Please don’t address it as a rejection. If the Applicant does not agree with the INTERPRETATION, he may argue or amend to replace the terms interpreted under 112(f) with structural terms such as “processor” as appropriately supported by the Specification. In the alternative, he may let the interpretation stand if the intent was to include a means plus function limitation in the Claim.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or 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.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite various limitations that, but for generic computer components (i.e. at least one computer processors, memory, computer-readable storage medium, or electronic device) can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and are considered abstract ideas. The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover the concept of updating a beamforming parameter or not, based on determining audio signals are distorted or not and somehow based on noise or voice components in the received audio signal, by somehow using an electronic device that can receives audio signals, identifies a frequency band, performs beamforming, and identifies audio distortion. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite elements in the form of “memory,” “processor,” “electronic device” or “computer-readable storage medium.” These elements are used to perform the claimed methods and steps, and are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and somehow update a beamforming parameter used for something. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not include subject matter that could not be performed by a human, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of using the generic computing elements to perform the claimed elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or can be considered insignificant extra solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, and mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. For all the reasons stated above, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 2, the Claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because configuring a beamforming parameter is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 3, the Claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because determining whether audio signals are distorted based on a PLC operation is a mathematical calculation. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 4, the Claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because determining whether audio signals are distorted based on power of the audio signal is a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 5, the Claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because wearing an external electronic device on a user’s body is a data gathering step, and identifying a frequency band is a mathematical calculation. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 6, the Claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because type of audio signals received is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 7, the Claim further limits the elements of claim 6; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because identifying a frequency band based on a control signal and determining a frequency band based on an audio signal are a data gathering steps. Similar to claim 6, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 8, the Claim further limits the elements of claim 7; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because removing noise is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 7, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 9, the Claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because identifying a specified interval for the beamforming is a voice generation interval based on a control signal is a data gathering step, and updating a parameter relating to beamforming is a mental process. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 10, the Claim further limits the elements of claim 1; however, these limitations do not preclude the limitations from being performed by mental observations or evaluation, or as a data gathering step that a person does in one’s one head as a mental process because the external electronic devices include a wearable device is a data gathering step. Similar to claim 1, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-13, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH et al. (US2012/0070015 hereinafter OH) in view of Cohen et al. (US10680693 hereinafter Cohen)
With regards to claim 1, OH teaches:
An electronic device comprising: communication circuitry; [OH Fig 1 teaches electronic device that is “implemented using various types of electronic equipment, such as, for example, a personal computer, a server computer, a handheld or laptop device, a mobile or smart phone, a multiprocessor system, a microprocessor system or a set-top box” (Par [0043]) which includes communication circuitry for receiving signals through microphone array.]
at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry; and [OH Par [0103]]
a memory storing instructions, wherein at least one processor, individually or collectively, is configured to execute the instructions, and to cause the electronic device to: [OH Par [0104]]
receive, via the communication circuitry, audio signals from external electronic devices, [OH Fig 1 teaches receiving audio signals from external electronic devices through microphone array (101)]
identify, in the received audio signals, a frequency band in which beamforming is possible, [OH Fig 1 and Fig 6 teaches band division and merging unit (120) that identifies frequency bands for beamforming (Fig 6 items 620,630)]
perform beamforming for audio signals of the frequency band in which beamforming is possible, [OH Fig 1 and Fig 6 teaches beamforming unit (130) that performs beamforming for audio signals of the frequency band in which beamforming is possible (Fig 6 item 640)]
With regards to claim 1, OH fails to teach:
identify whether the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming,
based on determining that the audio signals are not distorted by the beamforming, update a beamforming parameter, based on voice components or noise components included in the received audio signals, and
based on determining that the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming, restrict the update of the beamforming parameter.
With regards to claim 1, Cohen teaches:
identify whether the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming, [Cohen Fig 12 teaches determining error rate of data packet (112) is used to identify whether the audio signals are distorted by beamforming by “comparing different versions of a data packet, the testee may determine distortion and, thus, a packet error rate resulting from transmission of the data packet to the testee radio frequency system.” (Col 4 lines 47-50) While Cohen teaches beamforming for radio frequency systems, it is known to perform beamforming on audio or sound signals (see Ray (US2021/050667 Par [0003])) or to have a system that performs on audio or wave signals (see Lu et al. (US2018/0176679 Fig 7))]
based on determining that the audio signals are not distorted by the beamforming, update a beamforming parameter, based on voice components or noise components included in the received audio signals, and [Cohen Fig 12 item 128]
based on determining that the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming, restrict the update of the beamforming parameter. [Cohen Fig 12 item 126.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the method of audio quality enhancing using beamforming as taught by OH with the beamforming calibration system that determines error rate of data packets as taught by Cohen. The motivation to combine the teachings of OH with Cohen is because Cohen teaches “wireless communication performance of a radio frequency system under various sets of communication conditions may be tested and/or calibrated, for example, before commercial deployment of the radio frequency system and/or an electronic device including the radio frequency system” (Col 28 lines 11-16) which increase the capabilities of the beamforming system by testing the electronic device and beamforming capabilities]
With regards to claim 2, OH in view of Cohen teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the beamforming parameter is configured to be used for beamforming of an audio signal performed in a next time interval. [Cohen Fig 12 teaches adjusting parameters of the testing system so that the parameters can be used for beamforming performed in a next time interval or subsequent test period]
With regards to claim 3, OH in view of Cohen teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to execute the instructions, and to cause the electronic device to:
based on a packet loss concealment (PLC) operation for the audio signals of the frequency band in which beamforming is possible being performed, determine that the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming; and [Cohen Fig 12 item 128, where comparing an error rate of a data packet to a threshold is a PLC operation.]
based on the PLC operation for the audio signals of the frequency band in which beamforming is possible not being performed, determine that the audio signals are not distorted by the beamforming. [Cohen Fig 12 item 126, where comparing an error rate of a data packet to a threshold is a PLC operation.]
With regards to claim 5, OH in view of Cohen teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to execute the instructions, and to cause the electronic device to: based on determining that the external electronic devices are worn on a user’s body part, [OH teaches microphone used in external devices such as “hearing aids” (Par [0005])]
identify the frequency band in which beamforming is possible in audio signals received from the external electronic devices. [OH Fig 1 and Fig 6 teaches band division and merging unit (120) that identifies frequency bands for beamforming (Fig 6 items 620,630)]
With regards to claim 6, OH in view of Cohen teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the audio signals received from the external electronic devices comprise beamformed audio signals, based on audio signals collected via a plurality of microphones in each of the external electronic devices. [OH teaches microphone used in external devices such as “hearing aids” (Par [0005]) where microphones collect audio signals]
With regards to claim 10, OH in view of Cohen teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the external electronic devices include a pair of wearable devices [OH teaches microphone used in external devices such as “hearing aids” (Par [0005])]
With regards to claim 11, OH teaches:
A method of operating an electronic device, the method comprising: receiving audio signals from a plurality of external electronic devices; [OH Fig 1 teaches receiving audio signals from external electronic devices through microphone array (101)]
identifying, in the received audio signals, a frequency band in which beamforming is possible; [OH Fig 1 and Fig 6 teaches band division and merging unit (120) that identifies frequency bands for beamforming (Fig 6 items 620,630)]
performing beamforming for audio signals of the frequency band in which beamforming is possible; [OH Fig 1 and Fig 6 teaches beamforming unit (130) that performs beamforming for audio signals of the frequency band in which beamforming is possible (Fig 6 item 640)]
With regards to claim 11, OH fails to teach:
identifying whether the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming;
based on determining that the audio signals are not distorted by the beamforming, updating a beamforming parameter, based on voice components or noise components included in the received audio signals; and
based on determining that the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming, restrict the update of the beamforming parameter.
With regards to claim 11, Cohen teaches:
identifying whether the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming; [Cohen Fig 12 teaches determining error rate of data packet (112) is used to identify whether the audio signals are distorted by beamforming by “comparing different versions of a data packet, the testee may determine distortion and, thus, a packet error rate resulting from transmission of the data packet to the testee radio frequency system.” (Col 4 lines 47-50) While Cohen teaches beamforming for radio frequency systems, it is known to perform beamforming on audio or sound signals (see Ray (US2021/050667 Par [0003])) or to have a system that performs on audio or wave signals (see Lu et al. (US2018/0176679 Fig 7))]
based on determining that the audio signals are not distorted by the beamforming, updating a beamforming parameter, based on voice components or noise components included in the received audio signals; and [Cohen Fig 12 item 128]
based on determining that the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming, restrict the update of the beamforming parameter. [Cohen Fig 12 item 126.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the method of audio quality enhancing using beamforming as taught by OH with the beamforming calibration system that determines error rate of data packets as taught by Cohen. The motivation to combine the teachings of OH with Cohen is because Cohen teaches “wireless communication performance of a radio frequency system under various sets of communication conditions may be tested and/or calibrated, for example, before commercial deployment of the radio frequency system and/or an electronic device including the radio frequency system” (Col 28 lines 11-16) which increase the capabilities of the beamforming system by testing the electronic device and beamforming capabilities]
Claim 12 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of device Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20, OH teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing one or more programs comprising: [OH Par [0104]]
the one or more programs include instructions that, when individually or collectively executed by at least one processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to: [OH Par [0103]]
receive audio signals from a plurality of external electronic devices, [OH Fig 1 teaches receiving audio signals from external electronic devices through microphone array (101)]
identify, in the received audio signals, a frequency band in which beamforming is possible, [OH Fig 1 and Fig 6 teaches band division and merging unit (120) that identifies frequency bands for beamforming (Fig 6 items 620,630)]
perform beamforming for audio signals of the frequency band in which beamforming is possible, [OH Fig 1 and Fig 6 teaches beamforming unit (130) that performs beamforming for audio signals of the frequency band in which beamforming is possible (Fig 6 item 640)]
With regards to claim 20, OH fails to teach:
identify whether the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming,
based on determining that the audio signals are not distorted by the beamforming, update a beamforming parameter, based on voice components or noise components included in the received audio signals, and
based on determining that the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming, restrict the update of the beamforming parameter.
With regards to claim 20, Cohen teaches:
identify whether the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming, [Cohen Fig 12 teaches determining error rate of data packet (112) is used to identify whether the audio signals are distorted by beamforming by “comparing different versions of a data packet, the testee may determine distortion and, thus, a packet error rate resulting from transmission of the data packet to the testee radio frequency system.” (Col 4 lines 47-50) While Cohen teaches beamforming for radio frequency systems, it is known to perform beamforming on audio or sound signals (see Ray (US2021/050667 Par [0003])) or to have a system that performs on audio or wave signals (see Lu et al. (US2018/0176679 Fig 7))]
based on determining that the audio signals are not distorted by the beamforming, update a beamforming parameter, based on voice components or noise components included in the received audio signals, and [Cohen Fig 12 item 128]
based on determining that the audio signals are distorted by the beamforming, restrict the update of the beamforming parameter. [Cohen Fig 12 item 126.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the method of audio quality enhancing using beamforming as taught by OH with the beamforming calibration system that determines error rate of data packets as taught by Cohen. The motivation to combine the teachings of OH with Cohen is because Cohen teaches “wireless communication performance of a radio frequency system under various sets of communication conditions may be tested and/or calibrated, for example, before commercial deployment of the radio frequency system and/or an electronic device including the radio frequency system” (Col 28 lines 11-16) which increase the capabilities of the beamforming system by testing the electronic device and beamforming capabilities]
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-9, 14, 16, and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph J Yamamoto whose telephone number is (571)272-4020. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
JOSEPH J. YAMAMOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights