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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/05/2024 and 05/05/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12183359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of US 12183359 are narrower and anticipated all recited limitations in claims 1-20 of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12183359 in view of Liu (US 20220310107 A1).
Regarding claims 1-13: claims 1, 3-13, and 16 of US 12183359 teach most of recited limitations of claims 1-13 of the instant application accept the beam former is the a minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR) beamformer.
Liu teaches a wind noise reduction system comprising:
a beamformer configured to generate a beamformed signal based on a first microphone signal and a second microphone signal (Fig. 1: Mic 1-140, Mic 2 -142, MVDR beamformer 110, and beamformer signal 128);
a wind detector configured to generate a wind detection signal (Fig. 2: Wind detector 114); and
a voice mixer configured to generate an output voice signal based on the beamformed signal, a wind microphone signal, and the wind detection signal (Fig. 1: beamformer signal 128, wind microphone signal 120, Voice mixer 124, and output voice signal 126);
wherein the beamformer is a minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR) beamformer (Fig. 1: MVDR beamformer 110).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Walters’ beamformer with Liu’s MVDR beamformer. The motivation is to provide the better voice beamformer which is the MVDR beamformer that reserves voice signal and cancel most of noise signal.
Regarding claims 14-20: claims 2-7 and 12 of US 12183359 in view of Liu teach the corresponding wind noise reduction system that also support these corresponding method recited in claims 14-20 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 11 and 20: these claims recited “a high pass filter configured to filter the beamformed signal prior to the beamformed signal being received by the dynamic voice mixer” and “the beamformed signal is filtered by a high pass filter prior to the beamformed signal being received by the dynamic voice mixer”.
However, the Specification only disclosures only wind microphone signal is filtered by a high-pass filter but not beamformed signal is filtered by a high-pass filter (Fig. 6-7 and para [0050]). There is no description is provided by the Specification for the claimed “a high pass filter configured to filter the beamformed signal prior to the beamformed signal being received by the dynamic voice mixer” and “the beamformed signal is filtered by a high pass filter prior to the beamformed signal being received by the dynamic voice mixer”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (US 20120253798 A1 – Cited IDS) in view of Liu (US 20220310107 A1 – Cited IDS).
Regarding claim 1: Walters teaches a wind noise reduction system (Fig. 1: In-ear headset 10 and para [0002]-[0003]) comprising:
a beamformer configured to generate a beamformed signal based on a first microphone signal and a second microphone signal (Fig. 2: microphone(s) 104 and para [0029] and [0030]: inherently microphone(s) 104 in combination with a beamformer imply that microphones 104 including at least two microphones);
a comparator configured to generate a comparison signal based on the beamformed signal and a wind microphone signal (Fig. 2: Wind microphone signal 108/118, beamformed signal 110/120, and Adaptive filter 122; para [0005], [0017], [0029], and [0030]: disclosing wind microphone signal 108 and beamformed signal 110; and para [0019], [0021], and [0022]: disclosing Adaptive filter 122 working as a comparator to produce comparator signal alpha); and
a dynamic voice mixer configured to generate an output voice signal based on the beamformed signal, the wind microphone signal, and the comparison signal (Fig. 2: scaling blocks 124 and 126 in combination with Summer 132 reads on the claimed Dynamic voice mixer; and para [0018] and [0022]: since filter or comparator 122 is an adaptive filter, the voice mixer is a dynamic voice mixer).
Walters teaches the wind noise reduction system of claim 1 but does not teach the beamformer is a minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR) beamformer.
Liu teaches a wind noise reduction system comprising:
a beamformer configured to generate a beamformed signal based on a first microphone signal and a second microphone signal (Fig. 1: Mic 1-140, Mic 2 -142, MVDR beamformer 110, and beamformer signal 128);
a wind detector configured to generate a wind detection signal (Fig. 2: Wind detector 114); and
a voice mixer configured to generate an output voice signal based on the beamformed signal, a wind microphone signal, and the wind detection signal (Fig. 1: beamformer signal 128, wind microphone signal 120, Voice mixer 124, and output voice signal 126);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Walters’ beamformer with Liu’s MVDR beamformer. The motivation is to provide the better voice beamformer which is the MVDR beamformer that reserves voice signal and cancel most of noise signal.
Regarding claim 2: Walters in view of Liu teaches the wind noise reduction system of claim 1, wherein the comparison signal is further based on a beamformed energy level of the beamformed signal and a wind energy level of the wind microphone signal (Walters’ para [0021]).
Regarding claim 3: Walters in view of Liu teaches the wind noise reduction system of claim 1, wherein the output voice signal is a blend of the beamformed signal and the wind microphone signal (Walters’ para [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 4: Walters in view of Liu teaches the wind noise reduction system of claim 3, wherein a ratio of the wind microphone signal to the beamformed signal in the output voice signal corresponds to the comparison signal (Walters’ para [0018]-[0020]: scaling factor alpha and (1-alpha) calculated by filter 122 represent the ratio of the wind microphone signal to the beamformed signal in the output voice signal).
Regarding claim 5: Walters in view of Liu teaches the wind noise reduction system of claim 4, wherein the ratio of the wind microphone signal to the beamformed signal in the output voice signal is frequency dependent (Walters’ para [0006], [0026], and [0027]).
Regarding claim 7: Walters in view of Liu teaches the wind noise reduction system of claim 1, further comprising: a first microphone corresponding to the first microphone signal; a second microphone corresponding to the second microphone signal; and a wind microphone corresponding to the wind microphone signal (Walters’ Fig. 2: wind microphone 102 and microphone(s) 104; and para [0029] and [0030]: inherently disclosing microphone(s) 104 in combination with a beamformer imply that microphones 104 including at least two microphones and each the individual microphone 102 and 104 generating the corresponding microphone signal).
Regarding claim 8: Walters in view of Liu teaches the wind noise reduction system of claim 1, wherein the first microphone signal, the second microphone signal, and the wind microphone signal are frequency domain signals (Walters’ para [0006] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 9: Walters in view of Liu teaches the wind noise reduction system of claim 1, wherein the first microphone signal, the second microphone signal, and the wind microphone signal are time domain signals (Walters’ para [0006] and [0026]: all microphone signals originally in the form of time domain signals then converted to frequency domain signal for comparison and mixing).
Regarding claim 10: Walters in view of Liu teaches the wind noise reduction system of claim 1, further comprising an equalizer configured to filter the beamformed signal prior to the beamformed signal being received by the comparator and the dynamic voice mixer (Walters’ Fig. 2: Equalizer 116 and para [0017]).
Regarding claims 13-18: the wind noise reduction system discussed in claims 1, 7, and 2-5 also supports these corresponding method claims.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (US 20120253798 A1 – Cited IDS) in view of Liu (US 20220310107 A1 – Cited IDS), as applied to claims 1 and 13, and further in view of Korhonen (Wind noise management in hearing aids – August 2021 – Cited IDS).
Regarding claim 6: Walters in view of Liu teaches the wind noise reduction system of claim 1, wherein the output voice signal corresponds to the wind microphone signal at a low frequency range (Walters’ para [0027]: low-pass filter is applied to the wind-sensitive microphone signal 118).
Walters in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose what the specific range of low frequency is.
Korhonen teaches a hearing aids with a wind noise management wherein the output voice signal corresponds to the wind microphone signal at a frequency range of 200 Hz to 2 kHz (see Characteristics of wind noise – page 3 and Signal Processing Step 1: Wind Noise Detection – page 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Walters in view of Liu low frequency range with Korhonen’s specific low frequency range of the wind noise frequency spectrum at the frequency range of 200 Hz to 2 kHz for the benefit of saving processing resource when reducing wind noise signal in output voice signal.
Regarding claim 19: the wind noise reduction system discussed in claim 6 also supports this corresponding method claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 20 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; and the double patenting rejections addressed persuasively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L TON whose telephone number is (571)270-7839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Vivian 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.
/DAVID L TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights