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 § 103
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.
Claims 1, 7-10, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeldener et al. (US Pub. 20130024193) in view of Blyth et al. (US Pub. 20150008962).
Regarding claim 1, Yeldener discloses an apparatus (see abstract) comprising:
an audio detector configured to receive a first audio signal (see abstract; a speech signal is received at an input), wherein the audio detector comprises:
a first envelope follower configured to generate, from a first audio signal and based on a first time constant, a first amplitude measurement (see paragraph 55; One difference between slow and fast envelope tracking filters, is that the different time varying constants are used);
a second envelope follower configured to generate, from the first audio signal and based on a second time constant different from the first time constant, a second amplitude measurement (see paragraphs 52 and 55; The time variant constant, .beta..sub.S(m) for the IIR filter is chosen differentially for rising and falling signal edges; the different time varying constants are used which provide the following conditions);
a first comparator configured to output a first difference between the first amplitude measurement and the second amplitude measurement (see paragraph 61; The speech pause detection module 408 compares the outputs of the fast and slow envelope tracking estimators and is the first stage of a simple speech pause detector; the output signal of the fast envelope tracking estimator is always larger than its slow counterpart).
Yeldener fails to explicitly disclose a second comparator configured to generate a first indication of whether the first difference satisfies a first threshold value; and
a gain control subsystem comprising:
a target gain calculation module configured to calculate, based on the first indication, a target gain for the first audio signal ; and
a gain state update module configured to modify, based on the target gain, a gain state associated with the first audio signal.
However, Blyth discloses a second comparator configured to generate a first indication of whether the first difference satisfies a first threshold value (see paragraphs 114 and 132-133; the comparator unit 702 may also provide hysteresis, which will result in a similar hysteresis in the detected envelope signal ENV_OUT; The detected envelope value is output to a controller 1012 which determines the appropriate gain setting and controls the gain allocator 1010 accordingly); and
a gain control subsystem comprising:
a target gain calculation module configured to calculate, based on the first indication, a target gain for the first audio signal (see fig. 10, item 1012; paragraph 132; controller 1012 which determines the appropriate gain setting); and
a gain state update module configured to modify, based on the target gain, a gain state associated with the first audio signal (see paragraph 132; gain allocator 1010, controlled by controller 1012 to apply the determined setting).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated Blyth’s second comparator configured to generate a first indication of whether the first difference satisfies a first threshold value; and a gain control subsystem comprising: a target gain calculation module configured to calculate, based on the first indication, a target gain for the first audio signal ; and a gain state update module configured to modify, based on the target gain, a gain state associated with the first audio signal to Yeldener’s apparatus since Yeldener and Blyth are both directed to envelope-based gain control of audio signals using multiple time-constant amplitude estimates and threshold-driven decision logic. The motivation would be to provide a discrete, hysteresis-stabilized decision output before committing a gain change, thereby reducing audible gain from noisy or borderline envelope differences.
Regarding claim 7, Yeldener in view of Blyth discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above.
Yeldener fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the gain state update module is configured to modify the gain state associated with the first audio signal based on a hysteresis of the gain state associated with the first audio signal.
However, Blyth discloses wherein the gain state update module is configured to modify the gain state associated with the first audio signal based on a hysteresis of the gain state associated with the first audio signal (see paragraph 114; the comparator unit 702 may also provide hysteresis, which will result in a similar hysteresis in the detected envelope signal ENV_OUT).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated Blyth’s wherein the gain state update module is configured to modify the gain state associated with the first audio signal based on a hysteresis of the gain state associated with the first audio signal to Yeldener’s apparatus since Yeldener and Blyth are both directed to envelope-based gain control of audio signals using multiple time-constant amplitude estimates and threshold-driven decision logic. The motivation would be to provide a discrete, hysteresis-stabilized decision output before committing a gain change, thereby reducing audible gain from noisy or borderline envelope differences.
Regarding claim 8, Yeldener in view of Blyth discloses the apparatus of claim 7, as discussed above.
Yeldener fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the gain state associated with the first audio signal is modified according to a ramp speed, and wherein the ramp speed is based on a difference between the target gain and the gain state associated with the first audio signal.
However, Blyth discloses wherein the gain state associated with the first audio signal is modified according to a ramp speed, and wherein the ramp speed is based on a difference between the target gain and the gain state associated with the first audio signal (see paragraph 79).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated Blyth’s wherein the gain state associated with the first audio signal is modified according to a ramp speed, and wherein the ramp speed is based on a difference between the target gain and the gain state associated with the first audio signal to Yeldener’s apparatus since Yeldener and Blyth are both directed to envelope-based gain control of audio signals using multiple time-constant amplitude estimates and threshold-driven decision logic. The motivation would be to provide a discrete, hysteresis-stabilized decision output before committing a gain change, thereby reducing audible gain from noisy or borderline envelope differences.
Regarding claim 9, Yeldener in view of Blyth discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising at least one of a wireless transmitter, a wireless receiver, a wireless transceiver, or a microphone (see paragraphs 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, the claimed limitations are a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim directly corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed limitations are a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim directly corresponding to the apparatus of claim 7; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed limitations are a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim directly corresponding to the apparatus of claim 8; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the apparatus of claim 7; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the apparatus of claim 8; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 11-13, and 17-18 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 and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7697. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM, PST.
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.
/PAUL KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights