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 .
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:
ACOUSTIC SYSTEM WITH SOUND SENSORS CONFIGURED FOR SOUND ENERGY RATIOS
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 states “wherein the second sound sensor is coupled to the sound generating component of the speaker”. “A sound generating component” was introduced in claim 6, but claim 7 is dependent on claim 5. Either claim 7 should be dependent on claim 6 or claim 7 should be changed to “wherein the second sound sensor is coupled to a sound generating component of the speaker” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-7, 9-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. (US 20180130482 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Michel discloses an acoustic system (at least communication device 510 of figure 5), comprising:
a speaker (figure 5, item 520), configured to receive a drive signal (521 from 511) and convert the drive signal into a first sound (522) when operating;
a first sound sensor (528), configured to collect ambient sound (around device 510) and generate a first signal (output of 528) when operating, wherein the ambient sound comprises the first sound (522) and a second sound from a target sound source (from talker 531), the target sound source comprises a sound source other than the speaker (talker 531);
a second sound sensor (124), configured to collect the ambient sound (around device 510) and generate a second signal (output of 124) when operating; and
a signal processing circuit (525), connected to the first sound sensor and the second sound sensor (see figure 5), and configured to:
reduce a signal components in the first signal corresponding to the first sound based on the second signal (paragraph [0071], “The echo canceller 525 uses the signal from the internal microphone 124 to either control the state of the echo canceller or remove echoes or other distortions from the sound input at the external microphone 528.”) to obtain a target signal (output of 525, sent over com link 505B), and
perform a target operation on the target signal (at least sending it over communication link 505B to speaker 540).
Although Michel does not expressly disclose configuring for the claimed ratios, such ratios are calculatable for any arrangement of such devices. Applicant discloses many ways to meet the inequality k2 > (2 x k1) (see at least 3 alternate conditions of claim 2, also see at least claims 3-5) which in general ensure that the signal energy of a loudspeaker measured by the first sound sensor is weak but strong in the second sound sensor, and/or conversely, the signal of the talker measured by the second sound sensor is weak but strong in the first sound sensor.
Michel teaches wherein the loudspeaker energy is weak in the first sound sensor (see 705 of figure 7, shown as square wave distortions but energy is actually very low, see paragraph [0080]) but strong in the second sound sensor (see 703 of figure 7) and also teaches wherein the talker energy is weak in the second sound sensor (see 704 of figure 7, almost non-existent) but strong in the first sound sensor (see 706 of figure 7). Thus, the configuration matches the claimed criteria and it would have been obvious to a designer to at least try configurations that meet the claimed criteria. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise the claimed configuration for the devices in the system of Michel for the benefit of avoiding howling and allowing for effective feedback control.
Regarding claim 2, Michel discloses wherein, to satisfy k2 > (2 x k1) , the first signal and the second signal satisfy at least one of the following conditions:
a ratio of the signal energy corresponding to the first sound in the second signal (which is high, see 703 of figure 7) to the signal energy corresponding to the second sound in the second signal (which is low, essentially zero, see 704 of figure 7) is greater than or equal to 2 (high number divided by number close to zero equals a high number, at least greater than 2);
a ratio of the signal energy corresponding to the first sound in the second signal to the signal energy corresponding to the first sound in the first signal is greater than or equal to 2; or
a ratio of the signal energy corresponding to the second sound in the first signal to the signal energy corresponding to the first sound in the first signal is greater than or equal to 2.
Regarding claim 3, Michel discloses wherein a positional relationship of the first sound sensor, the second sound sensor and the speaker meets a preset condition, so that the first signal and the second signal satisfy k2 > (2 x k1) (see figure 5, at least second sound sensor being enclosed with speaker, paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 4, Michel teaches wherein the first sound sensor (528) is intended for picking up sound from the near end talker (531) and the second sound sensor (124) is positioned inside a cavity (518) with the speaker.
Although Michel does not expressly disclose the distances between the speaker and the sensors, it would have been obvious to the designer that the sensors may be as close or as far away from the speaker at their preference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise wherein the preset condition comprises: L2 > (2 x L1) wherein L2 is a distance between the second sound sensor and the speaker, and L1 is a distance between the first sound sensor and the speaker in the system of Michel for the benefit of arranging the devices as described and positioning the sensors close to their intended sound source.
Regarding claim 5, Michel discloses wherein the acoustic system further comprises a housing (either housing of entire device 510, see paragraph [0081], or speaker housing 517, see paragraph [0071]), a part of the housing forms an acoustic cavity (at least 518), the speaker and the second sound sensor are both located inside the acoustic cavity (figure 5), and the first sound sensor is located outside the acoustic cavity (figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Michel discloses wherein a sound generating component (speaker cone of 520) of the speaker divides the acoustic cavity into a first acoustic cavity (outside of 515 but inside 510) and a second acoustic cavity (518), and a sound generating surface (speaker cone of 520) of the sound generating component faces the first acoustic cavity (see figure 5), wherein the second sound sensor is located inside the first acoustic cavity, or the second sound sensor is located inside the second acoustic cavity (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, although Michel does not expressly disclose the claimed coupling, it would have been obvious to the designer that components of a device may be coupled to other components of the device at their preference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise wherein the second sound sensor is coupled to the sound generating component of the speaker in the system of Michel for the benefit of securing components of the device within the device housing, thereby reducing damage.
Regarding claim 9, Michel discloses wherein the acoustic system further comprises a housing (housing of entire device 510, see paragraph [0081]), a first acoustic cavity (inside housing of entire device 510, , see paragraph [0081]) and a second acoustic cavity (518 defined by speaker housing 517, paragraph [0071]) are formed in a partial area of the housing, the speaker is located in the first acoustic cavity (speaker 520 and speaker housing are within housing of entire device 510, see figure 5), the second sound sensor is located in the second acoustic cavity (see figure 5), and the second sound sensor is closer to the speaker than the first sound sensor (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Michel discloses wherein the acoustic system further comprises a housing (either housing of entire device 510, see paragraph [0081], or speaker housing 517, see paragraph [0071]), a sound pickup surface of the first sound sensor (528) is located in a free space outside the housing (see figure 5), a sound pickup surface of the second sound sensor (124) is located in an internal space of the housing (see figure 5), and the second sound sensor is closer to the speaker than the first sound sensor (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 11, Michel discloses wherein the acoustic system further comprises a first housing (housing of entire device 510, see paragraph [0081]) and a second housing (speaker housing 517, see paragraph [0071]), wherein the second housing is located inside the first housing (see figure 5), the second housing forms an acoustic cavity (518), and the speaker and the second sound sensor are located inside the acoustic cavity (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Michel discloses wherein the acoustic system further comprises a baffle (the broadest reasonable interpretation of baffle in this instance is “a physical device used to control the flow of liquids, gases, sound, or light” which reads on the housing 517 or housing of 510), the second acoustic sensor and the speaker are located on a first side of the baffle (inside housing), and the first acoustic sensor is located on a second side of the baffle (outside housing, see figure 5).
Regarding claim 15, Michel discloses wherein the first sound sensor is located at a first position (position of 528, see figure 5) within a target area (general area of device 510 and talker 531), and the second sound sensor is located at a second position (position of 124 see figure 5) within the target area, wherein the first position and the second position satisfy at least one of the following conditions:
a sound energy from the speaker at the first position is less than a sound energy from the speaker at another position in the target area except the first position (speaker sound energy is less at position of 528 than at position of 124); or a sound energy from the speaker at the second position is greater than a sound energy from the speaker at another position in the target area except the second position (speaker sound energy is greater at position of 124 than at position of 528).
Regarding claim 16, Michel discloses wherein to obtain the target signal (output of 525, shown as 407 in figure 4), the signal processing circuit is configured to:
perform an adaptive filtering operation (shown in figure 4, item 403) on the second signal (output of 401) to obtain a third signal (output of 403), and subtracts (via 406) the third signal from the first signal (output of 404) to obtain the target signal (407).
Regarding claim 17, Michel discloses wherein the signal processing circuit is further configured to:
update filtering parameters corresponding to the adaptive filtering operation based on at least one of the second signal or the target signal (show by angled arrow, paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 18, Michel discloses wherein to obtain the target signal (output of 525), the signal processing circuit is configured to:
perform a first preprocessing operation (shown in figure 1, amplifier 102, paragraph [0051]) on the first signal to obtain a first intermediate signal;
perform a second preprocessing operation (shown in figure 1, amplifier 140, paragraph [0057]) on the second signal to obtain a second intermediate signal; and
reducing a signal component corresponding to the first sound in the first intermediate signal based on the second intermediate signal to obtain the target signal.
Regarding claim 19, Michel discloses wherein the first preprocessing operation comprises at least one of a gain amplification operation (shown in figure 1, amplifier 140, paragraph [0057]), a filtering operation, a frequency response compensation operation, or a phase modification operation; and
the second preprocessing operation comprises at least one of a gain amplification operation (shown in figure 1, amplifier 140, paragraph [0057]), a filtering operation, a frequency response compensation operation, or a phase modification operation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. (US 20180130482 A1) in view of Kobayashi (US 20200251121 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Michel wherein the acoustic system further comprises a housing (either housing of entire device 510, see paragraph [0081], or speaker housing 517, see paragraph [0071]) and the second sound sensor is closer to the speaker than the first sound sensor (figure 5).
Michel does not disclose the claimed microphone placement.
Kobayashi wherein an acoustic system (100 of figure 1) further comprises a housing (enclosed 100, shown in figures 3A and 3B), a sound pickup surface of the second sound sensor and a sound pickup surface of the first sound sensor are both located in a free space outside the housing (see figure 3A or 3B, required to pick up sound from the outside), and the second sound sensor is closer to the speaker than the first sound sensor (see figures 3A and 3B and paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the microphone placement of Kobayashi in the system of Michel for the benefit of allowing the microphones to be reproposed to other functions, such as a microphone array. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobayashi with Michel, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. (US 20180130482 A1) in view of Kaneda (US 5208864).
Regarding claim 13, Michel does not disclose microphone directivity.
Kaneda discloses wherein sound pickup directivity of a first sound sensor (directivity 61 is toward talker 3 of figure 10a, column 6 line 63 to column 7 line 19, also see figure 11) meets a preset condition, so that a first signal and a second signal satisfy k2 > (2 x k1) (see scenario as in claim 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the microphone directivity of Kaneda in the system of Michel for the benefit of further isolating the desired sound signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kaneda with Michel, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Kaneda discloses wherein the sound pickup directivities of the first sound sensor and the second sound sensor satisfy at least one of the following conditions:
a sound pickup sensitivity of the first sound sensor in a first direction(directivity 61 is toward talker 3 of figure 10a, column 6 line 63 to column 7 line 19, also see figure 11) is greater than a sound pickup sensitivity of the first sound sensor in a second direction (toward noise source 63); or
a sound pickup sensitivity of the second sound sensor in the first direction is less than a sound pickup sensitivity in the second direction,
wherein the first direction points to the target sound source (61 points to talker 3), and the second direction points to the speaker (toward noise 63, where null of 61 is).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. (US 20180130482 A1) in view of Asada et al. (US 20180115818 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Michel does not expressly disclose sending an amplified target signal to the speaker.
Asada discloses wherein a signal processing circuit (at least 12 of figure 9) is further connected to a speaker (511), and when performing a target operation, the signal processing circuit:
amplifies a target signal (output of 123), and
sends an amplified signal to the speaker to drive the speaker to produce a sound (in ear of user).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the head mounted acoustic device of Asada as a setting for the acoustic system of Michel for the benefit of having a head worn system where the user can hear the outside world. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Asada with Michel, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
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
