DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
In claim 1, “a membrane material coupled to a stiffener” is vague and indefinite. The features lack structural context with respect to the rest of the claimed elements. Claims 8 & 15 contain the same language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (US 9,894,278) in view of Xu et al. (US 9,889,931), Lippert et al. (US 9,861,210) & Maughan et al. (US 5,365,388).
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches a handheld image stabilization device (i.e., portable stabilizer for moving shooting) comprising:
a housing (control box) 5;
a gimbal comprising three arms (not numbered; Fig.1);
a motor assembly comprising motors (X-, Y- and Z-axis motors) 1, 4 & 6 such that respective ones of the motors are located on respective ones of the three arms (Fig.1);
a printed circuit board (i.e., Bluetooth module 7 with control circuits; c.3:5-30; Fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
604
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
528
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wei does not teach: 1) “a membrane material coupled to a stiffener” [sic] or 2) “a microphone attached to a surface of the PCB [7] and configured to detect audio waves, wherein the audio waves include acoustic noise from the motor assembly [6]” or 3) “a dampener disposed between the motor assembly [6] and the PCB [7], wherein the dampener is configured to reduce the acoustic noise from the motor assembly by mechanically isolating the PCB from vibration by the motor assembly”.
But, regarding (2), Xu teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) including a carrier for cameras comprising a gimbal-stabilized platform with yaw, roll and pitch motors that in actuation generate noise (c.15:49-60). Xu further teaches microphones including background microphones 260 that collect background noise generated by the background noise-producing components (c.15:-66-c.16:1; Fig.2). The background microphone may be positioned in various positions, in close proximity to the background-noise producing component, e.g., on the motors (e.g., pitch motor, roll motor and yaw motor) of the gimbal of the UAV (c.17:17-36; c.17:40-c.18:31). The audio data collected by the background microphones may be used to reduce or cancel interfering background noise from the audio signal detected by an audio source collecting microphone (abstract; c.1:29-50).
PNG
media_image3.png
545
553
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to attach a microphone on the surface of the PCB of Wei since Xu teaches background microphones would have been desirable to collect background noise generated by motors of a gimbal and use the data to reduce or cancel the interfering background noise.
Regarding (1), Lippert teaches acoustic devices such as microphones and speakers for an electronic device comprising a printed circuit board (substrate) 204, a microphone (acoustic device) 201 attached to a surface of the PCB configured to detect audio waves (i.e., through hole 213) and a membrane material 207 coupled (bonded) to a stiffener 205 that allows liquid present in the through hole to exit and/or not impair functioning of the acoustic device by the presence of the liquid in the through hole (c.1:61-65; Fig.2A).
PNG
media_image4.png
365
593
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Wei & Xu with a membrane material coupled a stiffener of the PCB since Lippert teaches this would have allowed liquid present in the through hole to exit and not impaired functioning of the acoustic device by the presence of the liquid in the through hole.
Regarding feature (3), Maughan teaches a disk drive motor assembly (including rotor 16 & stator 24) including a PCB 17 and a dampener (stator gasket) 51 disposed between the motor assembly and the PCB, wherein the dampener is configured to reduce the acoustic noise from the motor assembly by mechanically isolating the PCB from vibration by the motor assembly, i.e., the stator gasket allows the forces produced by the motor to be absorbed, rather than coupled, to the printed circuit board, isolates vibrational forces produced by the motor and reduces the sound level by about 10 db (c.3:48-57; c.4:1-8; Fig.5).
PNG
media_image5.png
245
455
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have further been obvious to provide a dampener between the motor assembly and PCB of Wei, Xu & Lippert since Maughan teaches a dampener would have absorbed and isolated forces produced by the motor and reduced the sound level.
Regarding claim 2, the combination, in particular Lippert, teaches a housing 103 including a first port 102 and the PCB 204 includes a second port (not numbered) with the first port and the second port being co-axial (Fig.2A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination, in particular Lippert, teaches a housing dampener (gasket) 209 is located between the PCB 204 and the housing 103 (Fig.2A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination, in particular Lippert, teaches the PCB 204 is in communication with a gasket 209.
Regarding claim 5, the combination, in particular Maughan, teaches the dampener 51 is not located in bolt holes of a cage (chassis) 11 associated with one of the multiple motors (Fig.5).
Regarding claim 7, the gimbal of both Wei (abstract) and Xu (c.15:49-60) are configured to allow for three axes of rotation of an imaging device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei, Xu, Lippert & Maughan as applied to claim 5, further in view of Isaacson et al. (US Pat.Pub.2021/024 3539).
Wei, Xu, Lippert & Maughan do not teach the dampener is silicone rubber.
But, Isaacson teaches an image capture device comprising a housing 440, a printed circuit board (PCB) 452, a microphone 408 attached to a surface of the PCB and a dampener (gasket) 446 coupled to the PCB 452 and disposed between the housing 440 and the PCB (Fig.4), wherein the dampener mechanically isolates the microphone from vibrations delivered to the housing (¶[0077]). Isaacson’s gasket is formed from a flexible material, e.g., silicone, rubber, etc. (¶[0084]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide a silicon rubber dampener in Wei, Xu, Lippert & Maughan since Isaacson teaches this material was known to mechanically isolate a microphone on a PCB from vibrations delivered to the housing.
Claims 8 & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei, Xu, Lippert & Isaacson.
Regarding claim 8, Wei teaches a handheld image stabilization device (i.e., portable stabilizer for moving shooting) comprising:
a housing (control box) 5;
a printed circuit board (i.e., Bluetooth module 7 with control circuits; c.3:5-30);
[and] a motor assembly comprising: a first arm (not numbered) with a first (X-axis) motor 1, a second arm with a second (Y-axis) motor 4, and a third arm with a third (Z-axis) motor 6, wherein the motor assembly moves about three axes of rotation (c.1:40-51; Figs.1-2).
Wei does not teach: 1) the housing 5 comprises “a first port” and the printed circuit board (PCB) 7 comprises “a second port”; 2) “a membrane material coupled to a stiffener”; 3) “a dampener disposed between the motor assembly and the PCB [7], wherein the dampener is configured to reduce acoustic noise from the first motor [1], the second motor [4], the third motor [6], or a combination thereof, by mechanically isolating the PCB from vibration by the first motor, the second motor, the third motor, or a combination thereof”, or 4) “a microphone attached to a surface of the PCB.”
But, regarding feature (4), Xu teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) including a carrier for cameras comprising a gimbal-stabilized platform with yaw, roll and pitch motors that in actuation generate noise (c.15:49-60). Xu further teaches microphones including background microphones 260 that collect background noise generated by the background noise-producing components (c.15:-66-c.16:1; Fig.2). The background microphone may be positioned in various positions, in close proximity to the background-noise producing component, e.g., on the motors (e.g., pitch motor, roll motor and yaw motor) of the gimbal of the UAV (c.17:17-36; c.17:40-c.18:31). The audio data collected by the background microphones may be used to reduce or cancel interfering background noise from the audio signal detected by an audio source collecting microphone (abstract; c.1:29-50).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to attach a microphone on the surface of Wei’s PCB since Xu teaches background microphones would have been desirable to collect background noise generated by motors of a gimbal and use the data to reduce or cancel the interfering background noise.
Regarding (1)-(2), Lippert teaches acoustic devices such as microphones and speakers for an electronic device including a housing 103 comprising a first port (acoustic aperture/through hole) 102/213 and the printed circuit board 204 comprising a second port (not numbered), a membrane material 207 coupled to a stiffener 205 and a microphone (acoustic device) 201 attached to a surface of the PCB (Fig.2A). Lippert’s ports provides acoustic ports to the microphone and the membrane and stiffener provide a liquid-tolerant acoustic device assembly incorporated into an electronic device that may be tuned such that liquid present in the port is allowed to exit and/or functioning of the acoustic device is not impaired by the presence of the liquid in the port (abstract; c.1:51-c.2:20).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Wei & Xu with a housing comprising a first port, a PCB comprising a second port and a membrane material coupled to a stiffener since Lippert teaches these would have provided acoustic ports to the microphone and allowed liquid present in the port to exit and/or not impair functioning of the acoustic device by the presence of the liquid in the port.
Regarding feature (3), Isaacson also teaches a dampener (gasket) 446 disposed between the housing 440 and the PCB 452 (Fig.4), wherein the dampener is configured to reduce acoustic noise since the dampener mechanically isolates the microphone from vibrations delivered to the housing (¶[0077]). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Wei, Xu & Lippert with a dampener disposed between the motor assembly and the PCB, since Isaacson teaches a dampener disposed between a housing and PCB would have isolated the microphone from vibrations delivered to the housing, which in the context of Wei and Xu would have been the motor assembly housing. Further, Isaacson’s dampener would necessarily have reduced acoustic noise from the motor/s of Wei, Xu and Lippert and mechanically isolated the PCB from vibration by the motor/s of Wei, Xu and Lippert.
Regarding claim 15, Wei teaches a handheld image stabilization device (i.e., portable stabilizer for moving shooting) comprising:
an image sensor (inherent to camera; c.3:2);
a housing (control box) 5;
a motor assembly (including X-, Y- and Z-axis motors 1, 4 & 6) comprising:
a first end connected to the image sensor (i.e., on fixing support 3),
a second end connected to and extending from the housing 5, and motors that are configured to move the image sensor (c.1:40-56; Figs.1-2); [and]
a printed circuit board (i.e., Bluetooth module 7 with control circuits; c.3:5-30).
Wei does not teach: 1) the housing 5 comprises “a first port” and the printed circuit board (PCB) 7 comprises “a second port”; 2) “a membrane material coupled to the PCB via a stiffener”; 3) “a dampener disposed between the motor assembly and the PCB [7], wherein the dampener is configured to reduce acoustic noise from the motors by mechanically isolating the PCB from vibration by the motors” or 4) “a microphone attached to a surface of the PCB”.
But, regarding feature (4), Xu teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) including a carrier for cameras comprising a gimbal-stabilized platform with yaw, roll and pitch motors that in actuation generate noise (c.15:49-60). Xu further teaches microphones including background microphones 260 that collect background noise generated by the background noise-producing components (c.15:-66-c.16:1; Fig.2). The background microphone may be positioned in various positions, in close proximity to the background-noise producing component, e.g., on the motors (e.g., pitch motor, roll motor and yaw motor) of the gimbal of the UAV (c.17:17-36; c.17:40-c.18:31). The audio data collected by the background microphones may be used to reduce or cancel interfering background noise from the audio signal detected by an audio source collecting microphone (abstract; c.1:29-50).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to attach a microphone on the surface of Wei’s PCB since Xu teaches background microphones would have been desirable to collect background noise generated by motors of a gimbal and use the data to reduce or cancel the interfering background noise.
Regarding (1)-(2), Lippert teaches acoustic devices such as microphones and speakers for an electronic device including a housing 103 comprising a first port (acoustic aperture/through hole) 102/213 and the printed circuit board 204 comprising a second port (not numbered), a membrane material 207 coupled to the PCB via a stiffener 205 and a microphone (acoustic device) 201 attached to a surface of the PCB (Fig.2A). Lippert’s ports provides acoustic ports to the microphone and the membrane and stiffener provide a liquid-tolerant acoustic device assembly incorporated into an electronic device that may be tuned such that liquid present in the port is allowed to exit and/or functioning of the acoustic device is not impaired by the presence of the liquid in the port (abstract; c.1:51-c.2:20).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Wei & Xu with a housing comprising a first port, a PCB comprising a second port and a membrane material coupled to the PCB with a stiffener since Lippert teaches these would have provided acoustic ports to the microphone and allowed liquid present in the port to exit and/or not impair functioning of the acoustic device by the presence of the liquid in the port.
Regarding feature (3), Isaacson also teaches a dampener (gasket) 446 disposed between the housing 440 and the PCB 452 (Fig.4), wherein the dampener is configured to reduce acoustic noise since the dampener mechanically isolates the microphone from vibrations delivered to the housing (¶[0077]). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Wei & Xu with a dampener disposed between the motor assembly and the PCB, since Isaacson teaches a dampener disposed between a housing and PCB would have isolated the microphone from vibrations delivered to the housing, which in the context of Wei and Xu would have been the motor assembly housing. Further, Isaacson’s dampener would necessarily have reduced acoustic noise from the motors of Wei & Xu and mechanically isolated the PCB from vibration by the motor assembly of Wei & Xu.
Regarding claim 16, the dampener is located “within the motor assembly” in the sense that in the combination, Isaacson’s dampener is disposed within Wei’s motor control box, between the PCB and the housing.
Regarding claim 17, the dampener is located “within at least one of the motors” in the sense that in the combination, Isaacson’s dampener is disposed within Wei’s motor control box, which comprises the Z-axis motor 6.
Regarding claim 18, Isaacson’s gasket is formed from a flexible material, e.g., silicone, rubber, etc. (¶[0084]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the dampener of Isaacson is not located in bolt holes 9, 9-1 of a cage (i.e., housing) 5 associated with at least one of Wei’s motors (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 20, in Lippert the PCB 204 is in communication with a gasket 209. Similarly, in Isaacson the PCB 452 is in communication with gasket 442.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei, Xu, Lippert & Isaacson as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of engineering design.
The combination, in particular Isaacson, teaches a dampener (gasket) formed of various materials such as silicon, rubber, etc. (¶[0093]), each of which comprises an intrinsic “stiffness” (understood as the spring constant ‘k’) and the motors, in particular those of Wei & Xu, also comprise an intrinsic “resonance”, understood as a frequency at which the mechanical vibration from the motors increases significantly. While the combination, in particular Isaacson, does not explicitly teach the stiffness of the dampener to be “based on a resonance of the first motor, the second motor, the third motor, or a combination thereof”, this would have been obvious before the effective filing date as a matter of engineering design. The purpose of Isaacson’s dampener is to mechanically isolate (i.e., dampen or absorb) vibrations (¶[0045]; ¶[0093])---in particular, in the context of the combination, in particular vibrations generated by the motors of Wei and Xu (Xu, c.15:28-30). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would necessarily “base” (i.e., choose or design) a stiffness of the dampener such that it provided damping at a frequency where the greatest vibration occurred. Expressed more formally in textbooks such as “Formulas for Dynamics, Acoustics and Vibration” (R.Blevins, 2016), vibration isolation models (Chap.3, pp.374-391) for a vibrating mass supported by a spring on a base subject to vibration force (Fig.7.13(a), p.375) teach that in terms of ‘vibration transmissibility’ (where vibration isolation reduces vibration transmissibility), ‘k’ (as part of the static deformation δs) and forcing frequency ‘f’ determine vibration transmissibility Fbase/FO (see Equation 7.48, p.375). Similarly, Equation 7.47 expresses this in terms of the damping factor ζ (implicitly a function of spring constant ‘k’, i.e., “stiffness”) and the forcing frequency ‘f’. In other words, choice of ‘k’ is necessarily “based on” a resonant frequency of the base subject to vibration force since ‘k’ and ‘f’ are known design parameters determining the vibration transmissibility from the base vibrating at frequency ‘f’ to the vibrating mass connected by a spring of spring constant ‘k’ to the base, which in turn determines the degree of vibration isolation therebetween, and since one of ordinary skill would necessarily take into account the resonant frequency as ‘f’ since that would be the frequency at which the greatest vibration occurs.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei, Xu, Lippert & Isaacson as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Huang et al. (CN 107690745).
Regarding claim 10, Wei, Xu, Lippert & Isaacson substantially teach the invention including, in Wei, a handheld image stabilization device comprising first, second and third motors 1, 4 & 6 (Figs.1-2), but the combination does not teach the motors each comprise “an inner ring, an outer ring spaced apart from the inner ring; arms extending between the inner ring and the outer ring, and openings separating the arms.”
But, with reference to US Pat.Pub.2019/0249820, the English language continuation of CN ‘745, Huang teaches a gimbal 10 comprising first, second and third axis motors having the same structure (¶[0023]), each comprising:
an inner ring (not numbered, part of bottom wall 1111);
an outer ring (including side wall 1112) spaced apart from the inner ring;
arms (not numbered) extending between the inner ring and the outer ring, and openings (not numbered) separating the arms (Fig.2).
PNG
media_image6.png
370
428
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Together, Huang’s inner ring, outer ring and arms form a first housing space 111a enclosing magnetic ring 113 and coil winding 114 which together rotate first body 111 relative to second body 112; ¶[0025]; ¶[0032]; ¶[0042]; Fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the first, second and third motors of Wei, Xu, Lippert & Isaacson with an inner ring, an outer ring spaced apart from the inner ring; arms extending between the inner ring and the outer ring, and openings separating the arms since Huang teaches that these would have been desirable in gimbal motors to form a housing space enclosing a magnetic ring and coil winding which provide rotation.
Regarding claim 11, in the combination, the dampener is located within the first motor, the second motor, or the third motor at a location inside of the respective outer ring, i.e., between PCB and housing per Isaacson (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 12, Isaacson teaches the dampener (gasket) is a silicone rubber, e.g., silicone, rubber, etc. (¶[0084]).
Regarding claim 13, Huang’s first, second and third motors respectively comprise: a hollow shaft 1114 that extends through the inner ring (¶[0028]; Figs.2-5).
Regarding claim 14, Huang’s first, second and third motors respectively comprise: magnets (magnetic ring) 113 extending annularly within the outer ring (i.e., within side wall 1112) and facing the outer ring (Figs.2-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20, in particular independent claims 1, 8 & 15, have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues Maughan’s stator gasket (dampener) is used on a stationary disk drive, not an handheld image stabilization device or for reduction of acoustic noise in the context of a gimbal or camera (Response, p.7).
This is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Maughan is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Maughan relates to a motor assembly for a disk drive motor assembly including rotor 16 & stator 24, and a dampener (stator gasket) 51 disposed between the motor assembly and PCB 17 (Fig.5). Maughan is thus within the field of the inventor’s endeavor of motor assemblies. Further, Maughan explicitly teaches the dampener 51 “allows the forces produced by the motor to be absorbed, rather than coupled, to the printed circuit board [17]” (c.4:1-3) and that “by isolating the vibrational forces produced by the motor, the sound level of the disk drive has been reduced by about 10 db” (c.4:6-8). Maughan is thus reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of mechanically isolating a PCB from vibrations from a motor assembly.
Applicant argues Maughan’s stator gasket “is not specifically tailored to acoustic noise reduction in the context of audio capture” (Response, p.7). This is not persuasive. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Applicant provides no clear explanation of any structural difference between the claimed “dampener” and Maughan’s stator gasket 51 which “allows the forces produced by the motor to be absorbed, rather than coupled, to the printed circuit board [17]” (c.4:1-3) and “isolate[es] the vibrational forces produced by the motor (c.4:6-8), but merely refers to vague “tailoring”.
Applicant argues Maughan does not disclose a PCB supporting a microphone. This is not persuasive because Maughan was not cited for this teaching. See instead Xu, which teaches a background microphone positioned in various positions, in close proximity to the background-noise producing component, e.g., on the motors (e.g., pitch motor, roll motor and yaw motor) of the gimbal of the UAV (c.17:17-36; c.17:40-c.18:31).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights