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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-2, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior art Benway et al. (2018/0151168) in view of Satoyoshi et al. (JP 2012093594 A).
As to claim 1, Benway teaches a masker sound generation device comprising:
an obtainer that obtains a collected-sound signal generated ([0046]);
a detector that detects, based on the collected sound signal, a noise level ([0046, 0049] – noise level measurements made in the open space);
a first generator that generates a first masker sound signal (sound 622) according to the noise level ([0049] – noise masking system 2 makes changes to the physical environment including increasing or reducing the volume of the sound masking in order to maintain an optimal masking level, even as speech noise levels change);
a second generator that generates, according to the noise level, a second masker sound signal having a sound pressure higher than a sound pressure of the first masker sound signal in a frequency band higher than a first frequency ([0056] - the speaker sound 604 corresponding to the flow of water is optimized to mask a higher frequency open space noise than the noise sound 622 configured to mask open space noise);
a synthesizer that synthesizes the first masker sound signal and the second sound masker sound signal to generate a synthesized mask sound signal ([0042] - two noise masking audio files 10 may be selected and mixed together for simultaneous output at loudspeaker 14); and
an outputter (output from loudspeaker 14) that outputs the synthesized masker sound signal to a loudspeaker that emits sound into a sound emission space ([0024, 0027-0028, 0046] – loudspeaker(s) 14 arranged to output a speaker sound in an open space).
Benway does not explicitly discuss a sound collection space where a microphone is disposed.
Satoyoshi teaches a microphone 1 that collects speech of a speaker and outputs it to a speech processing device 3. The speech processing device 3 generates masker sound for masking speech of the speaker based on speech of the speaker collected by the microphone (solution).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Satayoshi into the teachings of Benway for the purpose of collecting speech of speaker and outputs it to a speech processing device for generating masker sound for masking speech of the speaker based on speech of the speaker.
As to claim 2, Benway does not explicitly discuss the masker sound generation device according to claim 1, wherein the first generator generates the first masker sound signal having a highest frequency that is lower as the noise level is higher. However, Benway teaches ([0049] – noise masking system 2 makes changes to the physical environment including increasing or reducing the volume of the sound masking in order to maintain an optimal masking level, even as speech noise levels change); and allows the level of the first masking sound (e.g., sound 622) to be increased (i.e., to produce a greater masking effect of noise 620) without being perceived by person 610. This is advantageous where persons prefer to hear the sound of pink noise at a reduced level or not to hear the sound of pink noise. In one example, the output levels of sound 604 and noise sound 622 are determined experimentally and/or based on listener preference. The use of sound 604 and sound 622 produces a greater masking effect than the use of either sound 604 or sound 622 alone, while providing for increased listener comfort ([0057]), hence it would have been obvious to generate the first masker sound signal having a highest frequency in order to produce a greater masking effect while providing for increased listener comfort.
As to claim 12, Benway teaches the masker sound generation device according to claim 1, wherein the first masker sound signal (sound 622) is a sound signal for masking noise ([0049] – noise masking system 2 makes changes to the physical environment including increasing or reducing the volume of the sound masking in order to maintain an optimal masking level, even as speech noise levels change), and the second masker sound signal is a sound signal for embellishing a first masker sound based on the first masker sound signal ([0056] - the speaker sound 604 corresponding to the flow of water is optimized to mask a higher frequency open space noise than the noise sound 622 configured to mask open space noise).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Benway teaches executed by a computer and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing the computer to execute the masker sound generation (claim 20; [0069-0070]).
3. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior art Benway et al. (2018/0151168) and Satoyoshi et al. (JP 2012093594 A) in view of Turner-Fernback (US Patent 11,688,380).
As to claims 3 and 4, Benway and Satoyoshi do not explicitly discuss the sound generation device according to claim 1, wherein the second generator generates the second masker sound signal having a lowest frequency that is higher as the noise level is higher. However, Benway teaches ([0049] – noise masking system 2 makes changes to the physical environment including increasing or reducing the volume of the sound masking in order to maintain an optimal masking level, even as speech noise levels change); and allows the level of the first masking sound (e.g., sound 622) to be increased (i.e., to produce a greater masking effect of noise 620) without being perceived by person 610. This is advantageous where persons prefer to hear the sound of pink noise at a reduced level or not to hear the sound of pink noise. In one example, the output levels of sound 604 and noise sound 622 are determined experimentally and/or based on listener preference. The use of sound 604 and sound 622 produces a greater masking effect than the use of either sound 604 or sound 622 alone, while providing for increased listener comfort ([0057]).
Turner-Fernback teaches the frequency content of the sound getting through to the ear has been sent to the noise masking circuit where it is analyzed by the adaptive spectral analyzer and generator, and having allowed for the passive attenuation and active cancellation signal of the noise cancelling controller, a signal in the appropriate bandwidth is dynamically generated, which will fully mask any residual signal that might still be audible to the user at the lowest perceived masking volume (claim 15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Turner-Fernback into the teachings of Benway and Satoyoshi for the purpose of summing with the signal from the noise cancelling controller and sent to the speaker thereby minimizing the effect of external disturbances for the desired period of time.
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benway, Satoyoshi, and Turner-Fernback in view of Goubran et al. (2004/0146168).
As to claim 5, Benway teaches first generator generates noise masking system 2 makes changes to the physical environment including increasing or reducing the volume of the sound masking in order to maintain an optimal masking level, even as speech noise levels change ([0049]); and a second generator that generates, according to the noise level, a second masker sound signal can be selected to mask lower frequency open space noise ([0056] - the speaker sound 604 corresponding to the flow of water is optimized to mask a higher frequency open space noise than the noise sound 622 can be selected to mask lower frequency open space noise). Benway, Satoyoshi, and Turner-Fernback do not explicitly discuss the second mask generator generates masker sound signal from which a full frequency band lower than the first frequency is cut off.
Goubran teaches sound masking comprising the steps of (i) acquiring a signal representing undesired sound; (ii) partitioning the acquired signal into blocks; (iii) estimating the sound power in each time block resulting from step (ii); (iv) filtering the values of the estimated sound power estimated in step (iii) using a low-pass-filter, whereby cut-off frequency of the filter determines the desired amplitude tracking performance; (v) estimating the frequency spectrum of each time block resulting from step (ii); (vi) determining maximum and minimum frequencies of the signal in each of said blocks based on the frequency spectrum estimated in step (v); (vii) generating a white noise signal and filtering it with a band-pass filter, having an upper range of pass-band equal to the maximum frequency determined in step (vi) and having a lower range equal to the minimum frequency (claim 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Goubran into the teachings of Benway, Satoyoshi and Turner-Fernback for the purpose of filtering the signal resulting from to shape its spectrum in a predetermined manner; and adaptively varying the amplitude range and frequency range of the generated noise.
5. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benway, Satoyoshi, and Turner-Fernback in view of Yamakawa (2015/0256930).
As to claim 6, Benway teaches first generator generates noise masking system 2 makes changes to the physical environment including increasing or reducing the volume of the sound masking in order to maintain an optimal masking level, even as speech noise levels change ([0049]); and a second generator that generates, according to the noise level, a second masker sound signal can be selected to mask lower frequency open space noise ([0056] - the speaker sound 604 corresponding to the flow of water is optimized to mask a higher frequency open space noise than the noise sound 622 can be selected to mask lower frequency open space noise). Benway, Satoyoshi, and Turner-Fernback do not explicitly discuss the first generator generates the first masker sound signal having an equivalent noise level corresponding to the noise level and the second generator generates the second masker sound signal having an equivalent noise level corresponding to the noise level.
Yamakawa teaches generating a masking sound hardly making a third person feel unpleasant by performing a frequency filtering process for a masking sound so that the frequency spectrum of the masking sound and a background noise is the same as the frequency spectrum of a voice of a speaker; generating a masking sound that does not cause noisiness and unnaturalness by dividing an envelope signal representing the envelope of each band of a target sound signal received from a room into multiple frames and multiplying a noise sound by the envelope signal obtained by randomly changing the order of the arrangement of frames in which the amplitude of the signal is greater than or equal to a lower limit threshold and less than or equal to an upper limit threshold. ([0003]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamakawa into the teachings of Benway, Satoyoshi and Turner-Fernback for the purpose of generating, although not for sound masking but as a sound for reducing the influence of a running noise of a vehicle impeding the reproduction of an electrically valid signal through a loudspeaker, a sound in which the level of each frequency band is individually adjusted depending on the instantaneous speed of a vehicle.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benway, Satoyoshi, Turner-Fernback, and Yamakawa in view of Choi (2014/0129215).
As to claim 8, Benway teaches first generator generates noise masking system 2 makes changes to the physical environment including increasing or reducing the volume of the sound masking in order to maintain an optimal masking level, even as speech noise levels change ( [0049]); and a second generator that generates, according to the noise level, a second masker sound signal can be selected to mask lower frequency open space noise ( [0056] - the speaker sound 604 corresponding to the flow of water is optimized to mask a higher frequency open space noise than the noise sound 622 can be selected to mask lower frequency open space noise). Benway, Satoyoshi, Turner-Fernback, and Yamakawa do not explicitly discuss the first generator generates the first masker sound signal having an equivalent noise level corresponding to the second threshold value and the second generator generates the second masker sound signal having an equivalent noise level corresponding to the second threshold value.
Choi teaches generating of the mask may include determining the input sound as a non-echo signal when an intensity of the input sound is equal to or larger than a second threshold ([0016]); and generating mask of the echo signal, a window is set to "0" when the intensity of the input sound is equal to or larger than a second threshold ([0022, 0053]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Benway, Satoyoshi, Turner-Fernback and Yamakawa for the purpose of determining the input sound as the echo/non-echo signal when the intensity of the input sound is equal or larger than the second threshold.
7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior art Benway et al. (2018/0151168) and Satoyoshi et al. (JP 2012093594 A) in view of Arvanaghi et al. (2013/0185061).
As to claim 11, Satoyoshi teaches the masker sound generation device according to claim 1 further comprising: the microphone and the loudspeaker (solution – microphone 1; speaker H1).
Benway and Satoyoshi do not explicitly discuss the microphone is disposed in a direction opposite to a direction in which the loudspeaker emits sound.
Arvanaghi teaches a soundboard the microphone disposed on a first side of the soundboard, the plurality of speaker disposed on a second side of the soundboard, the second side opposite the first side (claim 12) and The soundboard 130 separates the speakers 110, mounted on a first side 132 of the soundboard 130, from the microphones 120, mounted on the second side 132 of the soundboard 130, opposite the first side 132 ([0022]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arvanaghi into the teachings of Benway and Satoyoshi for the purpose of having the soundboard operates to at least partially acoustically isolate the speakers from the microphones.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 7 and 9 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 (claim 1) and any intervening claims (claims 2, 4 and 6). Claim 10 is objected because they depend on objected claim 9.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights