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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: remove the dots (e.g. in the beginning of line 2 of claim 1) in claims 1 and 13 for proper sentence formation; claim 12 appears to depend on method claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heim (US 20170040977 A1).
For claim 1. Heim discloses An integrated circuit comprising: a sensor configured to sense a stimulus and in response to output an analog signal ([0003], [0062], [0094]); an analog-to-digital converter configured to receive the analog signal and to output a stream of digital values that are in proportion to the analog signal ([0048], [0130], [0131], figure 19); and a difference filter configured to receive the digital values and subtract an N number of the digital values from an M number of the digital values to generate filtered values, wherein M and N are counting numbers ([0128], figure 15).
For claim 11. Heim discloses A method of operating an integrated circuit comprising a sensor configured to sense a stimulus and in response to output an analog signal ([0003], [0062], [0094]), an analog-to-digital converter configured to receive the analog signal and to output a stream of digital values that are in proportion to the analog signal ([0048], [0130], [0131], figure 19), and a difference filter configured to process the digital values with the method comprising subtracting an N number of the digital values from an M number of the digital values to generate filtered values, wherein M and N are counting numbers ([0128], figure 15).
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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claim(s) 2-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heim (US 20170040977 A1) in view of Steensgaard-Madsen (US 20150332785 A1).
For claim 2. The integrated circuit of claim 1 Heim fails to disclose further comprising a controller configured to set the order of the difference filter.
This teaching is disclosed by Steensgaard-Madsen (figure 7A, [0013]: a fourth-order CIC filter may be re-configured to operate as a CIC filter of first-, second-, or third-order; [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Steensgaard-Madsen into the art of Heim as to improve filtering and flexibility of filtering.
For claim 3. Heim in combination with Steensgaard-Madsen substantially teaches the integrated circuit of claim 2, Steensgaard-Madsen discloses wherein the controller is further configured to set resolution for the analog-to-digital converter (ADC) ([0051], [0057], [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Steensgaard-Madsen into the art of Heim as modified by Steensgaard-Madsen as to improve ADC and flexibility of ADC.
For claim 8. Heim in combination with Steensgaard-Madsen substantially teaches the integrated circuit of claim 2, Heim discloses further comprising a stimulus detector configured to receive the filtered values and detect from the filtered values the stimulus sensed by the sensor ([0050], [0060], [0062], [0094]).
For claim 9. Heim in combination with Steensgaard-Madsen substantially teaches the integrated circuit of claim 8, Heim discloses wherein the controller is further configured to set amplitude thresholds of the stimulus detector ([0060]).
10. Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heim (US 20170040977 A1) as modified by Steensgaard-Madsen (US 20150332785 A1), in view of Gray (US 20220011794 A1).
For claim 4. Heim in combination with Steensgaard-Madsen substantially teaches the integrated circuit of claim 2, but fails to disclose further comprising a driver stage configured to energize the sensor.
This teaching is disclosed by Gray ([0176], [0348]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Gray into the art of Heim as modified by Steensgaard-Madsen as to improve sensing with powering sensors.
For claim 5. Heim in combination with Steensgaard-Madsen and Gray substantially teaches the integrated circuit of claim 4, Gray discloses wherein the controller is further configured to set the energization level and time interval provided to the sensor by the driver stage ([0089], [0125], [0176], [0348]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Gray into the art of Heim as modified by Steensgaard-Madsen and Gray as to improve sensing with powering sensors timely.
11. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heim (US 20170040977 A1) as modified by Steensgaard-Madsen (US 20150332785 A1), in view of Thiagarajan (US 10848170 B1).
For claim 6. Heim in combination with Steensgaard-Madsen substantially teaches the integrated circuit of claim 2, but fails to disclose further comprising a gain stage configured to scale the amplitude of an analog sensor signal generated by the sensor and output a gain adjusted version of the analog sensor signal to the analog-to-digital converter.
This teaching is disclosed by Thiagarajan (figure 2, 3 and 4D, column 6 line 58-column 7 line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Thiagarajan into the art of Heim as modified by Steensgaard-Madsen as to improve sensing signal with gain.
For claim 7. Heim in combination with Steensgaard-Madsen and Thiagarajan substantially teaches the integrated circuit of claim 6, Thiagarajan discloses wherein the controller is further configured to set a gain level for the gain stage that scales the amplitude of the analog sensor signal (figure 2, 3 and 4D, column 6 line 58-column 7 line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Thiagarajan into the art of Heim as modified by Steensgaard-Madsen and Thiagarajan as to improve sensing signal with gain.
12. Claim(s) 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAH (US 20230132870 A1) in view of Heim (US 20170040977 A1).
For claim 13. SHAH discloses ([0041], [0045]-[0047], [0112], [0113], smart phone with 3GPP2, 4G LTE or 5G NR transceiver) A wireless communication device comprising: receive circuitry configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals; a baseband processor configured to process a digitized version of the RF signals received by the receive circuitry and to extract the information or data bits conveyed in the received RF signals; transmit circuitry configured to receive encoded data from the baseband processor and to modulate a carrier signal with the encoded data; and user interface circuitry configured to communicate user input to the baseband processor.
But fails to disclose the user interface circuitry comprising: a sensor configured to sense a stimulus and in response to output an analog signal; an analog-to-digital converter configured to receive the analog signal and to output a stream of digital values that are in proportion to the analog signal; and a difference filter configured to receive the digital values and to subtract an N number of the digital values from an M number of the digital values to generate filtered values, wherein M and N are counting numbers.
Heim discloses ([0062]) an user interface circuitry comprising: a sensor configured to sense a stimulus and in response to output an analog signal ([0003], [0062], [0094]); an analog-to-digital converter configured to receive the analog signal and to output a stream of digital values that are in proportion to the analog signal ([0048], [0130], [0131], figure 19); and a difference filter configured to receive the digital values and to subtract an N number of the digital values from an M number of the digital values to generate filtered values, wherein M and N are counting numbers ([0128], figure 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Heim into the art of SHAH as to improve sensing signals.
For claim 22. SHAH in combination with Heim substantially teaches the wireless communication device of claim 13, Heim discloses wherein the sensor, the analog-to-digital converter, the difference filter, and stimulus detector are integrated into an application-specific integrated circuit (Heim [0050], [0062]; also SHAH [0113], [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Heim into the art of SHAH as modified by Heim as to improve sensing signals.
13. Claim(s) 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAH (US 20230132870 A1) as modified by Heim (US 20170040977 A1), in view of Steensgaard-Madsen (US 20150332785 A1).
For claim 14. SHAH in combination with Heim substantially teaches the wireless communication device of claim 13 but fails to disclose further comprising a controller configured to set the order of the difference filter.
This teaching is disclosed by Steensgaard-Madsen (figure 7A, [0013]: a fourth-order CIC filter may be re-configured to operate as a CIC filter of first-, second-, or third-order; [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Steensgaard-Madsen into the art of SHAH as modified by Heim as to improve filtering and flexibility of filtering.
For claim 15. SHAH in combination with Heim and Steensgaard-Madsen substantially teaches the wireless communication device of claim 14 Steensgaard-Madsen discloses wherein the controller is further configured to set resolution for the analog-to-digital converter (ADC) ([0051], [0057], [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Steensgaard-Madsen into the art of SHAH as modified by Heim and Steensgaard-Madsen as to improve ADC and flexibility of ADC.
For claim 20. SHAH in combination with Heim and Steensgaard-Madsen substantially teaches the wireless communication device of claim 14 Heim discloses further comprising a stimulus detector configured to receive the filtered values and detect from the filtered values the stimulus sensed by the sensor, wherein the controller is further configured to set amplitude thresholds of the stimulus detector ([0050], [0060], [0062], [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Heim into the art of SHAH as modified by Heim and Steensgaard-Madsen as to improve sensing signals detection.
14. Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAH (US 20230132870 A1) as modified by Heim (US 20170040977 A1) and Steensgaard-Madsen (US 20150332785 A1), in view of Gray (US 20220011794 A1).
For claim 16. SHAH in combination with Heim and Steensgaard-Madsen substantially teaches the wireless communication device of claim 14 but fails to disclose further comprising a driver stage configured to energize the sensor.
This teaching is disclosed by Gray ([0176], [0348]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Gray into the art of SHAH as modified by Heim and Steensgaard-Madsen as to improve sensing with powering sensors.
For claim 17. SHAH in combination with Heim, Steensgaard-Madsen and Gray substantially teaches the wireless communication device of claim 16 Gray discloses wherein the controller is further configured to set the energization level and time interval provided to the sensor by the driver stage ([0089], [0125], [0176], [0348]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Gray into the art of SHAH as modified by Heim, Steensgaard-Madsen and Gray as to improve sensing with powering sensors timely.
15. Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAH (US 20230132870 A1) as modified by Heim (US 20170040977 A1) and Steensgaard-Madsen (US 20150332785 A1), in view of Thiagarajan (US 10848170 B1).
For claim 18. SHAH in combination with Heim and Steensgaard-Madsen substantially teaches the wireless communication device of claim 14 but fails to disclose further comprising a gain stage configured to scale the amplitude of an analog sensor signal generated by the sensor and output a gain adjusted version of the analog sensor signal to the analog-to-digital converter.
This teaching is disclosed by Thiagarajan (figure 2, 3 and 4D, column 6 line 58-column 7 line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Thiagarajan into the art of SHAH as modified by Heim and Steensgaard-Madsen as to improve sensing signal with gain.
For claim 19. SHAH in combination with Heim, Steensgaard-Madsen and Thiagarajan substantially teaches the wireless communication device of claim 18 Thiagarajan discloses wherein the controller is further configured to set a gain level for the gain stage that scales the amplitude of the analog sensor signal (figure 2, 3 and 4D, column 6 line 58-column 7 line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Thiagarajan into the art of SHAH as modified by Heim, Steensgaard-Madsen and Thiagarajan as to improve sensing signal with gain.
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 10, 12 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because none of the references, either alone or in combination, discloses or renders obvious the claims 10, 12 and 21.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300, submitted online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only, Registered users of the USPTO's EFS-Web system may submit a response electronically through EFS-Web at https://efs.uspto.gov/TruePassSample/AuthenticateUserLocalEPF.html), or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rui Meng Hu whose telephone number is 571-270-1105, email is ruimeng.hu@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on (571)272-3965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Rui Meng Hu/
R.H./rh
January 7, 2026
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643