DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-9, filed 07/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-7 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) as detailed below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2016054455 A, all citations provided from machine translation attached) in view of Aikyo (US 20070076526 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches an acoustic active sensor device comprising: a camera unit (28); an acoustic actuator (20) having a sound generation unit that generates a sound. (Abstract, Page.3, lines 4-22, 28-38, Figs.1, 3-5)
Watanabe also teaches a sound detection unit including a plurality of microphones (11, 14) that detect a sound. (Page.2, lines 27-42, Page.5, lines 1-6, Page.15, lines 22-32, Figs.2A-2D, 3-5)
Watanabe also teaches the sound generation unit (20) and the sound detection unit (11) are disposed concentrically centered on the camera unit (28). (Figs.2-5)
Watanabe does not explicitly teach to detect a reflective sound of a sound generated by the sound generation unit and wherein the sound generation unit and the sound detection unit are disposed on an outer peripheral side centered on the camera unit.
Aikyo teaches to detect a reflective sound of a sound generated by the sound generation unit. (Paragraphs 26, 28, Figs.1A, 10A-10B)
Aikyo also teaches wherein the sound generation unit (32) and the sound detection unit (33) are disposed on an outer peripheral side centered on the camera unit (31). (Paragraph 28, 75, Figs.1A, 10A-10B) Aikyo teaches the ultrasonic sensor 32 (interpreted as sound generation unit) transmits ultrasonic waves and these waves are reflected by an object and then are received by ultrasonic sensor 33 (interpreted as sound detection unit) and these components are all disposed on an outer peripheral side (bottom left, bottom right and top of fig.10B) centered on the camera unit (camera 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Watanabe to incorporate to detect a reflective sound of a sound generated by the sound generation unit and wherein the sound generation unit and the sound detection unit are disposed on an outer peripheral side centered on the camera unit as taught by Aikyo in order to detect a position of an object in a Y-axis direction (coordinate value) and a position z (distance) in Z-axis direction.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe teaches wherein the sound detection unit includes a first microphone array disposed outside relative to the sound generation unit. (Page.2, lines 27-42, Claim 1, Figs.2-5)
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe teaches wherein regarding a front traveling direction of a sound generated by the sound generation unit, a front end part of the camera unit protrudes forward relative to the front end part of the sound generation unit. (Figs.1, 3-5)
Claim(s) 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Aikyo and Shin (US 20100110283 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein the sound generation unit includes a circular vibration plate centered on the camera unit.
Shin teaches wherein the sound generation unit includes a circular vibration plate (132) centered on the camera unit. (Paragraph 37, Figs.3, 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Watanabe to incorporate wherein the sound generation unit includes a circular vibration plate centered on the camera unit in order to emit the sound generated by the diaphragm outward.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic actuator further includes a magnetic circuit that generates a magnetic flux for vibrating the sound generation unit, a hole portion is formed in a center part of the magnetic circuit in plan view, and the camera unit is disposed in the hole portion.
Shin teaches wherein the acoustic actuator further includes a magnetic circuit that generates a magnetic flux for vibrating the sound generation unit, a hole portion is formed in a center part of the magnetic circuit in plan view, and the camera unit is disposed in the hole portion. (Paragraphs 28, 36-37, Claims 6, 8, Figs.3-5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Watanabe to incorporate wherein the acoustic actuator further includes a magnetic circuit that generates a magnetic flux for vibrating the sound generation unit, a hole portion is formed in a center part of the magnetic circuit in plan view, and the camera unit is disposed in the hole portion in order to generate sound in engagement with a coil portion.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Aikyo and Matsumoto (JP 2015118386 A, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein the sound detection unit includes a second microphone array disposed inside relative to the sound generation unit.
Matsumoto teaches wherein the sound detection unit includes a second microphone array disposed inside relative to the sound generation unit. (Pages.4-5, Fig.2A)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Watanabe to incorporate wherein the sound detection unit includes a second microphone array disposed inside relative to the sound generation unit in order to emphasize (amplify) the sound (volume level) in the specific direction from the position, sound data in which directivity in the specific direction is formed is generated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vernon (US 20210057092 A1), which is directed to a remote communication portal system and method of use, providing means of real-time, full-body video and audio while a variety of sensors or measurement devices read and communicate electronic data to one or all participants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights