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 because:
Figure 8 shows items numbers in the 200s, however page 17 describes the figure using item numbers in the 100s. Correction is required.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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:
Page 19 of the specification refers to “an Ethernet interface 1221” twice. However no item 1221 is found in figure 11.
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
METHODS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES FOR COMPENSATING FOR LOUDSPEAKER DISTORTIONS
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract is objected to because it is less than 50 words.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sound signal the loudspeaker". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 states “the sound signal the loudspeaker” which is unclear. Maybe a word is missing and this was intended as “the sound signal by the loudspeaker”
Looking at both of the above problems, it is hard to guess what was intended, but amending to the following is one possible suggestion from the examiner: “wherein the modified audio signal is amplified by an amplifier to obtain an amplified signal and the amplified signal is converted into an acoustic sound signal by the loudspeaker”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as inheriting the problems as above.
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 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-20 are determined to be directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In this instance the claims are to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Regarding method claim 11, the claim is to an abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm. The mathematical algorithm including making comparisons of data pertaining to audio signals as explained below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps provided do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, they merely provide additional mathematical processes to achieving the abstract data, perform data gathering, or output some form of the result. Claim 11 recites, in part, a method of gathering data (“feature set”, broadly stated, could be level, frequency content, or portions of audio itself) related to a feedback signal and an input audio signal and then performing a comparison of the feature sets to obtain a comparison result. In total this is a formula for calculating greater than/less than/equal to determinations on the data via comparison. These steps describe the concept of a mathematical formula similar to mathematical calculations such as calculating the difference between local and average data values which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, see In re Abele. All of these concepts relate to practices in which information is manipulated and calculation are made through mathematical correlations. The concept described in claim 11 is not meaningfully different than those mathematical calculations found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claim 11 of performing mathematical calculations based on received audio signals is an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 12-17, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims only further defined the calculations made or data gathered.
Regarding apparatus claim 20, the claim is rejected in an analogous manner as including the abstract idea of claim 11 as above. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited devices are only nominally stated as devices with circuitry such as a general use computer. The use of generic computer components to mathematically process audio signals does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 11-17 and 20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 9-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Low et al. ("A Neural Network Approach to the Adaptive Correction of Loudspeaker Nonlinearities", 95th AES Convention 3751, October 7-10, 1993).
Regarding claim 1, Low discloses a method comprising modifying an input audio signal (such as the “1812 Overture”, first paragraph of the "0 INTRODUCTION", show as signal i[n] of figure 5, see section 3) to obtain a modified audio signal (xlin[n] see section 7) to compensate for nonlinear and/or time-varying distortions effected by a loudspeaker (second paragraph of the "0 INTRODUCTION", see 13 CONCLUSIONS section).
Regarding claim 2, Low discloses wherein the modified audio signal is amplified by an amplifier to obtain an amplified signal and the amplified signal is converted into the sound signal the loudspeaker (see modified audio signal as above, see figures 5 and 7, see section 1 mentions of amplifiers).
Regarding claim 3, Low discloses wherein a parameter obtained at the loudspeaker (current sensor of figure 7, “monitors the RMS value of the pre-distorted current to provide compensation for voice coil resistance changes due to heating”, figure 5, fb1 and fb2 are used as feedback for linearization, comprising several parameters of figure 4) is used to obtain the modified audio signal to compensate for nonlinear and/or time-varying distortions (as above).
Regarding claim 4, Low discloses wherein using the parameter to obtain the modified audio signal comprises feeding the parameter to an input layer of a neural (see figure 7) network.
Regarding claim 5, Low discloses wherein the neural network is a deep neural network (end of section 7, “the network has several hidden layers”).
Regarding claim 6, Low discloses wherein the parameter obtained at the loudspeaker is a temperature of the loudspeaker (current sensor of figure 7 acts as temperature sensor, “monitors the RMS value of the pre-distorted current to provide compensation for voice coil resistance changes due to heating”).
Regarding claim 9, Low discloses wherein the input audio signal is an analog input audio signal and the modified audio signal is a modified analog audio signal, or wherein the input audio signal is a digital input audio signal (i[n] see section 7) and the modified audio signal is a modified digital audio signal (xlin[n] see section 7, “The target signal, xlin[n], is generated from the input drive current i[n], from a linear filter, whose transfer function is the digital domain representation of the input-output relationship of…”).
Regarding claim 10, Low discloses wherein the modified audio signal is modified in such a way that loudspeaker damage is prevented (see 13 CONCLUSIONS section, lower distortion output signals, distortions tax speaker, “adaption to parameter variations such as changes in voice-coil resistance” allows awareness of heating).
Regarding claim 11, Low discloses method for training a neural network (section 7 TRAINING THE NEURAL NETWORK, figure 9), the method comprising:
determining a feature set of a feedback signal (figure 7 shows feedback signals, all having features) and a feature set (that of the input current in figure 7, i[n] see section 7) of an input audio signal based on the input audio signal (i[n] see section 7); and
performing a comparison (equation 9, section 7 page 5) of the feature set of the feedback signal with the feature set of an input audio signal to obtain a comparison result (see section 7).
Regarding claim 12, Low discloses wherein the method for training a neural network further comprises performing feature extraction on the feedback signal to obtain the feature set of the feedback signal (figure 7 shows feedback signals, all having features), and/or wherein the method for training a neural network further comprises performing feature extraction on the input audio signal to obtain the feature set of the input audio signal (that of the input current in figure 7, i[n] see section 7).
Regarding claim 13, Low discloses wherein the method for training a neural network further comprises obtaining a parameter at a loudspeaker (current sensor of figure 7 acts as temperature sensor, “monitors the RMS value of the pre-distorted current to provide compensation for voice coil resistance changes due to heating”, figure 5, fb1 and fb2 are used as feedback for linearization, comprising several parameters of figure 4), wherein the parameter obtained at the loudspeaker is a temperature of the loudspeaker, and wherein the method for training a neural network further comprises feeding the parameter to an input layer of the neural network (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 14, Low discloses wherein the method for training a neural network further comprises optimizing neural network weights based on the comparison result (see section 7) and the temperature of the loudspeaker (current sensor of figure 7 acts as temperature sensor, “monitors the RMS value of the pre-distorted current to provide compensation for voice coil resistance changes due to heating”).
Regarding claim 17, Low discloses wherein the method for training a neural network further comprises optimizing neural network weights so that the neural network is configured to modify an audio signal so that loudspeaker damage is prevented (see 13 CONCLUSIONS section, lower distortion output signals, distortions tax speaker, “adaption to parameter variations such as changes in voice-coil resistance” allows awareness of heating).
Regarding claim 18, Low discloses electronic device (see section 3 OVERVIEW OF NON-LINEAR DISTORTION COMPENSATION, compensator in the form of a mirror filter via a neural network is the desired result, see figure 7) comprising circuitry configured to modify an input audio signal (such as the “1812 Overture”, first paragraph of the "0 INTRODUCTION", show as signal i[n] of figure 5, see section 3) to obtain a modified audio signal (xlin[n] see section 7) to compensate for nonlinear and/or time- varying distortions effected by a loudspeaker (second paragraph of the "0 INTRODUCTION", see 13 CONCLUSIONS section).
Regarding claim 19, Low discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to use a parameter obtained at the loudspeaker (current sensor of figure 7, “monitors the RMS value of the pre-distorted current to provide compensation for voice coil resistance changes due to heating”, figure 5, fb1 and fb2 are used as feedback for linearization, comprising several parameters of figure 4) to obtain the modified audio signal to compensate for nonlinear and/or time-varying distortions (as above).
Regarding claim 20, Low discloses an electronic device (see section 3 OVERVIEW OF NON-LINEAR DISTORTION COMPENSATION, compensator in the form of a mirror filter via a neural network is the desired result, see figure 7) comprising circuitry configured to:
determine a feature set of a feedback signal (figure 7 shows feedback signals, all having features) and a feature set (that of the input current in figure 7, i[n] see section 7) of an input audio signal based on the input audio signal (i[n] see section 7); and
perform a comparison (equation 9, section 7 page 5) of the feature set of a feedback signal with the feature set of an input audio signal to obtain a comparison result (see section 7).
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) 7, 8, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low et al. ("A Neural Network Approach to the Adaptive Correction of Loudspeaker Nonlinearities", 95th AES Convention 3751, October 7-10, 1993).
Regarding claim 7, Low discloses wherein a parameter obtained at the loudspeaker (current sensor of figure 7, “monitors the RMS value of the pre-distorted current to provide compensation for voice coil resistance changes due to heating”) is used to obtain the modified audio signal to compensate for nonlinear and/or time-varying distortions (as above).
Although Low does not expressly disclose using an external parameter or sensor, it would have been obvious to the designer that an external temperature sensor and corresponding parameter may be used to approximate an internal sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise wherein an external parameter is used to obtain the modified audio signal to compensate for nonlinear and/or time-varying distortions in the system of Low for the benefit of using an external sensor in cases where internal sensors are not available or broken.
Regarding claim 8, combination of claim 7 discloses wherein the external parameter is an environmental temperature (measuring the environment close to the voice coil).
Claim 15 is rejected in an analogous manner to claims 7 and 8.
Claim 16 is rejected in an analogous manner to claim 14 in light of the external parameter of claim 15 as above.
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