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 .
This Office action is in response to Amendments filed 6/27/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over (US 2018/0041828 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sibbald discloses a device (1000 in Fig. 13A) comprising:
a housing (1009);
an acoustic sensor (combination of 1006 and 1007) disposed within the housing, the acoustic sensor comprising a microelectromechanical (MEMS) transducer (1006);
a first port in the housing (one of the holes 1022) establishing a first acoustic path to a first side of the MEMS transducer (see annotated copy of Fig. 13B, below);
and a second port in the housing (an adjacent hole 1022) establishing a second acoustic path to a second side of the MEMS transducer, the second side of the MEMS transducer being opposite to the first side of the MEMS transducer,
wherein the first and second acoustic paths have an equal path length (the two holes are approximately the same distance from the acoustic sensor and Applicant states that “equal” path lengths include approximately equal path lengths (¶ 0035 of Applicant’s Specification as originally filed)).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses wherein the housing comprises a surface (top surface) in which the first and second ports are formed.
Regarding claim 4, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 3, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses wherein the first and second ports are disposed side by side (see Fig. 13a).
Regarding claim 5, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 3, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses wherein the surface is planar (see Fig. 13a).
Regarding claim 6, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 3, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses wherein the first and second ports are oriented in a plane.
Regarding claim 7, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 3, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses an enclosure wherein the surface is disposed along an edge of an enclosure (1009 is an enclosure and the surface is disposed along an edge of the enclosure).
Regarding claim 8, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses wherein the housing comprises first and second surfaces (outer top surface of 1009 and inner top surface of 1009) in which the first and second ports are formed, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 8, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses wherein the first and second surfaces define a corner or edge of the housing (edge of the top outer surface).
Regarding claim 10, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Sibbald discloses the device further comprising an enclosure (1009) disposed within the housing, the enclosure encapsulating the MEMS transducer.
Regarding claim 11, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses wherein the acoustic sensor comprises a printed circuit board (1007, ¶ 0123) on which the MEMS transducer is disposed, the printed circuit board comprising first and second sound ports (1024’s) for the first and second acoustic paths, respectively (the Examiner notes that the first and second acoustic paths are not required to terminate at the transducer and, therefore, can begin at the ports in the housing, go to the transducer, and then go to the corresponding sound port in the printed circuit board).
Regarding claim 12, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 11, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses wherein the MEMS transducer comprises a sensing structure (any of the lateral sidewalls of 1006, which is considered a structure of the sensing component and, therefore, a “sensing structure”) oriented transversely to the printed circuit board (1007).
Regarding claim 13, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 11, as discussed above. Further, as acoustic waves can reflect off the interior wall of the sound ports, the first sound port is configured to define a bend in the first acoustic path within the printed circuit board.
PNG
media_image2.png
370
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as the transducer as claimed is not required to sensing the air flow along either acoustic path, the acoustic paths may be defined as leading to opposite sides of the MEMS transducer.
Regarding claim 18, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses the device comprising a product housing (906 in Fig. 10) in which the housing and the acoustic sensor are disposed (the housing and the acoustic sensor forming the microphone 922 in Fig. 10), wherein: the housing comprises an enclosure for the acoustic sensor (see Fig. 10); and the product housing comprises a hole that couples air to the first and second ports (hole in 906).
Alternatively regarding claim 1, Sibbald discloses a device (1000 in Fig. 13A) comprising:
a housing (combination of 1007 and 1009);
an acoustic sensor (1006) disposed within the housing, the acoustic sensor comprising a microelectromechanical (MEMS) transducer (1006);
a first port in the housing (one of the holes 1022) establishing a first acoustic path to a first side of the MEMS transducer;
and a second port in the housing (an adjacent hole 1024) establishing a second acoustic path to a second side of the MEMS transducer, the second side of the MEMS transducer being opposite to the first side of the MEMS transducer,
wherein the first and second acoustic paths have an equal path length (the two holes are approximately the same distance from the acoustic sensor and Applicant states that “equal” path lengths include approximately equal path lengths).
PNG
media_image3.png
364
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed in the alternative rejection of claim 1 above. Sibbald further discloses wherein the housing is configured as a product housing (as it houses a product); and
a spacing between the first and second ports is greater than a depth of the MEMs transducer relative to a surface of the product housing in which the first and second ports are formed (see Fig. 13A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumpold et al. (US 2017/0201192 A1) in view of Sibbald et al. (US 2018/0041828 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tumpold discloses a device comprising:
an acoustic sensor (Fig. 5A), the acoustic sensor comprising a microelectromechanical (MEMS) transducer.
Tumpold does not disclose a housing with ports.
Sibbald discloses a housing (combination of 1007 and 1009 in Fig. 13A);
a first port in the housing (one of the holes 1022) establishing a first acoustic path to a first side of the MEMS transducer;
and a second port in the housing (an adjacent hole 1022) establishing a second acoustic to a second side of the MEMS transducer,
wherein the first and second acoustic paths have an equal path length (the two holes are approximately the same distance from the acoustic sensor and Applicant states that “equal” path lengths include approximately equal path lengths (¶ 0035 of Applicant’s Specification as originally filed).
There was a benefit to using a housing in that is provides protection for the acoustic sensor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to using a housing with first and second ports as taught by Sibbald to enclose the acoustic sensor of Tumpold for this benefit.
PNG
media_image1.png
364
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tumpold in view of Sibbald teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Tumpold further discloses wherein the MEMS transducer is configured as a flow transducer through which air flows (¶ 0001).
Regarding claim 19, Tumpold in view of Sibbald teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Tumpold further discloses wherein the acoustic sensor comprises an enclosure (152 in Fig. 5A) in which the transducer is disposed, an integrated circuit (“control circuit”, ¶ 0094) disposed within the enclosure, and a dividing wall (158 in Fig. 5A), that isolates a volume for the MEMs transducer from a volume for the integrated circuit.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sibbald et al. (US 2018/0041828 A1) as applied to claim 11, above and further in view of Sibbald et al. (US 2018/0041843 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Sibbald ‘828 discloses the device of claim 11, as discussed above. Sibbald ‘843 discloses that the sizes of the first and second ports in the housing and the sizes of the first and second sound ports in the printed circuit board can be varied to control the acoustic impedance (¶ 0056). As such, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed by the prior art and it would amount to routine experimentation to form first and second ports which are larger than the first and second sound ports. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sibbald et al. (US 2018/0041828 A1) as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Parker et al. (US 2020/0056934 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Sibbald discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Sibbald does not disclose an acoustic delay element disposed along the first acoustic path.
Parker discloses using an acoustic delay element along acoustic paths (¶ 0046).
There was a benefit to using acoustic delay elements in that control directionality to the sensor (¶ 0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to include an acoustic delay element disposed along the first acoustic path of Sibbald for this benefit.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sibbald and Parker discloses the device of claim 16, as discussed above. Sibbald further discloses wherein the acoustic sensor comprises a printed circuit board (1007) on which the MEMS transducer is disposed.
With regards to the particular placement of the acoustic delay element, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to place the acoustic delay element between the printed circuit board and the MEMS transducer in order to delay sound coming from 1004 of Sibbald (the Examiner notes that this may still be considered along the first acoustic path as the first acoustic path has not been restricted to terminate at the transducer).
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sibbald et al. (US 2018/0041828 A1) in view of Reining (US 2009/0214053 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Sibbald discloses a device (1000 in Fig. 13A) comprising:
a housing (1009);
an acoustic sensor (combination of 1006 and 1007) disposed within the housing, the acoustic sensor comprising a first microelectromechanical (MEMS) transducer (1006);
a first port in the housing (one of the holes 1022) establishing a first acoustic path via first acoustic channel (channel within the hole of the first port) to the MEMS transducer;
and a second port in the housing (an adjacent hole 1022) establishing a second acoustic path via a second acoustic channel (channel within the hole of the second port), separate from the first acoustic channel to the MEMS transducer,
wherein the first and second acoustic paths have an equal path length (the two holes are approximately the same distance from the acoustic sensor and Applicant states that “equal” path lengths include approximately equal path lengths).
Sibbald does not disclose a second MEMS transducer as claimed.
Reining discloses using multiple transducers (630 and 620 in Fig. 8).
There was a benefit to using multiple transducers in that it allows for determining the source of the sound.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to modify the device of Sibbald to include multiple MEMS transducers including a first and second MEMS transducer with corresponding first nad second ports with equal path lengths for this benefit.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Sibbald and Reining discloses the device of claim 21, as discussed above. Reining further discloses using an integrated circuit configured to determine a difference between outputs of the first and second transducers (¶¶ 0072 and 0111).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Sibbald and Reining discloses the device of claim 21, as discussed above. Reining further discloses that the transducers are configured to capture sound propagating along orthogonal directions (“azimuth and elevation”, ¶ 0106). As such, the four transducers in Fig. 8 of Reining will include first and second transducers configured to capture sound propagating along the first direction (azimuth, the Examiner notes that all four transducers may capture sound propagating along a first direction) and third and fourth transducers configured to capture sound propagating along the second direction (elevation).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC § 112, Applicant’s Amendments have overcome these rejections.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103, Applicant's arguments filed 6/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the ports in Sibbald only allow air to travel to a single side of the transducer. This argument is not persuasive as sound does not travel along only a single line but, rather, travels outward along all directions. As such, there is a path that leads to an opposing side of the transducer.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that Sibbald fails to disclose first and second acoustic channels as claimed. This argument is not persuasive as Sibbald discloses such channels as discussed in the rejection above.
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 CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/C.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights