Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Claims 1–10 and 12–26 are pending.
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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.
Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16 and 22–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2014/0362020 (published 11 December 2014) (“Rothkopf”); US Patent Application Publication 2015/0117698 (published 30 April 2015) (“Bullimore”) and US Patent Application Publication 2023/0367531 (published 16 November 2023 (effectively filed 07 October 2020) (“Shinmen”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rothkopf; Bullimore; Shinmen; US Patent Application Publication 2018/0292523 (published 11 October 2018) (“Orenstein”) and US Patent Application Publication 2018/0007471 (published 04 January 2018) (“Lembacher”).
Claims 3–6, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rothkopf; Bullimore; Shinmen and US Patent Application Publication 2015/0073306 (published 12 March 2015) (“Abeyratne”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rothkopf; Bullimore; Shinmen; Abeyratne and Orenstein.
Claim 1 is drawn to “a system for non-contract monitoring of acoustic signals associated with a body.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Rothkopf reference.
Claim 1
The Rothkopf Reference
“1. A system for non-contact monitoring of acoustic signals associated with a body, the system comprising:
“a sensing device comprising:
The Rothkopf reference describes an electronic device that has a flexible display and audio component 19 used as a microphone, or sensing device. Rothkopf at Abs., ¶¶ 7–10, 34, 35, 47, 48, 53, FIGs.1, 3, 7. While Rothkopf does not expressly describe using the device for non-contact monitoring of acoustic signals associated with a body, that intended use is inherently possible given that Rothkopf’s device records acoustic signals that vibrate the flexible display without contact between the display and a body. Id. at ¶¶ 47, 48, FIG.3.
Further, the claimed intended use is not limiting on the scope of the claim because it is not necessary to give life and meaning to the claimed system. See MPEP § To the contrary, the body of the claim defines a complete device in terms of a sensing device having numerous structurally complete features that operate together to sense acoustic signals.
“a support member defining an aperture,
Rothkopf’s device 10 includes a housing 12. Id. at ¶ 35, FIG.1. Housing 12 is generally a sealed structure that is selectively opened to accommodate a display 14 and common components, like buttons, jacks and connectors. Id. at ¶ 39, FIG.1. Inside housing 12 is a support structure 50 corresponding to the claimed support member. Id. at ¶ 53, FIG.7. Support structure 50 is depicted as having an aperture. See id. at FIG.7 (depicting a central portion of support structure 50 that is bridged by element 14).
“a diaphragm extending across the aperture such that at least a portion of the diaphragm covers the aperture, and
Device 10 includes a portion of flexible display 14 that extends across the aperture in support structure 50. Id. at ¶¶ 48, 53, FIGs.3, 7. Rothkopf configures flexible display 14 as a diaphragm. Id. Notably, Rothkopf’s audio component 19 includes a further diaphragm 70 that also corresponds to the claimed diaphragm as it partially extends the aperture in support structure 50 and partially covers the aperture. Id. The rejection of the claims, is based on either flexible display 14 or diaphragm 70 corresponding to the claimed diaphragm, unless stated otherwise.
“a sensor connected to the support member or the membrane diaphragm and configured to convert movement of the diaphragm to electric signal data,
Device 10 includes an audio component 19 corresponding to the claimed sensor and configured in some embodiments as a microphone to convert vibration of flexible display 14, or diaphragm, into an electrical signal. Id.
“the sensor comprising:
“a voice coil component comprising a coil holder supporting wire windings;
Rothkopf’s audio component 19 similarly includes a voice coil 72. Id.
Rothkopf does not describe a coil holder to support the coil’s wire windings.
“a magnet component comprising a magnet supported by a magnet housing, the magnet having a magnet gap configured to receive at least a portion of the voice coil component in a spaced and moveable manner;
Rothkopf’s audio component 19 further includes a magnet 74 having a gap to receive voice coil 72. Id.
Rothkopf does not describe a magnet housing.
“a spider connecting the voice coil component to the magnet component, the spider being compliant and permitting relative movement of the voice coil component;
Rothkopf’s microphone 19 does not include a corresponding spider.
“wherein one of the voice coil component and the magnet component is connected to the diaphragm such that movement of the diaphragm induces a relative movement between the voice coil component and the magnet component.”
Similarly, Rothkopf describes fixing voice coil 72 to flexible display 14, or diaphragm, such that movement of display 14 induces relative movement between coil 72 and magnet 74. Id.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Rothkopf reference describes a device 10 that corresponds closely to the claimed system. The Rothkopf reference does not anticipate the claimed system, however, because Rothkopf’s microphone 19, which corresponds to the claimed sensing device, does not include a spider. Rothkopf’s terse description of microphone 19 also does not mention a coil holder to support windings or a magnet housing.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Rothkopf reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. Rothkopf describes a device 10, such as a phone, that includes a flexible display 14 capable of generating acoustic vibrations when driven by a transducer or responding to acoustic vibrations to actuate a sensor, such as a microphone 19. Rothkopf describes an audio component 19 that may be configured either as a speaker or a microphone. Audio component 19 has a diaphragm 70, voice coil 72 and magnet 74. One of ordinary skill would have recognized from Rothkopf’s description of audio component 19 that it is a dynamic transducer that, through ordinary skill, may be configured as either a speaker or a microphone. Rothkopf does not describe any additional structural components typically associated with dynamic transducers, including a spider. Rothkopf’s description of audio component 19 is notably terse and also omits a description of a coil support (i.e., a bobbin) and a magnet housing (i.e., a yoke).
The Shinmen reference describes an output apparatus. Shinmen at Abs., ¶ 1. Like Rothkopf’s device 10, Shinmen’s output apparatus uses a flexible display panel 5 to conduct acoustic vibrations by driving panel 5 with an actuator/transducer 9. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 52, 112–114, 116, FIGs.1, 5B, 6. Shinmen’s description of transducer 9 is more complete in detail than Rothkopf’s terse description of audio component 19, including descriptions of a voice coil bobbin 16 and a yoke 29, or magnet housing. Shinmen at ¶¶ 158–168, FIG.9A. Shinmen further describes adding a damper 17 to transducer 9. Id. at ¶ 161, FIG.9A. Dampers are known in the art as providing multiple, functions—namely, dampening of vibration and centering. Id. at ¶ 161; Bullimore at ¶ 45. These teachings suggest modifying Rothkopf’s audio component 19 to similarly include a damper/spider to damp unwanted vibrations and to maintain Rothkopf’s voice coil 72 centered in the gap of magnet 74. Applying Shinmen’s teachings, Rothkopf’s audio component 19 would be modified by adding a yoke (29) and a damper/spider (17) connected to the yoke and a bobbin (16) that holds Rothkopf’s voice coil 72. See Shinmen at FIG.6. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this configuration would improve the stability of Rothkopf’s voice coil 72 and would reduce sensor noise from unwanted vibrations. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore and the Shinmen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the sensor is configured to detect acoustic signals having a frequency ranging from about 0.01 Hz to at least about 160 kHz.”
The Rothkopf reference describes a device 10 configured to use a flexible display 14 as a diaphragm for an audio component 19. Rothkopf at ¶¶ 48, 53, FIGs.3, 7. Rothkopf further describes configuring audio component 19 as a microphone to sense acoustic signals that vibrate display 14. Id. The Rothkopf reference, however, does not describe sensing signals over a wide range, such as 0.01 Hz to 160 KHz.
The Orenstein reference relates to the field of remote monitoring of human activity. Orenstein describes a system configured with numerous acoustic sensors, including sonar detectors and non-contact acoustic sensors. In those scenarios, the sensors are configured to be sensitive in the KHz range to detect ultrasonic carriers and minute sounds associated with a body. Id. at ¶¶ 122, 191. This provides motivation to configure Rothkopf’s display 14 and audio component 19 to also be sensitive to a wide range of sounds as claimed. See, generally, Lembacher (describing various techniques for configuring an acoustic transducer to expand the frequency response to higher frequencies). Accordingly, following these modifications, Rothkopf’s device 10 would be usable not only to record audible signals, but also inaudible infrasound and ultrasound signals. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen, the Orenstein and the Lembacher references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“further comprising a computing system, including a processor, communicatively coupled to the sensing device and configured to execute a method for determining a bodily condition of the body based on the electric signal data.”
The Rothkopf reference describes a device 10 configured to use a flexible display 14 as a diaphragm for an audio component 19. Rothkopf at ¶¶ 48, 53, FIGs.3, 7. Rothkopf further describes configuring audio component 19 as a microphone to sense acoustic signals that vibrate display 14. Id. The Rothkopf reference further describes using audio component 19 as an input device of a computer (i.e., a programmable device with a processor). See id. at ¶¶ 4, 9, 10, 44. However, Rothkopf does not describe programming the processor to execute a method for determining a bodily condition of the body based on the electrical signal data generated by audio component 19.
The Abeyratne reference describes a method and apparatus for processing patient sounds. Abeyratne at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 21. In particular, Abeyratne’s method and apparatus include a computer system 52 with a processing box 54 coupled to a pair of microphones 53 and 55 that record audio from a body (e.g., coughing sounds). Id. at ¶¶ 88–90, FIG.1. Processing box 54 includes a CPU 70 that is programmed to analyze the recorded audio to classify sounds as cough/non-cough sounds, to classify the type of cough and to diagnose a person’s condition based on the cough classification condition (e.g., cough characteristic of pneumonia). Id. at ¶¶ 88–90, 209–211, Table 2. Read in light of Rothkopf, Abeyratne teaches and suggests using Rothkopf’s device 10 as a microphone in Abeyratne’s method and apparatus. In that case, one of ordinary skill would have configured Rothkopf’s audio component 19 as a microphone and communicatively coupled audio component 19 to Abeyratne’s processing box 54 to monitor sounds from a patient’s body and classify them based on a condition of the patient. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Abeyratne references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the processor is configured to filter the electric signal data to remove electric data not associated with the body, the determining the bodily condition being based on the filtered electric signal data.”
The Abeyratne references further teaches and suggests filtering background noise (i.e., sounds not emanating from a patient 42) from recorded audio prior to classification and diagnosis. Abeyratne at ¶ 101, FIG.5. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Abeyratne references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, and further requires the following:
“wherein the body is a human or animal subject, and the filtering the electric signal data comprises the processor removing electric signal data which is not associated with a physiological parameter of the human or animal subject.”
The Abeyratne references further teaches and suggests filtering background noise (i.e., sounds not emanating from a human patient 42) from recorded audio prior to classification and diagnosis. Abeyratne at ¶ 101, FIG.5. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Abeyratne references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the method for determining a bodily condition based on the electric signal comprises executing a trained machine learning algorithm.”
Abeyratne similarly teaches and suggests determining a bodily condition (i.e., diagnosing a disease based on a cough classification) using a trained machine learning algorithm. Abeyratne at ¶¶ 33, 43, 210, Table 12. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Abeyratne references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the support member is a frame having a first side and a second side and the aperture extends through the frame between the first side and the second side, wherein the diaphragm covers the aperture on one of the first side and the second side.”
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“further comprising a back cover to cover the aperture on the other of the first side and the second side.”
Claim 9 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein the diaphragm is configured to seal the aperture.”
Claims 7–9 are analyzed together. Similarly, support structure 50 is a frame having a first side covered by diaphragm 70 and panel 14 and a second side that faces a back cover (not shown) formed by housing 12 that is sealed except for a few openings. Rothkopf at ¶¶ 53, 39, FIGs.1, 7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore and the Shinmen references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the support member comprises a frame having a first side and a second side, wherein the aperture is formed in one of the first side and the second side and does not extend therethrough.”
Similarly, support structure 50 is a frame having a first side covered by diaphragm 70 and panel 14 and a second side that faces a back cover (not shown) formed by housing 12 that is sealed except for a few openings. Rothkopf at ¶¶ 53, 39, FIGs.1, 7. It is unclear if the aperture in support structure 50 extends from a first side to a second side. The Shinmen reference, however, teaches an example support structure that defines an aperture 21 that does not extend all the way through substrate 6, but provides bottom support to yoke 29. Shinmen at ¶¶ 130–133, FIG.6. Given the terseness of Rothkopf’s description, it would have been obvious to follow Shinmen’s example when configuring Rothkopf’s audio component 19. For example, based on Shinmen’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to form Rothkopf’s support structure 50 with an aperture sized to accommodate Rothkopf’s audio component 19 but that also does not penetrate through a substrate in order to provide bottom support for audio component 19. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore and the Shinmen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the diaphragm is attached to the voice coil component and the wire windings are spaced from the diaphragm.”
Rothkopf’s display panel 14 are likewise attached to a voice coil 72 that are spaced away from panel 14 by element 70. Rothkopf at ¶ 53, FIG.7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore and the Shinmen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the sensor comprises an electric potential sensor which is attached to the support member and spaced from the diaphragm.”
Claim 14 depends on claim 13, and further requires the following:
“wherein the electric potential sensor is positioned in a cavity of the aperture, or outside of the cavity.”
Claim 15 depends on claim 13, and further requires the following:
“further comprising a conductive layer on the diaphragm.”
Rothkopf further describes providing a touch-sensitive layer 14B in panel 14, which also acts as a diaphragm for sound component 19. Rothkopf at ¶¶ 43, 53, FIGs.2, 7. As depicted, layer 14B is largely positioned outside the cavity of an aperture used for sound component 19. See id. at FIG.2. Further, there is a display layer 14A that corresponds to the claimed conductive layer since it conducts electricity to pixels 30. Id. at ¶ 46, FIG.2. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore and the Shinmen references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 16 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“whereon the sensor is one or more selected from: a voice-coil type sensor, an electric potential sensor, a capacitive sensor, a magnetic field disturbance sensor, a photodetector and light source, a strain sensor, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMUIJ), and an acoustic echo doppler.”
Similarly, Rothkopf’s audio component 19 is a voice-coil type sensor. Rothkopf at ¶ 53, FIG.7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore and the Shinmen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“further comprising a plurality of sensors arranged as an array relative to the support member.”
While Rothkopf describes providing an array of touch sensors, Rothkopf does not describe providing an array of audio component 19. Rothkopf at ¶ 36. However, simply duplicating the number of components is a simple design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Thus it would have been obvious to duplicate audio components 19 to provide multiple input signals. This choice is further motivated by the teachings of Abeyratne reference that teaches the benefits of providing two or more microphones for recording patient sounds. See Abeyratne at ¶¶ 88–90, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Abeyratne references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is supported by a respective support member.”
Assuming one duplicated the number of audio components 19 in Rothkopf’s device 10, each would be supported by a respective support member 50. See Rothkopf at ¶ 53, FIG.7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Abeyratne references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is configured to detect a different frequency range of acoustic signals.”
The Orenstein reference teaches providing a system having multiple types of sensors, including sonar sensors and acoustic sensors. Orenstein at ¶¶ 72, 122. This reasonably suggests configuring Rothkopf’s device 10 with multiple audio components 19 configured as microphones optimized for different acoustic signal frequency ranges. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Orenstein references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“wherein the diaphragm is connected to each support member to close or fluidly seal a respective aperture.”
Assuming one duplicated the number of audio components 19 in Rothkopf’s device 10, each would be located in an aperture of a support member 50 and sealed by panel 14. See Rothkopf at ¶ 53, FIG.7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Abeyratne references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 21 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“wherein the diaphragm is connected to an outer mount which contains the support members of the plurality of sensors.”
Assuming one duplicated the number of audio components 19 in Rothkopf’s device 10, display apnel 14, corresponding to the claimed diaphragm, would be connected to housing 12, corresponds to the claimed outer mount. See Rothkopf at ¶¶ 35, 53, FIGs.1, 7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Abeyratne references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the sensing device further comprises a front cover connected to the support member and covering the diaphragm.”
Rothkopf’s diaphragm 70 is connected to a flexible display panel 14, a cover layer 14C of which corresponds to the claimed front cover and which is connected to support structure 50, or support member. Rothkopf at ¶¶ 42, 53, FIGs.2, 7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore and the Shinmen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 23 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the sensor is positioned relative to the diaphragm by one or more supports extending from the frame.”
Shinmen similarly teaches and suggests positioning an acoustic transducer relative to a display panel, used as a diaphragm, by a support 21 extending from a frame 6. Shinmen at ¶ 131, FIG.6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore and the Shinmen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 24 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“further comprising at least one additional sensor communicatively coupled to the processor.”
Claim 25 depends on claim 24, and further requires the following:
“wherein the at least one additional sensor is selected from a heat sensor, a humidity sensor, a barometric pressure sensor, an ambient noise sensor, an ambient light sensor, an ultrasound sensor, an altitude sensor, a camera, a volatile organic compound sensor, ACG, BCG, ECG, EMG, EOG, SCG, and UTI.”
Claims 24 and 25 are analyzed together. Rothkopf describes outfitting device 10 with a barometric pressure sensor. Rothkopf at ¶¶ 10, 33. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Abeyratne references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 26 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“A method for non-contact monitoring of acoustic signals associated with a body, the method executed by a processor of a system defined in claim 1, the method comprising:
“obtaining vibroacoustic data detected by the sensing device of claim 1 operatively communicable with the processor;
“extracting, from the detected vibroacoustic signal, a vibroacoustic signal component originating from the subject; and
“characterizing presence or absence of a bodily condition of the body based at least in part on the extracted vibroacoustic signal component.”
The Rothkopf reference describes a device 10 configured to use a flexible display 14 as a diaphragm for an audio component 19. Rothkopf at ¶¶ 48, 53, FIGs.3, 7. Rothkopf further describes configuring audio component 19 as a microphone to sense acoustic signals that vibrate display 14. Id. The Rothkopf reference further describes using audio component 19 as an input device of a computer (i.e., a programmable device with a processor). See id. at ¶¶ 4, 9, 10, 44. However, Rothkopf does not describe programming the processor to execute a method for determining a bodily condition of the body based on the electrical signal data generated by audio component 19.
The Abeyratne reference describes a method and apparatus for processing patient sounds. Abeyratne at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 21. In particular, Abeyratne’s method and apparatus include a computer system 52 with a processing box 54 coupled to a pair of microphones 53 and 55 that record audio from a body (e.g., coughing sounds). Id. at ¶¶ 88–90, FIG.1. Processing box 54 includes a CPU 70 that is programmed to analyze the recorded audio to classify sounds as cough/non-cough sounds, to classify the type of cough and to diagnose a person’s condition based on the cough classification condition (e.g., cough characteristic of pneumonia). Id. at ¶¶ 88–90, 209–211, Table 2. Read in light of Rothkopf, Abeyratne teaches and suggests using Rothkopf’s device 10 as a microphone in Abeyratne’s method and apparatus. In that case, one of ordinary skill would have configured Rothkopf’s audio component 19 as a microphone and communicatively coupled audio component 19 to Abeyratne’s processing box 54 to monitor sounds from a patient’s body and classify them based on a condition of the patient. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Rothkopf, the Bullimore, the Shinmen and the Abeyratne references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–10 and 12–26 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16 characterizes the sensor of claim 1 as one of several different types of sensors. This conflicts with amended claim 1, which expressly defines the sensor as a voice-coil type sensor. This creates confusion as to the scope of claims 1 and 16, making it so one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to be reasonably certain as to the scope of the claim.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (10 November 2025) has substantively amended all the claims. Claim 1 has been broadened in part and narrowed in part by the incorporation of limitations presented in original claim 11. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 8–10 presents comments pertaining to the rejections included in the Non-Final Rejection (10 July 2025). Those comments have been considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
Additional Citations
The following table lists additional references that were identified as being relevant to the subject matter disclosed and claimed in this Application. This Office action does not rely on the listed references, but the Examiner advises reviewing their content in preparing a reply to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
US 2023/0239625
Aluminum voice coil used to extend frequency response
US 2005/0147272
Discontinuous spider
US 2012/0243719
Flexible display with a microphone
Table 2
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights