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 filed 7 April 2026 have been fully considered. Claims 11-20 remain pending. Claims 11, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claims to address objections to the claim are persuasive; however, new claim objections have been raised. See claim objections below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the independent claims feature sensor activation, which requires the control of physical sensors, and that therefore the claims are directed to concrete, practical applications.
As argued in previous office action, when considered as a whole, the independent claims are not tied to a particular field (what is the “object”?), do not solve a specific problem (as recited, a “use status” of a generic object is unclear and could encompass much more than just “in use” or “not in use”), and do not describe a particular method for solving the problem (sensors, comparisons, activating sensors based on values of other sensors, and comparing a pattern with a stored pattern are recited, but with a generality that could encompass many different sets of steps). Additionally, although claim 19 recites an in-ear headphone and a determination of whether or not the in-hear headphone is being worn in an ear, these limitations can be interpreted as distinct from the limitations described in claim 18 (for reasons already given in previous Office actions). See 101 rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments that the amended claims overcome the prior art of record have been considered but are not persuasive. The claim language added to independent claims 1, 18, and 20 is nearly a duplicate of other limitations already recited in these claims. Therefore, the reasons for rejecting these claims over prior art are essentially the same as in the previous Office action. See 103 rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 18, and 20 are objected to because “the use of the object” should be replaced with “the use status of the object” for consistency throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-20 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.
Claims 11, 18, and 20 recite a device configured to compare/a step of comparing “the correlation of the individual estimated values with a predefined threshold value” and a device configured to activate/a step of activating “at least one additional sensor based on the comparison when the correlation is below the predefined threshold value” twice within each claim (for claim 11, first in lines 10-13 and second in lines 20-22; for claim 18, first in lines 12-15 and second in lines 23-25; for claim 20, first in lines 9-11 and second in lines 18-20). The examiner considers these limitations to be essentially redundant, such that one recitation is infringed if and only if the other recitation is. Does Applicant intend for the two recitations to limit the claims differently? If so, the examiner welcomes any explanation from Applicant. For examination purposes it will be assumed that the two recitations are redundant and that therefore only one needs to be addressed.
Additionally, the copied limitations introduce an antecedent basis issue, since in each claim “a predefined threshold value” is introduced and then later in the claim “a predefined threshold value” is recited, making it unclear whether the later reference refers to a different predefined threshold value than the one initially recited.
Claims 12-17 and 19 depend from claims 11 and 18, respectively, therefore they inherit the same issues and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 is rejected in response to the following analysis:
At Step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claim is directed to one of the enumerated statutory categories, namely a machine.
At Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites abstract idea limitations: “monitoring a use status of an object”; ascertaining, using data from each of multiple sensors, “a respective individual estimated value for the use status of the object using the received sensor data of the sensor”; determining “the use status for the object using a correlation of at least two ascertained respective individual estimated values”; detecting “movement patterns of the object to be monitored”; evaluating “sensor data from one or more sensors”; “[comparing] the detected movement pattern with at least one stored characteristic movement pattern to determine the use status of the object”; and “[comparing] the correlation of the individual estimated values with a predefined threshold value.” These are either mental processes (if simple enough to be performed in the human mind) or mathematical calculations.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited, none of which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, include:
A “device” which monitors a use status of an object (this is mere application of the judicial exception to a generic processing component; see MPEP 2106.05(b))
“[M]ultiple sensors” which detect surroundings parameters (these merely describe gathering the data which is necessary for the abstract idea in the broadest possible manner, and hence is insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g))
A “control unit” which receives sensor data, activates at least one sensor based on data from other sensors, activates at least one additional sensor based on comparing a correlation of individual estimated values with a threshold, and determines the object’s use status (again, this simply applies the judicial exception to generic electronic equipment)
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When considered as a whole, the claim only includes broadly recited sensors and processing devices for carrying out the abstract idea and does not amount to an inventive concept.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as claim 11. Although claim 12 limits one of the multiple sensors to measure either pressure, magnetic field, motion, acceleration, or proximity, this does not notably affect the breadth of interpretation.
Claim 13 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. After dividing the multiple sensors into two groups, the claim recites that the control unit ascertains “a first use status, using a correlation of the sensor data of the first group of sensors,” and “a second use status as a function of the ascertained first use status, using the sensor data of the second group of sensors.” As in claim 11, this is an abstract idea—making a second determination functionally dependent on a first recites a logical relationship, and stipulating that the first determination use data from one set of sensors while the second incorporate data from a second set merely describes that logical relationship.
Claim 14 is rejected as incorporating insignificant extra-solution activity to the limitations of claim 11 and 13 (the limitation amounts to a switching mechanism).
Claim 15 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, stating that the first group of sensors is used to detect “a movement of the object” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, since the term “object” can stand in for practically any noun and the term “movement” is similarly vague.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected on the same basis as claim 12.
Claim 18 claims a “portable device” containing the device of claim 11, and clarifies that the “device for monitoring a use status is configured to ascertain the use status of the portable device.” Because these additional elements only recite a general “portable device” which the “device for monitoring a use status” monitors, claim 18 is rejected using the same reasoning as claim 11.
Claim 19 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claim 19 can be viewed as distinct from those described in claim 18. Under this interpretation, the “portable device” may be any transportable device which includes headphones (e.g. a cell phone with headphones attached) and the “use status” may be one of any number of determinations the “device for monitoring a use status” of claim 18 could make about the “portable device” (e.g. whether the cell phone is on or off). Stating then that “the device for monitoring the use status is configured to ascertain whether or not the in-ear headphone is being worn in an ear” could refer to a completely unrelated functionality of “the device for monitoring a use status” which relies on heretofore unclaimed components and/or methods. Under this interpretation, then, the limitations of claim 19 would amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 20 recites the abstract method which the device of claim 11 implements, and it is therefore rejected for the same reasoning as claim 11.
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 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesso (U.S. Patent No. 11,089,415 B1) in view of Nguyen et al (US 20150281824 A1; hereinafter “Nguyen”).
Regarding claim 11, Lesso teaches a device for monitoring a use status of an object (Figure 2, host device 100; Figure 3, audio circuitry 200; Column 6, lines 29 and 48-53), comprising:
multiple sensors which are each configured to detect a respective surroundings parameter and to provide sensor data which correspond to the respective surroundings parameter (Speaker 220 in audio circuitry 200 [see Figure 3] is a pressure sensor [see Column 11, line 66 – Column 12, line 1]. Speaker unit 112 comprises speaker 220 [see Column 8, lines 20 and 25-28]. Furthermore, multiple speaker units 112 can be employed selectively or together, with one or more audio circuitry elements 200; therefore, multiple sensors may be present [Column 8, lines 28-35].); and
a control unit (Figure 2, controller 102 and Figure 3, event detector 400) configured to receive the sensor data provided by the multiple sensors (Figure 8, speaker 220; Column 12, lines 16-19; event detector 400 is capable of receiving sensor data from multiple sensors, see also Column 8, lines 30-35), to ascertain, using the received sensor data of each sensor, a respective individual estimated value for the use status of the object using the received sensor data of the sensor (Figure 18; Column 25, lines 31-40), and to determine the use status for the object using a correlation of at least two ascertained respective individual estimated values (Column 12, lines 20-23; Column 25, lines 48-59; the event detection signal EDS constitutes a determination of the use status of the host device 100), and that the control unit is configured to activate at least one of the multiple sensors based on an evaluation of sensor data from one or more other sensors (Column 9, lines 18-33, particularly lines 27-32: “when host device 100 is in a low-power state, a speaker unit 112 may communicate electronic signals (a microphone signal) to controller 102 for processing. Controller 102 may process such signals and determine if such signals correspond to a voice command and/or other stimulus for transitioning host device 100 to a higher-power state. If controller 102 determines that such signals correspond to a voice command and/or other stimulus for transitioning host device 100 to a higher-power state, controller 102 may activate one or more components of host device 100 that may have been deactivated in the low-power state (e.g., capacitive microphone 110, user interface 108, an applications processor forming part of the controller 102).”).
Lesso does not explicitly disclose that the control unit is configured to compare the correlation of the individual estimated values with a predefined threshold value, and to activate at least one additional sensor when the correlation is below the predefined threshold value.
Lesso does teach that in response to the individual estimated values (the qualified disturbances indicating “success” in first and second stage detection; see Fig. 18 and Column 25, lines 31-40 as referenced above), the device may enter a “more fully woken” mode and trigger a biometric detection (Column 26, lines 13-15: “There may even be power-gating here before proceeding with a third-stage detection of a specific ear—i.e. success in the second-stage detection triggers the third-stage detection”; lines 20-22: “As an example implementation of…third-stage detection, biometric authentication will be considered.”). The biometric detection may involve new measurements (Column 28, lines 4-8 introduce an example of biometric authentication which may be part of third-stage detection; lines 9-11: “electrical impedance of the loudspeaker…is measured over a range of frequencies”; lines 22-24: “Electrical impedances may be obtained by measuring circuit (e.g. speaker) voltages and currents (using the monitoring units described above)”), and since biometric detection may be preceded by entering a “more fully woken” mode, it would be reasonable to conclude that biometric detection involves activating at least one additional sensor.
Biometric detection is triggered if the first and second stage detections are successful (see Column 26, lines 4-15). Define a predefined threshold value to be
n
failures; then, referring to the above scenario, it would be reasonable to compare the correlation of the individual estimated values to the predefined threshold value, and to activate the additional sensor when the correlation of individual estimated values are below the predefined threshold value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Lesso to configure the control unit to compare the correlation of the individual estimated values with a predefined threshold value, and to activate at least one additional sensor when the correlation is below the predefined threshold value.
Lesso does not explicitly teach that movement patterns of the object to be monitored are detected, or that the control unit is configured to compare the detected movement pattern with at least one stored characteristic movement pattern to determine the use status of the object.
Nguyen teaches a wireless headset and a method for conserving battery life (Abstract). The method includes detecting movement patterns of a headset (¶30: an inertial sensor "detects the motion of the user's head. Commonly, when a user is awake, the user's head will make particular shifting movements…In contrast, when the user is asleep, the head moves very little or only makes certain kinds of movements particular to a state of sleep." Detecting head movement of a user implies detecting headset movement.). Nguyen uses this information to save battery life by turning the headset off if it is determined that the wearer is asleep (¶30: "If the motion of the user's head, as detected by the sensor 28, indicates that the user is asleep, the sensor 28 can output a signal causing the wireless headset 24 to turn off"). This determination is made by comparing a detected movement pattern with at least one stored characteristic movement pattern (¶67: “In one embodiment, if the sensor 28 of the wireless headset 24 detects that the user's head is oriented with an angle theta that is larger than a threshold angle for a period of time exceeding a threshold time, the sensor 28 determines that the user has fallen asleep”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nguyen with the invention of Lesso by causing the device for monitoring a use status of an object to detect movement patterns of the object to be monitored, and by causing the control unit to compare the detected movement pattern with at least one stored characteristic movement pattern to determine the use status of the object. By doing so one may configure the device to turn off when it is determined that the wearer is sleeping based on an expected pattern, thus conserving battery life.
Regarding claim 12, Lesso in view of Nguyen teaches the device as recited in claim 11, and Lesso further teaches that the multiple sensors include a pressure sensor (Figure 3, speaker 220; Figure 8).
Regarding claim 13, Lesso in view of Nguyen teaches the device as recited in claim 11, and Lesso further teaches that the multiple sensors include a first group including at least two sensors and a second group including at least one further sensor (under broadest reasonable interpretation, if three or more speaker units 112 are employed [see Column 8, lines 28-35] and event detector 400 is comprised of a first and second event detector [see Figure 18 and Column 25, lines 31-40], forming two groups of sensors would be natural, including the grouping described in claim 13; note that the event detectors [400-1 and 400-2] comprising event detector 400 are capable of correlating signals from multiple sensors), and the control unit is configured to ascertain a first use status, using a correlation of the sensor data of the first group of sensors (Figure 18, first-stage detector 400-1; Column 25, lines 31-40), and to ascertain a second use status as a function of the ascertained first use status, using the sensor data of the second group of sensors (Figure 18, second-stage detector 400-2; Column 25, lines 31-40; second-stage detector 400-2 can be configured to incorporate sensor data from the second group of sensors).
Regarding claim 14, Lesso in view of Nguyen teaches the device as recited in claim 13, and Lesso further teaches that the control unit is configured to activate or deactivate the sensors of the second group as a function of the sensor data of the sensors of the first group (event detector 400 is capable of activating or deactivating the second group of sensors using a signal from first-stage detector 400-1).
Regarding claim 15, Lesso in view of Nguyen teaches the device as recited in claim 14, and Lesso further teaches that the sensors of the second group are activated only when a movement of the object has been detected, using the sensor data of the first group of sensors (Column 25, lines 31-35; Column 25, line 60 – Column 26, line 8; first-stage detection may power-gate second-stage detection).
Regarding claim 16, Lesso in view of Nguyen teaches the device as recited in claim 13, and Lesso further teaches that the sensors of the first group include at least one pressure sensor (Figure 3, speaker 220).
Regarding claim 18, Lesso teaches a portable device (Figure 2, host device 100; Column 6, lines 23-25), comprising the device for monitoring a use status of an object as recited in claim 11 (evidence for rejecting the remaining limitations are given under the rejection for claim 11).
Regarding claim 19, Lesso in view of Nguyen teaches the portable device as recited in claim 18, and Lesso further teaches that the portable device includes an in-ear headphone (Column 6, lines 33-37), and the device for monitoring the use status is configured to ascertain whether or not the in-ear headphone is being worn in an ear (Column 6, lines 29-33).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are performed by the device of claim 11, where the multiple sensors of claim 11 would detect the sensor values and the other steps would be satisfied by what the control unit of claim 11. Therefore claim 20 is rejected for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesso (U.S. Patent No. 11,089,415 B1) in view of Nguyen et al (US 20150281824 A1), and further in view of Zhong et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,324,313 B1; hereinafter “Zhong”).
Regarding claim 17, Lesso in view of Nguyen teaches the device of claim 13. Lesso in view of Nguyen does not teach that the sensors in the second group include at least one proximity sensor. Zhong teaches a portable device (Figure 1D, head mounted display 172) capable of determining its own use status and which uses a proximity sensor (Column 9, lines 24-29) to accurately detect when the portable device is being properly worn by a wearer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the proximity sensor of Zhong with the invention of Lesso in view of Nguyen to improve the accuracy of detecting the portable device’s use status.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights