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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 9-11, 13-14, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a (2) as being anticipated by Lakshminarayanan et al. (US 12,266,335 B2).
Claim 1, Lakshminarayanan et al. disclose of an electronic device for an audio processing, comprising: a feedback microphone, used to detect a sound signal (fig.2 (202); col.5 line 55-67); a speaker (fig.14 (104); col.25 line 59-61); and a processor, coupled to the feedback microphone and the speaker (fig.14 (1406/1410); col.25 line 50-67), wherein the processor selects one of a first configuration and a second configuration of a sound parameter according to the sound signal to obtain a selected configuration, wherein the processor outputs an audio through the speaker according to the selected configuration (col.10 line 30-67; col.11 line 30-67/the various configurations are related to ANC modes) .
3. The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the processor obtains a feature value corresponding to the sound signal, and determines whether the feature value is greater than a threshold value, wherein in response to the feature value being greater than the threshold value, the processor selects the first configuration as the selected configuration (col.11 line 30-63).
4. The electronic device according to claim 3, wherein in response to the feature value being less than or equal to the threshold value, the processor selects the second configuration as the selected configuration (col.11 line 30-63).
7. The electronic device according to claim 3, further comprising: an environmental microphone, coupled to the processor and detecting an environmental sound signal, wherein the processor determines the threshold value according to the environmental sound signal (col.10 line 30-35 & col.11 line 30-55).
9. The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the sound parameter comprises at least one of an equalizer parameter, an active noise cancellation parameter, and a compensation parameter (col.10 line 50-60).
10. The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic device comprises an earphone (col.26 line -15).
Claim 11, the prior art as in Lakshminarayanan et al. disclose of a method for an audio processing, comprising: detecting a sound signal through a feedback microphone (fig.2 (202); col.5 line 55-67); selecting one of a first configuration and a second configuration of a sound parameter according to the sound signal to obtain a selected configuration (col.10 line 30-67; col.11 line 30-67/the various configurations are related to ANC modes) ; and outputting an audio through a speaker according to the selected configuration (fig.14 (104); col.25 line 59-61).
The claim (s) 13-14,17, 19 which in substance disclose of the same features to that of claim(s) 3-4, 7, 9 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshminarayanan et al. (US 12,266,335 B2) and Su et al. (US 11,793,453 B2).
2. The electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a sensor, coupled to the processor and get a detection result (col.6 line 20-35).
But, the prior art failed to disclose of the sensor being a skin sensor, coupled to the processor and generating a detection result, wherein the processor activates the feedback microphone according to the detection result to detect the sound signal. However, Su et al. disclose of the similar concept related to a sensor, coupled to the processor and generating a detection result, wherein the processor activates the feedback microphone according to the detection result to detect the sound signal (fig.2C (260); col.9 line 5-30). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to a sensor, coupled to the processor and generating a detection result, wherein the processor activates the feedback microphone according to the detection result to detect the sound signal so as to conserve power.
Although, the art never specify of the sensor being a skin sensor, however, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the mentioned sensor as mentioned to any other desired sensor including such a skin sensor for achieving the same result as to conserve power according to user’s using the device.
The claim (s) 12 which in substance disclose of the same features to that of claim(s) 2 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshminarayanan et al. (US 12,266,335 B2) and Svajda et al. (US 12,245,004 B2).
5. The electronic device according to claim 3, although, none of the art specify as wherein the feature value comprises a root mean square volume.
However, the concept of implementing a certain feature value comprise according to a root mean square value is noted (col.8 line 10-20).thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to applying a certain a root mean square value so as to define the particular threshold value for comparison.
The claim (s) 15 which in substance disclose of the same features to that of claim(s) 5 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshminarayanan et al. (US 12,266,335 B2) and Schoerkmaier (US 12,513,450 B2).
6. The electronic device according to claim 3, although, the prior art never specify as further comprising: a filter, coupled to the processor, wherein the processor processes the sound signal using the filter to generate a filtered signal.
But, Schoerkmaier disclose of the similar aspect related to a filter, coupled to the processor, wherein the processor processes the sound signal using the filter to generate a filtered signal (fig.5 (502/510); col.13 line 5-15). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related to a filter, coupled to the processor, wherein the processor processes the sound signal using the filter to generate a filtered signal so as to suppress certain unwanted frequency signal for implementing triggering according to desired other low frequency signal.
Thus, the overall prior art further disclose of obtains a feature value of the filtered signal (sch-col.13 line 5-15).
The claim (s) 16 which in substance disclose of the same features to that of claim(s) 6 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshminarayanan et al. (US 12,266,335 B2) and Jones et al. (US 2025/0365539 A1).
8. The electronic device according to claim 3, nonetheless, the prior art never specify as further comprising: a transceiver, coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is communicatively connected to an external electronic device through the transceiver and receives a calibration command from the external electronic device.
But, it shall be noted Jones et al. of a system comprising: a transceiver, coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is communicatively connected to an external electronic device through the transceiver and receives a calibration command from the external electronic device (fig.2 (220 & 218); par [36, 40, 44, 49]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such aspect related to a system comprising: a transceiver, coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is communicatively connected to an external electronic device through the transceiver and receives a calibration command from the external electronic device so as to configure the calibration of the device for optimal output sounds.
The prior art would have further taught of such as wherein in response to the calibration command, the processor detects a first sound signal and a second sound signal different from the first sound signal through the feedback microphone, wherein the processor determines the threshold value according to the first sound signal and the second sound signal (Lak-col.10 line 30-67 & col.11 line 35-67) .
The claim (s) 18 which in substance disclose of the same features to that of claim(s) 8 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights