DETAILED ACTION
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 7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano US PG-Pub 2005/0157901 in combination with Braband US PG-Pub 2024/0040324 in view of Bolognia US PG-Pub 2014/0001580.
Regarding claim 7, Hatano teaches a passive acoustic directional amplifier having a cavity formed by the passive acoustic directional amplifier; and, a microphone system positioned within the cavity (Fig. 1 & [0014]: a microphone-12 in the cavity of the sound collector that will collect acoustic sound to be provided to the microphone-12).
Hatano failed to teach a dual microphone system comprising: a substrate having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface and substantially parallel to the top surface, and an edge surface extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, wherein the edge surface defines a slotted recess extending into the substrate; a first MEMS microphone mounted to the top surface of the substrate, the first MEMS microphone comprising a first package, a first sensor, and a first integrated circuit, wherein the first package forms a first sound port and wherein the first sound port is positioned over the slotted recess; and, a second MEMS microphone mounted to the bottom surface of the substrate, the second MEMS microphone comprising a second package, a second sensor, and a second integrated circuit, wherein the second package forms a second sound port and wherein the second sound port is positioned over the slotted recess, and wherein the second sound port is positioned within 3 millimeters of the first sound port.
However, Bradband teaches a dual microphone system comprising: a substrate having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface and substantially parallel to the top surface (Fig. 12: substrate-510), and an edge surface extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, wherein the edge surface defines a slotted recess extending into the substrate (Fig. 12: the substrate-510 has an edge which defines a slot recess where sound can go inside); a first MEMS microphone mounted to the top surface of the substrate, the first MEMS microphone comprising a first package, a first sensor, wherein the first package forms a first sound port and wherein the first sound port is positioned over the slotted recess (Fig. 12 & [0129]: the microphone-521 is place on the substrate-510 in the recess so sound can be pickup though the sound path-538 and up through it’s sound port); and, a second MEMS microphone mounted to the bottom surface of the substrate, the second MEMS microphone comprising a second package, a second sensor, wherein the second package forms a second sound port and wherein the second sound port is positioned over the slotted recess (Fig. 12 & [0129]: the microphone-520 is place on the substrate-510 in the recess so sound can be pickup though the sound path-538 and down through it’s sound port).
Hatano and Bradband are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely microphone devices. Therefore, 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, because having a dual MEMS microphone is an alternate equivalent type of microphones that is used to capture audio data.
The combination failed to explicitly teach microphone package having integrated circuit and wherein the second sound port is positioned within 3 millimeters of the first sound port.
However, Bolognia teaches microphone package having integrated circuit and wherein the second sound port is positioned within 3 millimeters of the first sound port (Fig. 4B & [0031]: the MEMS microphones have integrated circuit-7A/7B and the substrate-2 is about 3mm).
The combination and Bolognia are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely microphone devices. Therefore, 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, because microphone unit having integrated circuit helps to process data faster and having substrate of 3mm is an inventor choice and no undue result will arise.
Regarding claim 10, Bolognia teaches wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board ([0029]: the substrate-2 can be PCB). Therefore, 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, because PCB is an alternate equivalent material for a substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Braband teaches wherein the first MEMS microphone is a bottom port MEMS microphone (Fig. 12-520). Therefore, 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, because it is an inventor choice to select if the microphone will be bottom or top port and no unexpected result will arise.
Claim 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano US PG-Pub 2005/0157901 in combination with Braband US PG-Pub 2024/0040324 in view of Bolognia US PG-Pub 2014/0001580 and further in view of Mucha US PG-Pub 2019/0166432.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches wherein the first MEMS microphone is configured to generate a first output signal and wherein the second MEMS microphone is configured to generate a second output signal (Braband, Fig. 12 & Bolognia Fig. 4B: two microphone device will have their own outputs).
The combination failed to teach sum the first output signal with the second output signal to create a summation signal.
However, Mucha teaches sum the first output signal with the second output signal to create a summation signal (Fig. 1 & [0067]: dual MEMS microphones that will sum together).
The combination and Mucha are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely microphone devices. Therefore, 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, because adding the microphone signals will amplify the audio signal as Mucha teaches at the end of [0067].
Regarding claim 9, the combination failed to teach wherein a third integrated circuit within the audio system creates the summation signal and wherein the audio system does not delay the first signal in relation to the second signal and does not delay the second signal in relation to the first signal, prior to generating the summation signal of the first and second signal.
However, Mucha teaches sum the first output signal with the second output signal to create a summation signal (Fig. 1 & [0067]: dual MEMS microphones that will sum together and does not mention delaying one signal relative to the other).
The combination and Mucha are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely microphone devices. Therefore, 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, because adding the microphone signals without relative delay will amplify the audio signal as Mucha is doing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA whose telephone number is (571)270-5519. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-9am and 11am-6pm.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights