DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
1. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: --a resolution strategy-- should be changed to “the resolution strategy”. Claim 5 has the same problem.
2. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: --a device-- should be changed to “the device”.
3. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: --A vehicle comprising a hands-free communication system-- should be changed to “The vehicle comprising the hands-free communication system”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0286309 (hereinafter Acharya) in view of Liang, EP 3,451,697 (hereinafter Liang).
Regarding claim 1, Acharya discloses a method for detecting acoustic feedback in an audio system comprising at least one microphone and one loudspeaker, the method comprising:
computation of an acoustic indicator (from paragraph 0019, see intensity) for each frame of plurality of successive audio frames captured the microphone,
detecting of acoustic feedback when the indicator increases monotonically (from paragraph 0019, see monotonic) for a predetermined length of time, and
application of a resolution strategy (from paragraph 0019, see reduce) when acoustic feedback is detected.
Still on the issue of claim 1, Acharya does not teach the acoustic indicator is an acuity indicator. Nonetheless, Liang discloses the acoustic indicator is an acuity (from paragraph 0007, see psychological) indicator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Acharya wherein the acoustic indicator is an acuity indicator as taught by Liang. This modification would have made the detection result more accurate; thereby, improving reliability as suggested by Liang.
Regarding claim 7, Acharya discloses a device for detecting acoustic feedback in an audio system comprising at least one microphone and one loudspeaker, the device comprising a processor and a memory in which are stored program instructions configured to implement the following steps, when they are executed by the processor:
computation of an acoustic indicator (from paragraph 0019, see intensity) for each frame of plurality of successive audio frames captured the microphone,
detecting of acoustic feedback when the indicator increases monotonically (from paragraph 0019, see monotonic) for a predetermined length of time, and
application of a resolution strategy (from paragraph 0019, see reduce the feedback) when acoustic feedback is detected.
Still on the issue of claim 7, Acharya does not teach the acoustic indicator is an acuity indicator. Nonetheless, Liang discloses the acoustic indicator is an acuity (from paragraph 0007, see psychological) indicator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Acharya wherein the acoustic indicator is an acuity indicator as taught by Liang. This modification would have made the detection result more accurate; thereby, improving reliability as suggested by Liang.
6. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya combined with Liang in further view of Chhatwal et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0219472 (hereinafter Chhatwal).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Acharya and Liang does not teach the computation of the acuity indicator comprises computation of an energy spectral density of a signal captured by the microphone. All the same, Chhatwal discloses computation of the acuity indicator comprises computation of an energy spectral density (from paragraph 0007, see density) of a signal captured by the microphone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Acharya and Liang wherein the computation of the acuity indicator comprises computation of an energy spectral density of a signal captured by the microphone as taught by Chhatwal. This modification would have improved quality by preventing the degradation of signal characteristics as suggested by Chhatwal.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of references as modified by Chhatwal discloses the indicator is computed from frequencies greater than 2 kHz (from paragraph 0026, see 20).
7. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya combined with Liang in further view of Grimanis, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0250691 (hereinafter Grimanis).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Acharya and Liang does not teach a resolution strategy is selected from the following strategies: reducing amplifier volume, reducing microphone gain, applying a bandpass filter, restarting the audio system. All the same, Grimanis discloses a resolution strategy is selected from the following strategies: reducing amplifier volume, reducing microphone gain, applying a bandpass (from paragraph 0135, see bandpass) filter, restarting the audio system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Acharya and Liang wherein a resolution strategy is selected from the following strategies: reducing amplifier volume, reducing microphone gain, applying a bandpass filter, restarting the audio system as taught by Grimanis. This modification would have provided more flexibility by allowing for different resolution strategies as suggested by Grimanis.
8. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya combined with Liang in further view of Lindstrom et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0183133 (hereinafter Lindstrom).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Acharya and Liang does not clearly teach a hands-free communication system comprising a device. All the same, Lindstrom discloses a hands-free (from paragraph 0003, see hands-free) communication system comprising a device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Acharya and Liang with a hands-free communication system comprising a device as taught by Lindstrom. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by removing unwanted feedback from different communication devices as suggested by Lindstrom.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bullough and Chhatwal as modified by Lindstrom discloses a vehicle (from paragraph 0003 of Lindstrom, see car) comprising a hands-free communication system.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4 and 6 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.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLISA ANWAH whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
April 5, 2026
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692