Claim 1 recites that “a numberof the plurality of noise detectors that are disposed closer than a distance d from the center of control is less than a numberofthe plurality of noise detectors that are disposed farther than the distance d from the center of control, when the distance d is expressed asd = d0+t x v-A/2.” Applicant respectfully submits that Kano doesnot teach, or even suggest, the above- noted combination of features recited in claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claim 3, the Examinerrefers to paragraph [0027] of Kano “[i]n this case, it is preferred that a relationship a < c/2f is realized when the distance from the adjacent noise detector is a, a sound velocity is c, and the upper-limit frequency of the control bandis f.” Given that c is sound velocity and fis frequency, a < c/2f can be rewritten as a < 4/2 (Equation (I)).
Forat least these reasons,it is evident that Kano does not teach, or even suggest, the features of independentclaim 1 or 3 of the present application.
Conclusion In view of the above, reconsideration and allowance of this application are now believed to be in order, and such actions are herebysolicited.
If any points remain in issue, the Examiner is kindly requested to contact the undersigned at the telephone numberlisted below.