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 .
Drawings
The figures are objected to because shown components are not clearly identified in the figure. Elements critical to the understanding of the invention should preferably be identified via written legend as well as by numerical symbol.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 12, Lines 1-7: Circuitry is identified in the specification as both symbol 20 and symbol 5 in reference to fig. 1a. Symbol 5 is also used to refer to a transducer on page 11, lines 26-27. It is unclear which designation is the correct one amongst the multiple conflicting designations.
Page 12, Lines 1-7: Laser is identified in the specification as both symbol 15 and symbol 5 in reference to fig. 1a. Symbol 5 is also used to refer to a transducer on page 11, lines 26-27. It is unclear which designation is the correct one amongst the multiple conflicting designations.
Page 12, Lines 1-7: Radiation is identified in the specification as both symbol 25 and symbol 5 in reference to fig. 1a. Symbol 5 is also used to refer to a transducer on page 11, lines 26-27. It is unclear which designation is the correct one amongst the multiple conflicting designations.
Page 13, Paragraph 5 and Page 14, Paragraph 1: Symbol 125 is used with respect to Fig. 2 to refer to both a recess, as well as a housing.
Page 13, Paragraph 16: Reference is drawn to Fig. 4, symbols 115 and 120, which do not appear to exist in the figure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 is 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.
Claim 13, line 3 recites “the effect.” It is unclear if this refers to “a self-mixing interference effect” recited in claim 13, line 3, or “a self-mixing interference effect” recited in claim 1, line 6.
For examination purposes, “a self-mixing interference effect” of claim 13 will be read as “the self-mixing interference effect.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cihan et al, US-PG-PUB 2021/0010797.
Regarding claim 1, Cihan discloses an electro-acoustic transducer (An SMI sensor may sense sound-induced vibrations on a surface, acting as an electro-acoustic microphone (transducer).....¶[0031], lines 10-15) comprising a membrane (A cover (membrane) of a device vibrates in response to sound.....¶[0040], lines 1-3); and
at least one laser (An SMI (self-mixing interference) sensor may include a VCSEL or VECSEL laser.....¶[0042], lines 1-2);
the at least one laser configured to emit radiation towards the membrane (The SMI sensor laser emits radiation towards the cover (membrane).....¶[0041], lines 5-7), such that radiation emitted by the at least one laser is reflected from the membrane back toward the at least one laser to produce a self-mixing interference effect (Reflections from the membrane are reflected back towards the laser, causing self-mixing interference (SMI).....¶[0116], lines 1-4, ¶[0041], lines 5-16) corresponding to an excursion or velocity of the membrane (The SMI effect is measured to drive a signal corresponding to a displacement (excursion) of the cover (membrane).....¶[0042], lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 6, Cihan discloses the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1.
Cihan additionally discloses a plurality of lasers configured to emit radiation toward the membrane for sensing an excursion or velocity of the membrane (The device may include multiple SMI sensors positioned at different points near the membrane.....¶[0045], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Cihan discloses the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1.
Cihan additionally discloses wherein the at least one laser comprises a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (¶[0042], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Cihan discloses the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1.
Cihan additionally discloses circuitry configured to drive the at least one laser with a constant current (The radiation source (laser) may be driven by a constant bias current (Shown in Fig. 6A to comprise circuitry, as electrical connection IBIAS connects to a contact of the laser).....¶[0042], lines 8-10), and to measure a change in a junction voltage of the at least one laser corresponding to the self-mixing interference effect (Measuring the junction voltage will provide an output corresponding to the SMI (self-mixing interference) effect indicative of membrane velocity (change in displacement (and therefore change in junction voltage) over time.....¶[0042], lines 8-16).
Regarding claim 11, Cihan discloses the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1.
Cihan additionally discloses circuitry configured to drive the at least one laser with a constant junction voltage (The radiation source (laser) may be driven by a constant bias (junction) voltage (Shown in Fig. 6B to comprise circuitry, as electrical connection VB connects to a contact of the laser).....¶[0042], lines 8-10), and to measure a change in current through the at least one laser corresponding to the self-mixing interference effect (Measuring the current will provide an output corresponding to the SMI (self-mixing interference) effect indicative of membrane velocity (change in displacement (and therefore change in junction voltage) over time.....¶[0042], lines 8-16).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in light of the pending rejection under 112(b), Cihan, as explained above, teaches the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1.
Cihan additionally teaches a method of operating the electro-acoustic transducer comprising:
sensing a signal corresponding to the self-mixing interference effect (Reflections from the membrane are reflected back towards the laser, causing self-mixing interference (SMI).....¶[0116], lines 1-4, ¶[0041], lines 5-16), wherein the effect corresponds to an excursion of the membrane of the electro acoustic transducer (The SMI effect is measured to drive a signal corresponding to a displacement (excursion) of the cover (membrane).....¶[0042], lines 11-16); and
modifying a control signal for the electro-acoustic transducer in dependence of the sensed signal (Sensed vibrations may be used to control functions of the device.....¶[0040], lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 14, Cihan discloses a communications device comprising the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1 (The device comprising the sensors may be a smartphone (communication device).....¶[0047], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Cihan discloses a method of assembling an electro-acoustic transducer (An SMI sensor may sense sound-induced vibrations on a surface, acting as an electro-acoustic microphone.....¶[0031], lines 10-15), the method comprising: providing a membrane (A cover (membrane) of a device vibrates in response to sound is provided.....¶[0040], lines 1-3) and at least one laser (An SMI (self-mixing interference) sensor may include a VCSEL or VECSEL laser is provided.....¶[0042], lines 1-2); configuring the at least one laser to emit radiation toward the membrane (The SMI sensor laser emits radiation towards the cover (membrane).....¶[0041], lines 5-7) such that, in use, radiation emitted by the at least one laser is reflected from the membrane back toward the at least one laser produces a self-mixing interference effect (Reflections from the membrane are reflected back towards the laser, causing self-mixing interference (SMI).....¶[0116], lines 1-4, ¶[0041], lines 5-16) corresponding to an excursion or velocity of the membrane (The SMI effect is measured to drive a signal corresponding to a displacement (excursion) of the cover (membrane).....¶[0042], lines 11-16).
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.
Claims 1-2, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek et al (hereinafter Quek), US Patent No 9,967,664 in view of Cihan et al (hereinafter Cihan), US-PG-PUB No. 2021/0010797.
Regarding claim 1, Quek discloses an electro-acoustic transducer (An electric-to-acoustic (electro-acoustic) transducer…..Col. 6, lines 9-13) comprising:
a membrane (Shown in Fig. 1, compliant member (112) may be a membrane…..Col. 6, lines 41-44), and at least one optical sensor (Shown in Fig. 1, an optical sensor faces the membrane…..Col. 7, lines 41-44);
the at least one optical sensor configured to emit radiation toward the membrane (Light emitter (128) of the optical sensor emits light towards the membrane…..Col. 7, lines 44-46), such that radiation emitted by the at least one optical sensor is reflected from the membrane back toward the one optical sensor (Shown in Fig. 1, light (radiation) emitted from (128) reflects from the membrane and is received at the light detector (130) of the optical sensor…..Col. 7, lines 52-54) to produce a displacement signal corresponding to an excursion of the membrane (The light detector of the optical sensor produces a displacement signal, corresponding to the displacement (excursion) of the membrane…..Col. 7, lines 56-62).
Quek fails to teach wherein the optical sensor is that of a laser producing a self-mixing interference effect. Instead, Quek teaches wherein the optical sensor is a combination of a general light emitter (Col. 7, lines 44-46) and corresponding light detector, which produces a displacement signal based on the intensity of light received at the light detector, independent of any self-mixing interference effect. This optical sensor noted to be similar to the laser of claim 1, as it emits radiation to be reflected from a membrane of a transducer.
Cihan teaches a transducer in the form of a microphone which measures a diaphragm vibration (¶[0031], lines 13-17) using a laser of a self-mixing interference (SMI) sensor in a fashion analogous to Quek’s use of the light emitter of the optical sensor (Radiation from the emitting portion of the sensor is reflected and the reflections are analyzed.....¶[0116], lines 1-4, ¶[0041], lines 5-16]), (A self-mixing interferometer sensor (SMI) may emit radiation using a VCSEL laser.....¶[0116], lines 1-2), wherein the displacement signal is a self-mixing interference effect (The laser radiation is reflected off a surface to cause self-mixing interference.....¶[0116], lines 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Quek to incorporate the teachings of Cihan, and provide wherein the optical sensor of Quek is that of a laser for producing a self-mixing interference effect. This would provide the benefit of a system wherein sensor part size may be reduced (Cihan, ¶[0066], lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Quek and Cihan, as explained above, teach the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1.
Quek additionally teaches wherein the transducer comprises a substrate and a magnet (The transducer comprises a magnet assembly comprising a top plate (substrate) and magnet…..Col. 7, lines 6-7), wherein the at least one laser is coupled to the substrate (The light emitter and detector of the optical sensor, previously established to be analogous to the laser interferometer, may be coupled to the top plate…..Col. 3, lines 7-11) and the substrate is provided between the magnet and the membrane (Shown in Fig. 1, top plate (118) is provided between magnet (120) and membrane (112)…..Col. 7, lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Quek and Cihan, as explained above, teach the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1.
Quek additionally teaches wherein the transducer is configured as a loudspeaker (The transducer may be a speaker (loudspeaker)…..Col. 6, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in light of the pending rejection under 112(b), the combination of Quek and Cihan, as explained above, teach the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1.
Quek additionally teaches a method of operating the electro-acoustic transducer comprising:
sensing a signal corresponding to the self-mixing interference effect (The apparatus senses a displacement signal, established in the rejection of claim 1 to be analogous to corresponding to the self-mixing interference effect…..Col. 9, lines 59-61), wherein the effect corresponds to an excursion of the membrane of the electro acoustic transducer (The displacement signal corresponds to membrane displacement (excursion)…..Col. 9, line 63 – Col. 10, line 2); and
modifying a control signal for the electro-acoustic transducer in dependence of the sensed signal (Displacement data may be used to modify control algorithms (and the control signals generated by said algorithms) to control displacement of the transducer membrane…..Col. 10, lines 8-11).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek in view of Cihan in further view of Yuasa et al (hereinafter Yuasa), US-PG-PUB No. 2016/0286318.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Quek and Cihan, as explained above, teach the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 2 but fail to disclose wherein a conductive element extends through an aperture in the magnet to provide an electrical connection to the substrate.
Yuasa teaches an electro-acoustic transducer wherein a conductive element extends through an aperture in the magnet to provide an electrical connection to a substrate (Shown in Fig. 1, wire (conductive electrical element) (21B) extends through an aperture in a magnet (13B), providing an electrical connection to a printed circuit board (substrate) (21A).....¶[0056], lines 1-6, ¶[0042], lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Quek and Cihan to incorporate the teachings of Yuasa, and provide wherein a conductive element extends through an aperture in the magnet to provide an electrical connection to the substrate. This would provide the benefit of a design where wire is provided through an easy to machine yoke material, rather than a magnet (Yuasa, ¶[0056], lines 5-9).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek in view of Cihan in further view of Gerlach, US-PG-PUB 2020/0350744.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Quek and Cihan, as explained above, teach the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 2 but fail to disclose wherein the at least one laser is disposed at an opposite side of the substrate to the membrane.
Gerlach teaches a laser-based self-mixing interference sensor wherein radiation from the laser is emitted from the underside of the laser relative to the substrate (Shown in Fig. 7, this VCSEL emits laser light (radiation) through the substrate (110).....¶[0060], lines 5-7). Were such a laser used in the electro-acoustic transducer as explained in claim 2, the at least one laser would need to be disposed at an opposite side of the substrate to the membrane in order to direct radiation at the membrane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Quek and Cihan to incorporate the teachings of Gerlach, and provide wherein the at least one laser is disposed at an opposite side of the substrate to the membrane. This would provide the benefit of a system wherein laser emissions may be directed or enhanced via lens structures on the membrane-facing side of the substrate (Gerlach, ¶[0060], lines 41-46).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek in view of Cihan in further view of Carr, US Patent No. 7,355,720.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Quek and Cihan, as explained above, teach the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 2 but fail to disclose wherein the substrate comprises at least one aperture for radiation from the at least one laser to propagate through the substrate.
Carr teaches an optical displacement sensor wherein the substrate comprises at least one aperture for radiation from the at least one laser to propagate through the substrate (In an opaque substrate a hole (aperture) can be made through the substrate to allow the laser beam to reach a photodetector…..Col. 7, lines 2-8).
Quek, Cihan, and Carr are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser interferometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Quek and Cihan to incorporate the teachings of Carr, and provide wherein the substrate comprises at least one aperture for radiation from the at least one laser to propagate through the substrate. This would provide a benefit of a allowing a photodetector to be placed below the laser, providing a more compact device (Carr, Col. 7, lines 12-14).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cihan in view of Nomoto et al (hereinafter Nomoto), US-PG-PUB 2008/0273192.
Regarding claim 8, Cihan, as explained above, teaches the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1 but fails to disclose comprising a beam splitter configured to direct a portion of radiation emitted by the at least one laser to a photodetector, for optically sensing the self-mixing interference effect.
Nomoto teaches an optical microphone comprising a beam splitter configured to direct a portion of radiation emitted by at least one laser to a photodetector (Shown in Fig. 1, a laser beam (radiation) is directed towards a beam splitter (12), and a portion of the split beam (p1) is directed towards photoelectric conversion devices (photodetectors) (181) and (182).....¶[0065], lines 1-17), for optically sensing the self-mixing interference effect (The output of the photodetectors is dependent on the interference patterns (self-mixing interference effect) of the laser reflecting against the vibrating membrane.....¶[0065], lines 14-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Cihan to incorporate the teachings of Nomoto, and provide a beam splitter configured to direct a portion of radiation emitted by the at least one laser to a photodetector, for optically sensing the self-mixing interference effect. This would provide the benefit of a longer beam path, allowing for amplification of the interferometric signal (Nomoto, ¶[0065], lines 17-23).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cihan in view of Carr.
Regarding claim 9, Cihan, as explained above, teaches the electro-acoustic transducer of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a mirror of a resonator in the at least one laser is partially transparent to enable radiation emitted by the at least one laser to be incident on a photodetector, for optically sensing the self-mixing interference effect.
Carr teaches an optical displacement sensor wherein a mirror of a resonator in the at least one laser is partially transparent to enable radiation emitted by the at least one laser to be incident on a photodetector (A bottom mirror of a vertical cavity (resonator) laser is partially transparent, allowing for light to be incident on a photodetector…..Col. 6, lines 51-56), for optically sensing the self-mixing interference effect (The intensity changes due to self-mixing interference changes as a membrane moves…..Col. 6, lines 56-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Cihan to incorporate the teachings of Carr, and provide an optical displacement sensor wherein a mirror of a resonator in the at least one laser is partially transparent to enable radiation emitted by the at least one laser to be incident on a photodetector, for optically sensing the self-mixing interference effect. This would provide a benefit of a allowing a photodetector to be placed below the laser, providing a more compact device (Carr, Col. 7, lines 12-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miles et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2007/0165896 teaches a microphone transducer that measures displacement of a membrane via laser interferometry.
Johansen et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2005/0018541 teaches a microphone transducer that measures displacement of a membrane via optical interferometry.
Lacolle et al, US Patent 10,190,870 teaches a microphone transducer that measures displacement of a membrane via laser interferometry.
Hou et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2023/0209278 teaches a microphone transducer of a cellphone that measures displacement of a membrane via optical interferometry.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN M RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694