DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application.
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 .
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:
Figure 1 shows item 19 not found in the written description.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 5, 12, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 uses the term EQ without expressly disclosing what it stands for. Using the term equalization is suggested.
Claim 5 is objected in an analogous manner.
Claim 12 uses the abbreviations THD and SNR without expressly disclosing what they stand for. Using the full term is suggested.
Claim 20 is objected in an analogous manner.
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.
Regarding method claim 15, the limitation of evaluating a playback audio signal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user perceiving the audio signal and evaluating according their personal judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, the limitations of the measurement and generating steps are insignificant data gather steps. Further the step of adjusting the tuning parameters based on the evaluation is an insignificant extra solution activity only recited at a high level of generality.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional element of the method being “computer-implemented”. This is only is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “computer-implemented” method to perform the evaluation step amounts to no more than mere instructions to automate the evaluation using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 1 is rejected in an analogous manner to claim 1, given the recited “engines” are processing blocks performed by generic processors. Thus they are just conventional items used in a conventional manner.
Claims 2-14, and 16-20 only further define the mental process or the data gathering steps.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mihelich et al. (US 20100290643 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mihelich discloses an automatic audio tuning system (paragraph [0003], "systems and methods for optimizing efficiency of an audio system", paragraph [0009], "an automated audio tuning system is provided for optimizing an audio system"), the system comprising:
a measurement engine configured to obtain first measurements of one or more parameters associated with an audio signal from one or more loudspeakers (paragraphs [0105]-[0106]: “The measurement interface 404 may receive and/or process input audio signals provided from the audio system being tuned”, "The transfer functions may be the impulse response or complex frequency response measured by the audio sensors. The lab data 424 may be measured loudspeaker transfer functions (loudspeaker response data) for the loudspeakers in the audio system to be tuned”, paragraph [0110], "The in-situ data 602 may be representative of actual measured loudspeaker transfer functions in the form of complex frequency responses or impulse responses for each amplified audio channel of an audio system to be tuned”, Measured by figure 4 item 404);
an automatic tuning engine configured to:
receive the first measurements (input to 410 from 406 and 404), and
generate tuning parameters based on the first measurements (paragraph [0108], "the amplified channel equalization engine 410 may be executed to generate channel equalization settings for the channel equalization block 222 of FIG.2. The channel equalization settings generated by the amplified channel equalization engine 410 may correct the response of a loudspeaker or group of loudspeakers that are on the same amplified output channel in an effort to reach a target acoustic response", paragraphs [0111]-[0112], paragraphs [0130]-[0143], delay, gain, figure 4 items 410, 412, 414, 420, paragraphs [0182]-[0183], "system optimization engine");
a signal flow integration engine configured to:
receive the tuning parameters (inputs to 420), and
generate one or more components of a signal flow, wherein each of the one or more components of the signal flow represents an audio parameter that is tuneable based on the tuning parameters (figure 4, paragraph [0100], paragraphs [0190]-[0191], [0203]: "automated steps for adjusting the parameters and determining the types of filters to be used in the blocks included in the signal flow diagram of FIG.2", the system optimization defines an iterative process to define the filter design parameters necessary to match the target equalization curve, see figures 18-21);
an audio signal processing engine configured to:
receive the one or more components of the signal flow (from 420 to 422), and
generate a playback audio signal based on the one or more components of the signal flow (figure 3 the signal processor receives the parameters 316 defined by the "Automated Audio Tuning System", paragraphs [0088]-[0090]); and
an evaluation engine configured to enable an evaluation of the playback audio signal (paragraphs [0119]-[0120] "the process may be repeated by the parametric engine 610 until there are no peaks greater than a specified minimum peak magnitude", "The parametric engine 610 may use the weighted average across audio sensors"; paragraph [0191] discloses an iterative equalization engine which implies that the result is evaluated until the equalization reaches a certain quality) .
Regarding claim 2, Mihelich discloses wherein the tuning parameters represent at least one of a filter parameter (paragraphs [0087], [0182], and [0190]-[0192], "equalization settings"), a temporal parameter, a spectral parameter, a gain (paragraphs [0139]-[0143], gain), a delay (paragraphs [0130]-[0138], delay), or an EQ parameter (paragraphs [0087], [0182], and [0190]-[0192], "equalization settings").
Regarding claim 3, Mihelich discloses wherein the evaluation engine is further configured to:
obtain second measurements based on the playback audio signal (at least in-situ data, paragraph [0037]); and
enable at least one of a manual verification of the tuning parameters, an automatic verification of the tuning parameters, or an adjustment of the tuning parameters (paragraphs [0119]-[0120], paragraph [0191], which refers to an iterative process and therefore implies that a second measurement is performed for a further automatic adjustment of the tuning parameters).
Regarding claim 4, Mihelich discloses further comprising a user interface configured to enable a user to adjust at least one of the tuning parameters, wherein the signal flow integration engine is further configured to adjust the one or more components of the signal flow based on the user-adjusted tuning parameters (paragraphs [0050], [0092], [0098], [0103], [0185]-[0188], [0224]-[0226] and figure 23, paragraph [0098], "a user interface that allows viewing, manipulation and editing of the design parameters").
Claim 5 is rejected in an analogous manner to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Mihelich discloses further comprising a user interface configured to enable a user to define a target curve in a frequency domain, wherein the automatic tuning engine is further configured to generate the tuning parameters based on the target curve (paragraphs [0050], [0092], [0098], [0103], and [0224]-[0226] and figure 23, paragraph [0185]-[0188], “The target data 1504 or desired response for this measured transfer function may include a target curve, or target function. An audio system may have one or many target curves”, paragraph [0098], "a user interface that allows viewing, manipulation and editing of the design parameters").
Regarding claim 11, Mihelich discloses wherein the automatic tuning engine is further configured to generate the tuning parameters by generating biquad parameters (paragraphs [0085], [0087], [0121], [0196] among other mentions), delays (paragraphs [0130]-[0138], delay) and gains (paragraphs [0139]-[0143], gain) to equalize a measured response with respect to a user-defined target curve (paragraphs [0087], [0182], and [0190]-[0192], "equalization settings", figure 23, paragraph [0185]-[0188], “The target data 1504 or desired response for this measured transfer function may include a target curve, or target function. An audio system may have one or many target curves”, paragraph [0098], "a user interface that allows viewing, manipulation and editing of the design parameters").
Regarding claim 12, Mihelich discloses wherein the measurement engine is further configured to:
measure at least one of an impulse response (transfer function matrix 406, paragraphs [0105]-[0106]), a THD, phase, a frequency, a SNR, or a polarity; and
perform synchronous and asynchronous measurements of the one or more parameters associated with the audio signal (measurements may be made at multiple times, paragraph [0037], “measured audio responses can be in-situ responses, such as from inside a vehicle, and/or laboratory audio responses”).
Regarding claim 13, Mihelich discloses further comprising:
at least one of one or more microphones (340 of figure 3) or a microphone array (340 of figure 3) to perform the measurements,
wherein the at least one of one or more microphones or the microphone array are configurable to perform measurements with respect to at least one of different types (314 loudspeakers are of differing types such as high frequency loudspeaker or subwoofer, see at least paragraphs [0064], [0068], and [0145]) or different layouts of the one or more loudspeakers.
Regarding claim 14, Mihelich discloses wherein the system is implemented by at least one of instructions executable on a computer (paragraph [0229]) or in an automotive vehicle (paragraphs [0011] to [0037]), and wherein the system is associated with an in-vehicle audio system (paragraphs [0011] to [0037]).
Regarding claim 15, Mihelich discloses a computer-implemented (paragraph [0229]) method for tuning an audio signal (paragraph [0003], "systems and methods for optimizing efficiency of an audio system", paragraph [0009], "an automated audio tuning system is provided for optimizing an audio system"), the method comprising:
measuring one or more parameters associated with the audio signal from one or more loudspeakers (paragraphs [0105]-[0106]: “The measurement interface 404 may receive and/or process input audio signals provided from the audio system being tuned”, "The transfer functions may be the impulse response or complex frequency response measured by the audio sensors. The lab data 424 may be measured loudspeaker transfer functions (loudspeaker response data) for the loudspeakers in the audio system to be tuned”, paragraph [0110], "The in-situ data 602 may be representative of actual measured loudspeaker transfer functions in the form of complex frequency responses or impulse responses for each amplified audio channel of an audio system to be tuned”, Measured by figure 4 item 404);
generating tuning parameters based on the one or more parameters (input to 410 from 406 and 404), and generate tuning parameters based on the first measurements (paragraph [0108], "the amplified channel equalization engine 410 may be executed to generate channel equalization settings for the channel equalization block 222 of FIG.2. The channel equalization settings generated by the amplified channel equalization engine 410 may correct the response of a loudspeaker or group of loudspeakers that are on the same amplified output channel in an effort to reach a target acoustic response", paragraphs [0111]-[0112], paragraphs [0130]-[0143], delay, gain, figure 4 items 410, 412, 414, 420, paragraphs [0182]-[0183], "system optimization engine");
generating one or more components of a signal flow, wherein each of the one or more components of the signal flow represents an audio parameter that is tuneable based on the tuning parameters (figure 4, paragraph [0100], paragraphs [0190]-[0191], [0203]: "automated steps for adjusting the parameters and determining the types of filters to be used in the blocks included in the signal flow diagram of FIG.2", the system optimization defines an iterative process to define the filter design parameters necessary to match the target equalization curve, see figures 18-21);
generating a playback audio signal based on the one or more components of the signal flow (figure 3 the signal processor receives the parameters 316 defined by the "Automated Audio Tuning System", paragraphs [0088]-[0090]);
evaluating the playback audio signal (paragraphs [0119]-[0120] "the process may be repeated by the parametric engine 610 until there are no peaks greater than a specified minimum peak magnitude", "The parametric engine 610 may use the weighted average across audio sensors"; paragraph [0191] discloses an iterative equalization engine which implies that the result is evaluated until the equalization reaches a certain quality); and
adjusting the tuning parameters based on the evaluation (paragraphs [0119]-[0120] "the process may be repeated by the parametric engine 610 until there are no peaks greater than a specified minimum peak magnitude", "The parametric engine 610 may use the weighted average across audio sensors"; paragraph [0191] discloses an iterative equalization engine which implies that the result is evaluated until the equalization reaches a certain quality) .
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected in an analogous manner to claims 3, 6, 11, and 12 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 pm.
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.
/DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights