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 .
Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/24/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-20, 36-37 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 5, 12-13, 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josefsson (US 2016/0241961 A1) in view of Bretthauer et al (US 2021/0382085 A1) and further in view of Khenkin et al (US 2015/0214912 A1) and further in view of Kohl et al (US 2013/0170681 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Josefsson discloses a microphone (Josefsson; Fig 1) comprising: a piezoelectric sensor (Josefsson; Fig 1; sensor 112; Para [001 7]) configured to provide a response to acoustic energy in a frequency band (Josefsson; Fig 1; sensor 112; Para [0022]), the integrated circuit including an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert an analog signal representative of the response of the piezoelectric sensor into a digital signal (Josefsson; Fig 1; ADC 104; Para [0008]), the integrated circuit further including an equalizer coupled to the piezoelectric sensor (Josefsson; Fig 1; equalizer 110) and configured to provide equalization of the response of the piezoelectric sensor digital signal, such that the equalizer removes or adjusts a portion of the digital signal representative of the in-band resonance (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0042]); but do not expressly disclose the response including an in-band resonance having a peak frequency within the frequency band; the peak frequency having a value that is less than 20KHz; and an integrated circuit external to and coupled to the piezoelectric sensor. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bretthauer et al disclose a microphone comprising and an integrated circuit external to and coupled to the piezoelectric sensor (Bretthauer et al; Para [0032] Fig 10; integrated circuit 814 external and coupled to sensor). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the coupling taught by Bretthauer et al as circuit coupling for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to be cost effective and re-used from existing products (Bretthauer et al; Para [0019]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Khenkin et al disclose a microphone wherein the response including an in- band resonance having a peak frequency within the frequency band (Khenkin et al; Fig 1; peak 106 on curve 104 interpreted as microphone response within band). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the correction circuit taught by Khenkin as circuit for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a higher performing MEMS acoustic sensor (Khenkin et al; Para [0003]). Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Kohl et al et al disclose a microphone wherein the peak frequency having a value that is less than 20KHz (Kohl et al; Para [0012]; resonance frequency interpreted as peak frequency). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the resonance frequency taught by Kohl as frequency for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a low signal dynamic (Kohl et al; Para [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 1 wherein the piezoelectric sensor is implemented as a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) device (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 2, but do not expressly disclose wherein the MEMS device is implemented as a cantilever structure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bretthauer et al disclose a microphone wherein the MEMS device is implemented as a cantilever structure (Bretthauer et al; Para [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the coupling taught by Bretthauer et al as circuit coupling for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to be cost effective and re-used from existing products (Bretthauer et al; Para [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein the equalizer integrated circuit is implemented as an application-specific integrated circuit (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 1 wherein the frequency band includes an audible frequency band (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 12 wherein the frequency band includes a range of 20Hz to 20,000Hz (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 36, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the peak frequency if the in-band resonance Is less than or equal to 12 KHz. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kohl et al et al disclose a microphone wherein the peak frequency if the in-band resonance Is less than or equal to 12 KHz (Kohl et al; Para [0012]; resonance frequency interpreted as peak frequency). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the resonance frequency taught by Kohl as frequency for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a low signal dynamic (Kohl et al; Para [0013]).
Regarding claim 37, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the peak frequency if the in-band resonance is less than or equal to 8 KHz. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kohl et al et al disclose a microphone wherein the peak frequency if the in-band resonance is less than or equal to 8 KHz (Kohl et al; Para [0012]; resonance frequency interpreted as peak frequency). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the resonance frequency taught by Kohl as frequency for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a low signal dynamic (Kohl et al; Para [0013]).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josefsson (US 2016/0241961 A1) in view of Bretthauer et al (US 2021/0382085 A1) and further in view of Khenkin et al (US 2015/0214912 A1) and further in view of Kohl et al (US 2013/0170681 A1) and further in view of Wies Bauer et al (US 2017/0164118 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 5, but do not expressly disclose wherein the application-specific integrated circuit further includes a non-transitory computer readable medium having or capable of having calibration data specific for the piezoelectric sensor to allow the removal or adjustment of the in-band resonance from the digital signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Wies Bauer et al disclose a microphone wherein the application-specific integrated circuit further includes a non- transitory computer readable medium having or capable of having calibration data specific for the piezoelectric sensor to allow the removal or adjustment of the in-band resonance from the digital signal (Wies Bauer et al; Para [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the temperature-based compensation taught by Wies Bauer as compensation for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to allow for simplification of the system or application (Wies Bauer et al; Para [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al and further in view of Wies Bauer et al disclose the microphone of claim 7, but do not expressly disclose wherein the calibration data specific for the piezoelectric sensor is provided to the non- transitory computer readable medium in a calibration process during or after production of the microphone. However, in the same field of endeavor, Wies Bauer et al disclose a microphone wherein the calibration data specific for the piezoelectric sensor is provided to the non-transitory computer readable medium in a calibration process during or after production of the microphone (Wies Bauer et al; Para [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the temperature based compensation taught by Wies Bauer as compensation for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to allow for simplification of the system or application (Wies Bauer et al; Para [0052]).
Regarding claim 9, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl and further in view of Wies Bauer et al disclose the microphone of claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the calibration data specific for the piezoelectric sensor includes data representative of temperature dependence of the equalization of the digital signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Wies Bauer et al disclose a microphone wherein the application-specific integrated circuit further includes a temperature sensor configured to provide temperature information (Wies Bauer et al; temperature sensor; Para [0048]) for the temperature dependence of the equalization of the digital signal (Wies Bauer et al; Para [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the temperature based compensation taught by Wies Bauer as compensation for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to allow for simplification of the system or application (Wies Bauer et al; Para [0052]).
Regarding claim 10, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl and further in view of Wies Bauer et al disclose the microphone of claim 9, but do not expressly disclose wherein the application-specific integrated circuit further includes a temperature sensor configured to provide temperature information for the temperature dependence of the equalization of the response of the piezoelectric sensor. However, in the same field of endeavor, Wies Bauer et al disclose a microphone wherein the application-specific integrated circuit further includes a temperature sensor configured to provide temperature information (Wies Bauer et al; temperature sensor; Para [0048]) for the temperature dependence of the equalization of the response of the piezoelectric sensor (Wies Bauer et al; Para [0048][0031]; compute correction gain based on temperature information). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the temperature based compensation taught by Wies Bauer as compensation for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to allow for simplification of the system or application (Wies Bauer et al; Para [0052]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josefsson (US 2016/0241961 A1) in view of Bretthauer et al (US 2021/0382085 A1) and further in view of Khenkin et al (US 2015/0214912 A1) and further in view of Kohl et al (US 2013/0170681 A1) and further in view of Wies Bauer et al (US 2017/0164118 A1) and further in view of Bhandari et al (US 2011/0085686 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al and further in view of Wies Bauer et al disclose the microphone of claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the calibration data specific for the piezoelectric sensor includes data representative of low frequency corner property of the piezoelectric sensor. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bhandari et al disclose a microphone wherein the calibration data specific for the piezoelectric sensor includes data representative of low frequency corner property of the piezoelectric sensor (Bhandari et al; Para [0074]- [0075]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the calibration compensation taught by Bhandari as calibration for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to maintain acceptable performance levels (Bhandari et al; Para [0002]).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josefsson (US 2016/0241961 A1) in view of Khenkin et al (US 2015/0214912 A1) and further in view of Kohl et al (US 2013/0170681 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Josefsson discloses a microphone (Josefsson; Fig 1) comprising: a piezoelectric sensor (Josefsson; Fig 1; sensor 112; Para [0017]) configured to provide a response to acoustic energy in a frequency band (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0022]); and a processing component external to and coupled to the piezoelectric sensor (Josefsson; Fig 1; processing component 104 external to and coupled to sensor 112 and) and configured to convert an analog signal representative of the response of the piezoelectric sensor into a digital signal (Josefsson; Fig 1; ADC 104), the processing component further configured to provide an adjustment to the digital signal (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0042]); but do not expressly disclose the response including an in-band resonance having a peak frequency within the frequency band to correct for a low-frequency corner variation associated with the piezoelectric sensor; the peak frequency having a value that is less than 20KHz . However, in the same field of endeavor, Khenkin et al disclose a microphone the response including an in-band resonance having a peak frequency within the frequency band (Khenkin et al; Fig 1; peak 106 on curve 104 interpreted as microphone response within band); to correct for a low-frequency corner variation associated with the piezoelectric sensor (Khenkin et al; Para [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the correction circuit taught by Khenkin as circuit for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a higher performing MEMS acoustic sensor (Khenkin et al; Para [0003]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Kohl et al et al disclose a microphone wherein the peak frequency having a value that is less than 20KHz (Kohl et al; Para [0012]; resonance frequency interpreted as peak frequency). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the resonance frequency taught by Kohl as frequency for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a low signal dynamic (Kohl et al; Para [0013]).
Regarding claim 15, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 14, wherein the processing component is implemented to include an equalizer (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 16, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 15 wherein the equalizer is further configured to provide equalization of the digital signal, such that the equalizer removes or adjusts a portion of the digital signal representative of the in-band resonance (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, Josefsson in view of Bretthauer and further in view of Khenkin et al and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 14 wherein the piezoelectric sensor is implemented as a micro- electromechanical systems (MEMS) device (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0017]).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanemura et al (US 2022/0377466 A1) in view of Bretthauer et al (US 2021/0382085 A1) and further in view of Josefsson (US 2016/0241961 A1) and further in view of Kohl et al (US 2013/0170681 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Tanemura et al disclose a microphone comprising: a piezoelectric sensor (Tanemura et al; Para [0026]) configured to provide a response to acoustic energy in a frequency band, the response including an in-band resonance having a peak frequency within the frequency band (Tanemura et al; Fig 5; response curve has a peak frequency within the band); a digital equalizer coupled to the piezoelectric sensor and configured to provide equalization of the response of the piezoelectric sensor (Tanemura et al; Para [0085]; Fig 6; control circuit 320 interpreted as equalizer corrects the frequency response of the MEMS microphone); and a temperature compensation component configured to adjust the equalization based on temperature dependence of the equalization (Tanemura et al; Para [0105]; correction of sensor signals based on temperature information); but do not expressly disclose the peak frequency having a value that is less than 20KHz; a digital equalizer external and coupled to the piezoelectric sensor; provide equalization of a digital signal representative of the response of the piezoelectric sensor. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bretthauer et al disclose a microphone comprising a digital circuit external and coupled to the piezoelectric sensor (Bretthauer et al; Para [0032] Fig 10; integrated circuit 814 external and coupled to sensor). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the coupling taught by Bretthauer et al as circuit coupling for the device taught by Tanemura. The motivation to do so would have been to be cost effective and re-used from existing products (Bretthauer et al; Para [0019]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Josefsson discloses a microphone comprising provide equalization of a digital signal representative of the response of the piezoelectric sensor (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the correction circuit taught by Josefsson as circuit for the device taught by Tanemura. The motivation to do so would have been to frequency shaping for signals output from microphone devices (Josefsson et al; Para [0003]). Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Kohl et al et al disclose a microphone wherein the peak frequency having a value that is less than 20KHz (Kohl et al; Para [0012]; resonance frequency interpreted as peak frequency). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the resonance frequency taught by Kohl as frequency for the device taught by Josefsson. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a low signal dynamic (Kohl et al; Para [0013]).
Regarding claim 19, Tanemura et al in view of Bretthauer et al and further in view of Josefsson and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 18 wherein the temperature compensation component includes a temperature sensor implemented to sense temperature representative of the digital equalizer (Tanemura et al; Para [0103]).
Regarding claim 20, Tanemura et al in view of Bretthauer et al and further in view of Josefsson and further in view of Kohl et al disclose the microphone of claim 18, but do not expressly disclose wherein the equalization by the digital equalizer includes removal or adjustment of a portion of the digital signal representative of the in-band resonance. However, in the same field of endeavor, Josefsson discloses a microphone wherein the equalization by the digital equalizer includes removal or adjustment of a portion of the digital signal representative of the in-band resonance (Josefsson; Fig 1; Para [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the correction circuit taught by Josefsson as circuit for the device taught by Tanemura. The motivation to do so would have been to frequency shaping for signals output from microphone devices (Josefsson et al; Para [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692