DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 2/21/2025:
Claims 1-20 are pending – Examiner notes a total of 21 claims pending
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 Objections
Claims 3-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 (note the plural) are misnumbered and one of them should be renumbered to claim 4.
Since claim 3 is misnumbered, all subsequent claims are similarly misnumbered.
Claim 3 should recite “wherein the one or more instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively…” to follow uniformity throughout the claims and for proper antecedent basis from claim 1.
Claim 4 should recite “the one or more instructions that…” (note the space).
Claim 13 should recite “…off a frequency band of the audio signal related to .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Singaraju (US20240249743).
Regarding claim 1, Singaraju teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1, electronic device) comprising:
a camera (Fig. 1, device comprising a camera);
an audio device comprising at least one from among a microphone and a speaker (¶24, device being described as a smartphone comprising a speaker and microphone);
memory storing one or more instructions (¶36, device comprising memory); and
at least one processor including processing circuitry (¶6, device comprising a processor),
wherein the one or more instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
detect at least one object from an image captured via the camera (¶23, device capturing an audio scene comprising of at least one object);
identify a main object of interest to a user, from among the detected at least one object (¶25, detecting a plurality of sources wherein the main object main be speech whereas other objects/sources may be considered noise);
obtain context information of the main object of interest to the user (¶25, classifying detected sources as noise vs speech); and
control, based on the obtained context information, audio settings of the audio device for obtaining or outputting an audio signal via the audio device (Fig. 1, audio setting can be adjusted for the detected sources and based on derived context information (i.e. noise vs speech)).
Regarding claim 2, Singaraju teaches wherein
the one or more instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to control, based on the context information, at least one from among a filter, an amplifier, and an equalizer of the audio device (¶44, Fig. 1, desired audio source(s) can be adjusted by filtering, volume/amplification settings, and EQ (¶54, frequency-based adjustments)).
Regarding claim 3, Singaraju teaches wherein
the one or more instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to control, based on the context information, at least one from among a filter, an amplifier, and an equalizer of the audio device (¶44, Fig. 1, desired audio source(s) can be adjusted by filtering, volume/amplification settings, and EQ (¶54, frequency-based adjustments)).
Regarding claim 3, Singaraju teaches wherein
the one or more instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine, based on a decision tree or fuzzy logic, an equalizer preset mapped to the context information from among a plurality of pre-stored equalizer presets (Fig. 1, ¶28-29, based on derived contextual information, various audio settings may be applied to the one or more captured sources and wherein a machine-learning model may also be used to be trained and able to apply settings for the user).
Regarding claim 4, Singaraju teaches wherein
the one or more instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine, based on a preset mapping relationship, the equalizer preset mapped to the context information (Fig. 1, ¶28-29, based on derived contextual information (i.e. noise vs speech), various audio settings may be applied to the one or more captured sources and wherein a machine-learning model may also be used to be trained and able to apply settings for the user).
Regarding claim 5, Singaraju teaches wherein
the one or more instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to amplify, based on the audio settings and via an amplifier of the audio device, a frequency band related to the main object of interest from among frequency bands of the audio signal (¶38, 54, processor able to detect the mix of frequencies in the captured signal(s) and allow the user to control a frequency mix such as allowing more speech or more noise and/or allowing less speech or less noise).
Regarding claim 7, Singaraju teaches further comprising
an input interface configured to receive a crop input of the user for cropping the image,
wherein the one or more instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
obtain a cropped image, based on the crop input received via the input interface; and
amplify, based on the audio settings, a portion of the audio signal related to the main object of interest included in the cropped image, and attenuate or mute, based on the audio settings, a portion of the audio signal related to an object not included in the cropped image from among the at least one object (¶41, 44, user is able to perform a zoom function (i.e. on a camera) which triggers a similar effect of audio zoom that allows the user to focus on an object of interest and enhance the audio produced on the object while attenuating other objects; see also Jang, ¶14, that also explains the functions of audio zoom).
Regarding claims 8-12, they are rejected similarly as claims 1-5, respectively. The method can be found in Singaraju (abstract, method).
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected similarly as claim 7. The method can be found in Singaraju (abstract, method).
Regarding claims 15-19, they are rejected similarly as claims 1-5, respectively. The medium can be found in Singaraju (¶6, medium).
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) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singaraju (US20240249743 in view of Jang et al (US20210258709, hereinafter “Jang”).
Regarding claim 6, Singaraju teaches wherein
the one or more instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform, based on the audio settings and via a band stop filter, filtering that attenuates or cuts off a frequency band of the audio signal related to an object other than the main object of interest from among the at least one object (¶38, 54, captured audio can be identified by both frequency ranges and classified as noise and be further altered with one or more user settings to allow for more or less noise as desired).
Singaraju fails to explicitly teach the use of a band stop filter.
Jang teaches the use of a band-pass filter (¶91, band pass filter can be adjusted to produce the same result as band stop filter)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the audio enhancement system (as taught by Singaraju) with the band pass filtering technique (as taught by Jang). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of using a well-known filter to stop or pass desired frequency bands which can be useful in producing audio zoom effects (Jang, ¶25-26).
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected similarly as claim 6. The method can be found in Singaraju (abstract, method).
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected similarly as claim 6. The medium can be found in Singaraju (¶6, medium).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM EST.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights