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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 line 13 and claim 4 line 6 recite a MEMS however this should be read as a “micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuperschmidt (US 20170064457) and further in view of Lewandowski (US 20100069752), Hodges (US 10845479) and Beltrami (US 20210092509).
Regarding claim 1, Kuperschmidt discloses an audio system ([0050] – “a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) speaker that may output audio and ultrasound signals”) comprising:
a modulated ultrasound audio driver (Figs 1A-1J, [0070] – “Acoustic modulation includes modulating an ultrasonic signal to generate (and output) an audio signal”) comprising at least one membrane (Figs. 5A-5C, [0103] – “The membrane 403”) configured to emit an acoustic ultrasound signal in a frequency range between 50 KHz and 500 KHz ([0075] – “membrane control signal 40 is at an ultra sound frequency…A typical ultrasound frequency may be in the 100 to 500 KHz range”); a shutter (Figs. 5A-5C, [0103] – “the shutter 401”), with the acoustic ultrasound signal being transmitted along at least one acoustic channel leading from the membrane to the shutter ([0103] – “the wave produced by the vibrating membrane 403 can escape via the apertures 413 and 414 in the blind 402 and the apertures 415, 416 and 417 in the shutter 401”); a blind associated with the shutter and configured so as to move relative to each other to modulate the acoustic ultrasound signal to generate an acoustic audio signal ([0103] – “FIG. 5C depicts the state when the shutter 401 is caused to be moved away from the blind 402. As the blind is now flexible in this condition, it is caused to move away from the shutter 401”, [0104] – “the bigger the distance change between the blind and the shutter during the operation of the shutter, the bigger the modulation”); and at least one ultrasound receiver configured to detect a backscatter ultrasound signal ([0005] – “the detector may be configured to sense ultrasonic vibrations of the MEMS element”, [0006] – “The MEMS element may be configured to vibrate as a result of a reception of an ultrasonic echo”) […];
Conversely Kuperschmidt does not teach detect a backscatter ultrasound signal and generate a corresponding electrical signal;
a processing unit including a microprocessor configured to process the electrical signal and estimate one or more physical or biometric parameters derived from the electrical signal,
wherein the ultrasound receiver includes a MEMS that is configured to detect the backscatter ultrasound signal in parallel with the generation of the acoustic audio signal.
However Lewandowski discloses detect a backscatter ultrasound signal and generate a corresponding electrical signal ([0022] – “The controller 16 also receives the return electrical signals upon receipt of the return ultrasonic signals at the transducers 26”);
a processing unit […] configured to process the electrical signal and estimate one or more physical or biometric parameters derived from the electrical signal (Fig. 1, [0023] – “The controller 16 includes a portion 34 for analyzing the information conveyed within the reflected signal”, one with ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a processing unit to analyze the information, [0025] – “the analysis provides a determination of viscosity of the fluid within the ear”).
The disclosure of Lewandowski is an analogous art considering it is in the field of emitting and receiving ultrasound signals from a small device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuperschmidt to incorporate the processing of electrical signals to estimate physical or biometric parameters of Lewandowski to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows one to use the device of Kuperschmidt for diagnostic purposes.
Conversely Kuperschmidt and Lewandowski do not teach a processing unit including a microprocessor,
wherein the ultrasound receiver includes a MEMS that is configured to detect the backscatter ultrasound signal in parallel with the generation of the acoustic audio signal.
However Hodges discloses a processing unit including a microprocessor (Col. 7 lines 33-34 – “The processor 316 and digital signal processor 312 may comprise one or more of a processor, a microprocessor”).
The disclosure of Hodges is an analogous art considering it is in the field of a speaker that can output both audible and ultrasound frequencies
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuperschmidt to incorporate the microprocessor of Hodges to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow for the processing to be performed in the mobile/wearable device.
Conversely Kuperschmidt, Lewandowski, and Hodges do not teach wherein the ultrasound receiver includes a MEMS that is configured to detect the backscatter ultrasound signal in parallel with the generation of the acoustic audio signal.
However Beltrami discloses wherein the ultrasound receiver includes a MEMS that is configured to detect the backscatter ultrasound signal in parallel with the generation of the acoustic audio signal ([0107] – “one MEMS sound transducer 3 a, 3 b can be operated as a loudspeaker and the other MEMS sound transducer 3 a, 3 b can be operated as a microphone. As a result, the sound transducer unit 1 can be operated, either sequentially or simultaneously, as a loudspeaker and as a microphone”, Abstract – “A sound transducer unit for an in-ear headphone, for generating and/or detecting sound waves in the audible wavelength spectrum and/or in the ultrasonic range”).
The disclosure of Beltrami is an analogous art considering it is in the field of a sound transducer that can output both audible and ultrasound frequencies.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuperschmidt to incorporate the MEMS receiver that is configured to detect ultrasound signal in parallel with the generation of the acoustic audio signal of Beltrami to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would provide a constant real-time stream of ultrasound data while allowing one to continuously listen to music or another preferred audio.
Regarding claim 2, Kuperschmidt, Lewandowski, Hodges, and Beltrami disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Kuperschmidt further discloses wherein the ultrasound receiver is comprised of at least one dedicated membrane in the modulated ultrasound audio driver ([0005] – “the detector may be configured to sense ultrasonic vibrations of the MEMS element”, [0085] – “In FIG. 1F the detector 90 is mechanically coupled to membrane 50 and is configured to sense vibrations of membrane 50”).
Regarding claim 3, Kuperschmidt, Lewandowski, Hodges, and Beltrami disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Kuperschmidt does not teach wherein the physical or biometric parameter is any of: distance of the modulated ultrasound audio driver from tympanic membrane; a volume of an ear canal, a length of the ear canal; a heart beat from reflection of veins in an ear, or jugular vein, or from vibrations induced by blood flow and manifested in tympanic membrane; effusivity of the ear; viscosity of ear fluid; infections or other problems in an inner ear; vibrations in the tympanic membrane resulting from external noise or internal noise; blood flow; temperature in the ear canal and relation to body temperature; or proximity to the ear, the ear canal or the tympanic membrane.
However Lewandowski discloses wherein the physical or biometric parameter is any of: […] viscosity of ear fluid ([0025] – “the analysis provides a determination of viscosity of the fluid within the ear”); […].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuperschmidt to incorporate the determination of viscosity of ear fluid of Lewandowski to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows one to use the device of Kuperschmidt for diagnostic purposes such as determining if an ear disorder exists (Lewandowski – [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Kuperschmidt discloses generating, […], an acoustic ultrasound signal in a frequency range between 50 KHz and 500 KHz from a modulated ultrasound speaker([0070] – “Acoustic modulation includes modulating an ultrasonic signal to generate (and output) an audio signal”, [0075] – “membrane control signal 40 is at an ultra sound frequency…A typical ultrasound frequency may be in the 100 to 500 KHz range”); detecting […] a backscattered ultrasound signal with a dedicated receiver ([0005] – “the detector may be configured to sense ultrasonic vibrations of the MEMS element”, [0006] – “The MEMS element may be configured to vibrate as a result of a reception of an ultrasonic echo”).
Conversely Kuperschmidt does not teach a method for physical or biometric parameter estimation comprising:
generating, in the ear, an acoustic ultrasound signal […] generating an electric signal proportional to the backscattered ultrasound signal;
detecting, in parallel with the generation of the acoustic ultrasound signal, a backscattered ultrasound signal with a dedicated MEMS receiver,
processing, with a microprocessor, the electric signal and generating an estimation of a physical or biometric parameter associated with the ear and derived from the electrical signal.
However Lewandowski discloses a method for physical or biometric parameter estimation (Abstract – “method for determining ear fluid viscosity”) comprising:
generating, in the ear, an acoustic ultrasound signal (Fig. 1 – the transducers of the probe 12 are in the ear, [0015] – “each transducer is able to transmit an ultrasonic signal”) […] generating an electric signal proportional to the backscattered ultrasound signal ([0022] – “The controller 16 also receives the return electrical signals upon receipt of the return ultrasonic signals at the transducers 26”); and
processing, […], the electric signal and generating an estimation of a physical or biometric parameter associated with the ear and derived from the electrical signal (Fig. 1, [0023] – “The controller 16 includes a portion 34 for analyzing the information conveyed within the reflected signal”, [0025] – “the analysis provides a determination of viscosity of the fluid within the ear”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuperschmidt to incorporate the processing of electrical signals to estimate physical or biometric parameters of Lewandowski to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows one to use the device of Kuperschmidt for diagnostic purposes.
Conversely Kuperschmidt and Lewandowski do not teach processing, with a microprocessor,
detecting, in parallel with the generation of the acoustic ultrasound signal, a backscattered ultrasound signal with a dedicated MEMS receiver.
However Hodges discloses processing, with a microprocessor (Col. 7 lines 33-34 – “The processor 316 and digital signal processor 312 may comprise one or more of a processor, a microprocessor”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuperschmidt to incorporate the microprocessor of Hodges to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow for the processing to be performed in the mobile/wearable device.
Conversely Kuperschmidt, Lewandowski, and Hodges do not teach detecting, in parallel with the generation of the acoustic ultrasound signal, a backscattered ultrasound signal with a dedicated MEMS receiver.
However Beltrami discloses detecting, in parallel with the generation of the acoustic ultrasound signal, a backscattered ultrasound signal with a dedicated MEMS receiver ([0107] – “one MEMS sound transducer 3 a, 3 b can be operated as a loudspeaker and the other MEMS sound transducer 3 a, 3 b can be operated as a microphone. As a result, the sound transducer unit 1 can be operated, either sequentially or simultaneously, as a loudspeaker and as a microphone”, Abstract – “A sound transducer unit for an in-ear headphone, for generating and/or detecting sound waves in the audible wavelength spectrum and/or in the ultrasonic range”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuperschmidt to incorporate the MEMS receiver that is configured to detect ultrasound signal in parallel with the generation of the acoustic audio signal of Beltrami to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would provide a constant real-time stream of ultrasound data while allowing one to continuously listen to music or another preferred audio.
Regarding claim 5, Kuperschmidt, Lewandowski, Hodges, and Beltrami disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 4.
Conversely Kuperschmidt does not teach wherein the physical or biometric parameter is any of: distance of the modulated ultrasound audio driver from a tympanic membrane; a volume of an ear canal, a length of the ear canal; a heart beat from reflection of veins in the ear, or jugular vein, or from vibrations induced by blood flow and manifested in the tympanic membrane; effusivity of the ear; viscosity of ear fluid; infections or other problems in an inner ear; vibrations in the tympanic membrane resulting from external noise or internal noise; blood flow; temperature in the ear canal and relation to body temperature; or proximity to the ear, the ear canal or the tympanic membrane.
However Lewandowski discloses wherein the physical or biometric parameter is any of: […] viscosity of ear fluid ([0025] – “the analysis provides a determination of viscosity of the fluid within the ear”); […].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuperschmidt to incorporate the determination of viscosity of ear fluid of Lewandowski to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows one to use the device of Kuperschmidt for diagnostic purposes such as determining if an ear disorder exists (Lewandowski – [0025]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on 571-272-7230. 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.
/R.C.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797