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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2025; 06/18/2025; 10/17/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 02/25/2025. The submission 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani et al (US 2015/0063581 A1) in view of Shen (US 5,416,845).
Regarding claim 1, Tani et al disclose an active vibration noise reduction device (Tani et al; Fig 1) comprising: a speaker for outputting a cancellation sound for canceling a noise (Tani et al; Fig 1; speaker 2); a microphone for generating an error signal from the noise and the cancellation sound (Tani et al; Fig 1; microphone 3); a control filter configured to generate a control signal for controlling the cancellation sound from a reference signal (Tani et al; Fig 1; filter 5 generates a control signal for controlling the cancellation sound from a reference signal x(n)); and a secondary path filter configured to present an estimation value of a transfer function from the speaker to the microphone generate a control signal for controlling the cancellation sound from a reference signal (Tani et al; Fig 1; filter 5 present an estimation value of a transfer function C from the speaker to the microphone generate a control signal for controlling the cancellation sound from a reference signal), wherein the control filter is further configured to be adaptively updated with an update amount obtained by multiplying the error signal, a step size parameter calculated based on the error signal (Tani et al; Fig 1; Para [0007] [0069][0085]; controller 7 configured to update filter coefficients of filter 5; a step size parameter calculated based on the error signal), but do not expressly disclose and a result of convolution between the reference signal and the secondary path filter. However, Shen discloses a noise reduction device comprises an update amount obtained as result of convolution between the reference signal and the secondary path filter (Shen; Fig 8; Fig 9; col 26; lines 20-35). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the secondary path filter taught by Shen as secondary path filter in the device taught by Tani. The motivation to do so would have been to obtain a more accurate gradient (Shen; col 5; lines 40-45).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani et al (US 2015/0063581 A1) in view of Shen (US 5,416,845) and further in view of Jiao et al (NPL; A Novel Gradient Adaptive Step Size LMS Algorithm with dual adaptive filters).
Regarding claim 2, Tani in view of Shen disclose the active vibration noise reduction device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the step size parameter is obtained based on a convolution between the error signal and the reference signal. However, Jiao et al disclose a noise reduction device wherein the step size parameter is obtained based on a convolution between the error signal and the reference signal (Jiao et al; Page 4804; Col 1; lines 15-30). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the step size taught by Jiao as step size in the device taught by Tani. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the computational complexity (Jiao et al; Page 4803; Col 1; lines 1-20).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani et al (US 2015/0063581 A1) in view of Shen (US 5,416,845) and further in view of Hou et al (CN 111814515 A).
Regarding claim 3, Tani in view of Shen disclose the active vibration noise reduction device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the step size parameter is obtained based on a square of the error signal. However, Hou et al disclose a noise reduction device wherein the step size parameter is obtained based on a square of the error signal (Hou et al; Page 5; lines 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the step size taught by Hou as step size in the device taught by Tani. The motivation to do so would have been to provide good tracking performance (Hou et al; Page 4; lines 20-35).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani et al (US 2015/0063581 A1) in view of Shen (US 5,416,845) and further in view of Naresh et al (NPL, An Energy Function Based Fuzzy Variable Step Size FxLMS Algorithm for Active Noise Control).
Regarding claim 4, Tani in view of Shen disclose the active vibration noise reduction device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the step size parameter is obtained based on a value calculated by dividing a value obtained based on the error signal by a value obtained based on the reference signal. However, Naresh et al disclose a noise reduction device wherein the step size parameter is obtained based on a value calculated by dividing a value obtained based on the error signal by a value obtained based on the reference signal (Naresh et al; Page 4; col 2; lines 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the step size taught by Naresh as step size in the device taught by Tani. The motivation to do so would have been to prevent the step sizes from violating the upper and lower bounds beyond which the algorithm may diverge (Naresh et al; Page 1; col 1; lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 5, Tani in view of Shen disclose the active vibration noise reduction device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the step size parameter is obtained based on a value calculated by dividing a value obtained by adding a predetermined first positive number to a value obtained based on the error signal by a value obtained by adding a predetermined second positive number to a value obtained based on the reference signal. However, Naresh et al disclose a noise reduction device wherein the step size parameter is obtained based on a value calculated by dividing a value obtained by adding a predetermined first positive number to a value obtained based on the error signal by a value obtained by adding a predetermined second positive number to a value obtained based on the reference signal (Naresh et al; Page 4; col 2; lines 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the step size taught by Naresh as step size in the device taught by Tani. The motivation to do so would have been to prevent the step sizes from violating the upper and lower bounds beyond which the algorithm may diverge (Naresh et al; Page 1; col 1; lines 15-20).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani et al (US 2015/0063581 A1) in view of Shen (US 5,416,845) and further in view of Wang et al (US 2021/0304727 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tani in view of Shen disclose the active vibration noise reduction device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a primary path filter configured to present an estimation value of a transfer function of a primary path from a noise source to the microphone, wherein the primary path filter is configured to be adaptively updated according to an update amount obtained by multiplying: a virtual error signal calculated based on the error signal and the cancellation sound, a step size parameter calculated based on the virtual error signal, and the reference signal. However, Wang et al disclose a noise reduction device further comprising: a primary path filter configured to present an estimation value of a transfer function of a primary path from a noise source to the microphone (Wang et al; Fig 2; filter P0 32a; Para [0042]), wherein the primary path filter is configured to be adaptively updated according to an update amount obtained by multiplying: a virtual error signal calculated based on the error signal and the cancellation sound, a step size parameter calculated based on the virtual error signal, and the reference signal (Wang et al; Fig 2; filter P0 32a; Para [0042]; controller 38a updated based on a virtual error signal calculated based on the error signal and the cancellation sound, a step size parameter calculated based on the virtual error signal, and the reference signal Xr). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the controller taught by Wang as controller in the device taught by Tani. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an active noise control device capable of ensuring good noise cancelling performance even when the transfer characteristic changes (Wang et al; Para [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Tani in view of Shen disclose the active vibration noise reduction device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the secondary path filter is configured to be adaptively updated according to an update amount obtained by multiplying: a virtual error signal calculated based on the error signal and the cancellation sound, a step size parameter calculated based on the virtual error signal, and a convolution between the reference signal and the control filter. However, Wang et al disclose a noise reduction device wherein the secondary path filter is configured to be adaptively updated (Wang et al; Fig 2; secondary path filter 30a and 30b are configured to be adaptively updated) according to an update amount obtained by multiplying: a virtual error signal calculated based on the error signal and the cancellation sound, a step size parameter calculated based on the virtual error signal, and a convolution between the reference signal and the control filter (Wang et al; Fig 2; Para [0029]-[0032]; controller 40a updated based on a virtual error signal calculated based on the error signal and the cancellation sound, a step size parameter calculated based on the virtual error signal, and u1 interpreted as a convolution between the reference signal and the control filter). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the controller taught by Wang as controller in the device taught by Tani. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an active noise control device capable of ensuring good noise cancelling performance even when the transfer characteristic changes (Wang et al; Para [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights