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 .
1. This communication in response to application filed 02/03/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 7 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 7 recites that “the one or more quality metrics include spectrum mask flatness at an ear reference point (ERP) at a plurality of signal levels”. The meaning and scope of “spectrum mask flatness” are unclear. Although paragraph [0051] of the specification repeats that spectrum mask flatness at the ERP may be considered as a quality metric, the specification does not define the applicable spectrum mask, the manner in which flatness determined, the frequency range or tolerance associated with the mask, or the manner in which the measurements at the plurality of signal levels are evaluated. One of an ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty what measurements or calculated values fall within the scope of “spectrum mask flatness”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US PAT # 10,080,088 B1) in view of Park et al., “’Generation of Independent Bright Zones for a Two-Channel Private Audio System”.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 16, Yang teaches an audio device (reads on device 110 of system 100, see Fig. 1), a method and non-transitory medium (reads on memory 1006 includes RAM, ROM, nonvolatile memory, magnetic and optical storage and stores processor-executable instructions, see col. 21 line 65 through col. 22, line 15) comprising:
at least two speakers (reads on loudspeaker array 112 comprising a plurality of loudspeakers, see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 26-47);
one or more memories (reads on memory 1006 storing data and processor-executable instructions, see col. 21 line 65 through col. 22, line 15); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (reads on processor/controller 1004 coupled to memory 1006 through bus1002, see col. 21, line 65 through col. 22, line 15), the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
measure one or more audio characteristics (Yang teaches measuring the audio in a target zone by determining sound-pressure values and transfer functions associated with the target sound zone, see col 5, lines 21-40);
measure one or more privacy characteristics in a privacy zone surrounding the user (reads on measuring audio in a privacy zone surround the user by determining sound-pressure values and transfer functions associated with a quiet sound zone, see col. 5, lines 41-61);
determine one or more audio output metrics of the audio device based at least in part on the one or more audio characteristics and the one or more privacy characteristics, wherein the one or more audio output metrics include one or more privacy metrics, one or more quality metrics, one or more power metrics, or any combination thereof (Yang teaches an acoustic contrast metric representing a ration between sound pressure in the target sound zone and sound pressure in the quiet sound zone , see col. 8, line 51 through col. 10, line 35); and
optimize an audio output based on the one or more audio output metrics (reads on determining and applying filter coefficients that increase sound pressure in the target sound zone and reduce or control sound pressure in the quiet sound zone, see col. 10, lines 22-35 and col. 11, line 65 through col. 12, line 9).
Yang therefore teaches the claimed audio device and the measurement and optimization of target-zone and privacy-zone characteristics. Yang, however, does not specifically teach that the one or more audio characteristics are measured “at one or more cars of a user”.
Park teaches positioning bright zones in the vicinity of the user’s ears and measuring transfer-function and sound-pressure characteristics at those ear-centered bright zones. In particular, Park’s bright zones Vb1 and Vb2 are located in regions comprising the user’s ears, while dark zones are positioned in the surrounding side regions (see abstract, 2.2 and Fig. 2, P. 383 and 4.1-4.2 and Figs. 7-9, pp. 385-386).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position Yang’s target zone at the user’s ears, as taught by Park, and to measure the associated audio characteristics at those ear locations, because doing so would direct the desired audio to the listener’s ears while maintaining reduced sound pressure in the surrounding quiet or privacy zone, thereby improving private listening and reducing sound leakage to nearby persons.
For claim 11, that recite the audio device comprises at least two speakers worn by a user, Park recognizes headphones or earphones as conventional arrangements by which a user privately listens to audio (see Park 1, p. 382). Yang additionally, teaches that device 110 may be a mobile electronic device and that loudspeaker array 112 may be integrated into the device (see col. 2, lines 26-47). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Yang’s at least two speakers in the conventional wearable headphone or earphone arrangement recognized by Park, while applying Park’s ear-centered audio and surrounding privacy-zone measurements, in order to provide a portable private-listening implementation that directs audio to the user’s ears and reduce audible sound in the surrounding area.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 17, the combination of Yang in view of Park teaches wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to determine a relative amplitude, a relative phase, or any combination thereof, between the at least two speakers (note that Park Fig. 13 shows magnitudes multichannel filter for the loudspeaker, see 4.3.2, pp.387-388. Yang’s filter comprise complex frequency-response weighting applied to respective loudspeakers, see col. 3, lines 40-65).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 18, the combination of Yang in view of Park teaches wherein the one or more audio output metrics are determined based at least in part on the relative amplitude, the relative phase, or any combination thereof (Park’s magnitude and phase values are the optimized multichannel-filter parameters derived to achieve the acoustic-contrast objective, see 4.3.2, Figs. 13-14, pp 387-389).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 19, the combination of Yang in view of Park teaches wherein the one or more privacy metrics include an attenuation in reference to an ear input signal level in the privacy zone (note that Park compares energy/SPL at the ear-centered bright zone against energy SPL in the surrounding dark zone, see 3.1, Eqs.4-5 and pp. 383-384. Yang maximizes the ration between target-zone and quiet-zone sound-pressure values, see col. 8, line 51 through col. 10, line 35).
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 20, the combination of Yang in view of Park teaches wherein the privacy zone is a zone in proximity to the user (Park’s dark zones are located in side regions immediately adjacent to the ear-centered bright zones, see abstract, 1 and Fig. 1(b), pp. 382-383).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yang in view of Park teaches wherein the one or more privacy metrics are measured at a plurality of audio frequencies (Park evaluates acoustic-energy and channel-separation performance at 800, 2000, 4000, and 5000 Hz, see Figs. 11-17, pp. 386-390).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yang in view of Park teaches wherein the one or more quality metrics include spectrum mask flatness at an ear reference point (ERP) at a plurality of signal levels (Yang teaches the acoustic brightness control of Fig. 3A. Note that maximizing the sound pressure in the bright zone enables to reach a flat target irrespective of the level sound leaking in the in the dark zones.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yang in view of Park teaches wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to measure one or more speaker characteristics (Park measures the frequency responses and coherence functions of individual loudspeakers, see 4.2 and Fig.8, p.386).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yang in view of Park teaches wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to perform one or more beamforming operations for the at least two speakers to increase acoustic contrast (Park derives and applies a multichannel spatial filter to focus acoustic energy in a bright zone and maximize its ration to the dark zone, see 3.1, Figs. 2-5, pp. 383-385. Yang applies loudspeaker-array filters to focus sound toward a target region, see col. 2, lines 50-65).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US PAT # 10,080,088 B1) in view of Park et al., “’Generation of Independent Bright Zones for a Two-Channel Private Audio System” and further in view of Cabot (US PAT # 5,420,516).
Yang in view of Park teaches the audio device and audio-output optimization limitations of claim 1, however, Yang and Park do not expressly teach that “wherein the one or more quality metrics include total harmonic distortion (THD) at a plurality of signal levels”, as recited in claim 8.
However, Cabot teaches evaluating an audio device by applying a multitone audio test signal, measuring the resulting harmonic-component amplitudes, and calculating a total harmonic distortion (THD) value from the measured harmonic-distortion components (see col. 7, lines 18-45). Cabot further teaches employing different signal amplitudes during the distortion measurement, including raising the amplitude of one test-tone component substantially above the remaining test tones, with an exemplary amplitude difference of approximately 12dB, thereby providing a plurality of signal levels for the THD evaluation (see col. 8, lines 1-16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Cabot’s THD measurement at a plurality of signal levels among the audio-quality metrics used in the Yang-Park audio device because Cabot teaches that harmonic-distortion measurement provides a quantitative evaluation of distortion introduced by an audio signal-transfer device. Incorporating that metric would have been predictably allowed the system to evaluate distortion under different signal-level conditions and to account for reproduced-audio distortion when determining and optimizing the audio output.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rasha S. AL-Aubaidi whose telephone number is (571) 272-7481. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on (571) 272-7488.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RASHA S AL AUBAIDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights