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 statements filed 3/20/25 and 7/23/25 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 3/20/25 are acceptable to the examiner.
Specification
Applicants are reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology “means”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22, 28 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 and 34 recite the limitation "the multi-channel output audio" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 28 recites the limitation "the multi-channel output audio" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17-19, 21-24, 27-31 and 33-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickins et al. (US 2020/0227063 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2023/0353683 A1).
Re claim 17: Dickins et al. teaches an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor (702); and
at least one memory (704) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (paragraphs [0070-0075]), cause the apparatus at least to:
render (410) a received output audio signal via at least one audio output (paragraph [0036]); locally capture multi-channel input audio (using a single microphone (225) that are processed (see figure 2), wherein the multi-channel input audio comprises multiple audio input channels comprising at least: wherein processing the multi-channel input audio comprises suppressing spatiality of an acoustic echo, wherein suppressing the spatiality of an acoustic echo comprises de-localizing a sound source representing the acoustic echo (by use of module (270) as discussed in paragraph [0028]). Dickins echo suppression uses a single microphone and not first and second microphones as set forth, i.e. a first audio input channel comprising audio captured at a first microphone; and a second audio input channel comprising audio captured at a second microphone; and process the multi-channel input audio to produce a multi-channel input audio signal representing local captured audio. Song et al. teaches in a similar environment to perform echo suppression using two microphones (mic1 and mic2), figures 1 and 2 along with corresponding written disclosure (paragraphs [0037-0044]) to improve echo cancelation by performing residual echo suppression. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace a single echo cancellation arrangement in Dicken et al. with a dual microphone arrangement as taught by Song et al. to predictably improve echo cancelation by performing residual echo suppression. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 29: This claim, written using method language, contains similar features as discussed above with respect to claim 1 and are deemed satisfied by the operations of the arrangements of Dickens et al. in view of Song et al. as applied with respect to claim 1.
Re claims 18 and 30: the claimed spreading of a sound source representing acoustic echo across multiple channels is taught by in Song et al. be the use of mic1 and mic2 each capturing echo from a sound source providing separate channels that are inputted to canceller (15)
Re claims 19 and 31: note use of an adder (Song et al. figure 2 within element (15) that adds audio obtained by each of microphones mic1 and mic2 satisfying at least the alternatively claimed limitation “based on the same audio captured by one or more microphones”
Re claim 21 and 33: See Song et al. figure 2 using weighted gains (Wsub1- Wsub3) that are mixed with the audio as set forth
Re claims 22 and 34: note in Song et al. the output audio (“out” from module (16)) comprises signals from multiple audio output channels (from the microphones and the same audio signal wherein the same audio includes at least as alternatively claimed combination of the multiple audio output channels.
Re claims 23 and 35: in Song et al. note use of delayed compensation modules (dlc) providing as alternatively set forth delayed one audio output channel or multiple as set forth
Re claims 24 and 36: note in Song et al. note each of modules (15 and 16) in figure 2 used for suppressing acoustic audio are “adaptive”
Re claim 27: note the arrangement in Song et al. can be used in radio communication devices such as a smart phone (paragraph [0036]) since such devices use radio waves to send/receive voice, text and data wirelessly
Re claim 28: as seen for example in figure 2 of Song et al. a multichannel audio signal is received by the microphones and transmitted to processing for echo suppression
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 25-26 and 32 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed apparatus including in combination those features of claim 17 along with the method including those features of claim 29 that additionally adds mono audio to the multiple of audio channels for suppressing spatiality of acoustic echo as set forth in claims 20 and 32 respectively is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed apparatus including in combination those features of claim 17, wherein the multi-channel output audio comprises multiple audio output channels rendered via respective audio outputs, wherein processing the multi-channel input audio comprises at least, for each of at least a subset of the multiple audio input channels: performing adaptive filtering for the audio input channel using an adaptive filter based on the multiple audio output channels; or
after performing adaptive filtering, mixing in audio based on the same audio captured by the same one or more microphones or based on the same audio rendered by the same one or more audio outputs, wherein the same one or more microphones used to capture the same audio are the same at least for each of the subset of the multiple audio input channels and wherein the same one or more audio outputs used to render the same audio are the same at least for each of the subset of the multiple audio input channels as set forth in claim 25 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 26 depend upon those features of claim 15/17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Han et al., Mohammad et al., Lenneer et al. teach related arrangements of echo suppression.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 10/13/26
