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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-21 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation of a film, wherein “the film comprising a part of the film that is located over the opening portion.” It is unclear as to what is meant by a film comprising part of itself since inherently, the film would include the entirely of the film. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that the limitation means that part of the film is located over the opening portion.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear if the “subject” is part of the invention or not. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that the covering portion is disposed on top of the film and would be between the film and a subject when the vibrometer is applied to the subject.
Regarding claim 18 and 19, the claims each recite the limitation of a “sound generation device configured to generate sound data based on a detection signal received from the gyro vibrometer of the electronic device, and to transmit the generated sound data to the electronic device.” It is unclear as to what is meant by this limitation since seemingly, any sound generated by the electronic device would not need to be transmitted back to the electronic device.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler et al. US 2019/0000413 and Lahiji et al. US 2011/0137209.
Regarding claim 1, Adler teaches a vibrometer as seen in fig. 1, comprising a support body comprising an opening portion 30, a film 32 disposed on the support body, the film comprising a part of the film that is located over the opening (shown in fig. 1), and at least one sensor 48 disposed on a surface of the part of the film that faces the opening. Adler however, discloses the sensor 48 as an accelerometer and not as a gyro sensor.
PNG
media_image1.png
494
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lahiji discloses a vibrometer (microphone array) system for monitoring a human body which includes a sensor 56 (fig. 5) which may include sensors such as accelerometers and gyroscopes (paragraph 0046). Since the basic use of an accelerometer and gyroscope is within the same field (detection of movement), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Lahiji with those of Adler in order to add a sensor such as a gyroscope in place of (or in addition to) the accelerometer of Adler in order to monitor a different range of movement of the film, such as an angular velocity or acceleration change of the film to more accurately monitor the state thereof. In combination, the gyroscope would take the place of the accelerometer.
Regarding claim 2, as shown in fig. 1 of Alder, the support body comprises a recessed portion 28b (interior) that includes the opening portion.
Regarding claim 3, Alder discloses a control substate (PCB 40) which is connected to the sensor 48 via a wiring line (shown in fig. 1). In the control substrate is further disposed in the recessed portion 28b. Alder does not explicitly disclose the wiring as being flexible as claimed, however it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used a flexible wire in order to preventing the wire from breaking due to movement with the film. In combination with Lahiji as above, the sensor would be a gyro sensor.
Regarding claim 4, Adler, in combination with Lahiji, teaches the control substrate 40 as comprising a communicator configure to transmit a detection signal of the at least one gyro sensor to an external device (paragraph 0102 discloses transmitting a detection signal via wires 44 to earphones 24).
Regarding claim 5, the film of Adler covers the entirety of the opening portion as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the film of Adler extends across the support body opening and therefore comprises a central region in the center and a peripheral region that extends from the central region to the support body since the different portions can be defined accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, the support body of Adler holds the film as claimed and would inherently apply a predetermined tension thereto in doing so.
Regarding claim 10, Adler and Lahiji disclose the claimed invention except for the gyro sensor disposed at a position where a change in inclination per unit time in the film becomes largest when the film is deformed upon receipt of a vibration of a subject. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to positioned the sensor at any location upon the film where the signal would be the most sensitive and accurate, including at the claimed location since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 11, Adler discloses the claimed invention as claimed and further teaches multiple sensing elements for detecting vibrations at different frequencies (paragraphs 0014-0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon these teachings to provide additional sensing elements within a single gyro sensor, including additional gyro sensors in order to detect more or different vibration in the system since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have disposed the gyro sensor at a position where a change in inclination per unit time in the film becomes largest when the film is deformed upon receipt of a vibration of a subject or at any location upon the film where the signal would be the most sensitive and accurate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 12, Adler discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the plurality of gyro sensors deposed on the film and aligned on at least one radial line extending from a center of the opening portion as claimed. Lahiji teaches multiple sensing elements 50 provided within a single head unit wherein at least two are arranged on a radial line extending from the center (fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon these teachings to provide additional sensing elements within the gyro sensor, including additional gyro sensors in order to detect more or different vibration in the system since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 13, Adler discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the plurality of gyro sensors deposed on the film and aligned along a propagation direction of the vibration of the film when a displacement of the center of the film becomes largest as claimed. Lahiji teaches multiple sensing elements 50 provided within a single head unit wherein at least two are arranged outwardly from the center (fig. 6) which would be in a propagation direction of the vibration of the film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon these teachings to provide additional sensing elements within the gyro sensor, including additional gyro sensors in order to detect more or different vibration in the system since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 16, Adler, in combination with Lahiji as above, discloses a sound output unit (headphones 24 or speakers 108) configured to output sound data generated based on a detection signal of the at least one gyro sensor.
Regarding claim 17, Adler in combination with Lahiji discloses the claimed invention including the gyro sensor disposed on the film and sound output unit as claimed, but does not explicitly disclose the second gyro sensor in the manner claimed. Fig. 6 of Adler teaches multiple sensing elements 90 which include multiple sensors therein. Additionally, Lahiji teaches multiple sensing elements 50 provided within a single head unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon these teachings to provide additional sensing elements within the gyro sensor in order to detect more or different vibration in the system since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 18, Adler (in combination with Lahiji as indicated above) discloses an embodiment as seen in fig. 6, comprising an electronic device provided with the gyro vibrometer of claim 1, (inset of figure), at least one sound generation device configured to generate sound data based on a detection signal received from the gyro vibrometer of the electronic device (sound data is outputted by wires 44) and to transmit the generated data to the electronic device, and a management server (processor 98) configured to acquire the detection signal from the electronic device and to store the acquired detection signal (processor 98 would inherently comprise a memory), wherein the management server is configured to deliver the stored acquired detection signal or the sound data to an external device (speaker 108) which generated the sound data based on the detection signals. Adler and Lahiji do not explicitly teach the first and second gyro sensors as claimed. Fig. 6 of Adler further teaches multiple sensing elements 90 which include multiple sensors therein. Additionally, Lahiji teaches multiple sensing elements 50 provided within a single head unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon these teachings to provide additional sensing elements within the gyro sensor in order to detect more or different vibration in the system since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 19, Adler (in combination with Lahiji as indicated above) discloses an embodiment as seen in fig. 6, comprising the electronic device of claim 1, (inset of figure), a sound output unit configured to output sound data generated based on a detection signal of the at least one gyro sensor, at least one sound generation device configured to generate sound data based on a detection signal received from the gyro vibrometer of the electronic device (sound data is outputted by wires 44) and to transmit the generated data to the electronic device, and a management server (processor 98) configured to acquire the detection signal from the electronic device and to store the acquired detection signal (processor 98 would inherently comprise a memory), wherein the management server is configured to deliver the stored acquired detection signal or the sound data to an external device (speaker 108) which generated the sound data based on the detection signals. Adler and Lahiji do not explicitly teach the first and second gyro sensors as claimed. Fig. 6 of Adler further teaches multiple sensing elements 90 which include multiple sensors therein. Additionally, Lahiji teaches multiple sensing elements 50 provided within a single head unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon these teachings to provide additional sensing elements within the gyro sensor in order to detect more or different vibration in the system since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 20, the system of Adler in combination with Lahiji discloses the management server 98 configured to store the acquired sound data in association with at least one piece of data including information relating a subject corresponding to the sound data (paragraph 0140) and the management server is configured to deliver the stored acquired detection signal and/or the stored sound data together with at least one piece of information such as the subject information to a display 104.
Regarding claim 21, the management server 98 of Adler controls the data handling such that a request would be generated to receive the data and then forwarded to the external device for reproducing the sound or producing an image (paragraph 140).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler and Lahiji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jumbe et al. US 2021/0345939.
Regarding claim 7, Adler and Lahiji teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the peripheral region extending in a strip shape 524 from the central region to the support body as claimed. Jumbe teaches, as seen in Fig. 5C-5F, a vibroacoustic sensor module with a sensor 532 located at a central portion of an opening and a peripheral strip 532 extending from the central region to a support body 520. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Jumbe with those of Adler in order to provide a similar strip shape for the film which would provide the ability for fine tuning of the arms for response to a vibration (paragraph 0134).
Regarding claim 8, Jumbe further teaches a central hub 526 which is connected to a flexible circuit board 430 and would therefore be harder than the peripheral, flexible region when combined. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included such a central hub as well in order to support any sensors or other elements when applying the teachings to Adler and Lahiji.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler and Lahiji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hmayakyan et al. US 7,469,769.
Regarding claim 14, Adler and Lahiji teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the covering portion disposed between the film and a subject as claimed. Hmayakyan discloses a stethoscope cover for use in attaching to a membrane (film) of a stethoscope to be positioned between the membrane and a subject. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Hmayakyan with those of Adler and Lahiji to provide a similar film cover to the device of Adler to both protect the device and a patient on which it is being used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855