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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Littrell (U.S. 2020/0408799).
Regarding claim 1, Littrell teaches a vibration sensor comprising a carrier substrate 42 comprising a first and second surface, a suspension member 14a and a moveable mass 50 secured thereto, wherein the moveable mass and/or at least part of the suspension member is/are adapted to vibrate when the vibration sensor is exposed to external vibrations, a read-out arrangement for detecting vibrations of the moveable mass and/or at least part of the suspension member, and a signal processor 114 for at least processing an electrical signal from the read-out arrangement, wherein the read-out arrangement comprises one or more piezo electric layers (32a, 36a) and one or more electrodes (30a, 34a, 38a) arranged on the respective piezo electric layers wherein the suspension member forms a cantilever beam 14a comprising a static end 46a, a moveable end 48b and a virtual hinge line (44a-c) arranged in between (see figure 3A), and in that at least part of the moveable mass 50 is secured to the cantilevered beam between the virtual hinge and the moveable end, and in that the one or more piezo electric layers are secured to the cantilevered beam in a manner so that the one or more piezo electric layers intersect the virtual hinge line (see figure 3A).
Regarding claim 13, Littrell further teaches a hearing device comprising a vibration sensor as described above in claim 1, wherein the hearing device comprises a hearing aid, a hearable, a headset, an earbud or a similar device (see figure 4a).
Regarding claim 14, Littrell further teaches wherein the vibration sensor is used for detecting voice induced vibrations in the skull of the user of the hearing device, and in that the detected voice induced vibrations are used for voice recognition of the user's own voice (see para. 0075).
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(s) 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. 2020/0158564, hereafter referred to as Yoon).
Regarding claim 2, Littrell teaches the claimed invention except wherein at least part of the moveable mass extends from the moveable end to the virtual hinge line of the cantilever beam.
Yoon teaches a similar vibration sensor with a cantilevered beam 203, having a moveable mass 403 secured to an active end of the cantilever, wherein the length (w3) of the mass 403 (corresponding to the length of the cantilever) can be varied (see figures 2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Littrell with the teaching of Yoon since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Littrell teaches the claimed invention except wherein the moveable mass comprises a first and second part.
Yoon further teaches wherein the moveable mass comprises a first part 440 and a second part 415 wherein the first part is substantially aligned with the moveable end of the cantilever beam and a second part being substantially aligned with a virtual hinge line of the cantilever beam (see figure 6); wherein the width of the second part 415 is smaller in width than the first part 440 (see figure 6); additionally, figure 7 shows a different configuration wherein a mass base unit 416 has a first width “b” and a mass ‘wing’ 450 has a second width “c”, the second wing 452 extending near a mid-point of the cantilever.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Littrell with the teaching of Yoon since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Littrell further teaches wherein the moveable mass is arranged between two piezo electric layers secured to the cantilever beam in a manner so that the two layers intersect the virtual hinge (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Littrell teaches the clamed invention except wherein there is an air gap between the mass and the cantilever beam.
Yoon teaches in figure 7 a mass base 416 and a mass wing 452 wherein there exists an air gap between the cantilever beam 206 and the wing 432.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Littrell with the teaching of Yoon since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, Littrell teaches the piezo electric layers extending the length of the cantilever beam; Yoon teaches the mass shape which creates said air gap. The combination of these teachings would meet the limitation(s) claimed.
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2021/0302227).
Regarding claims 8-10, Littrell teaches the claimed invention except wherein the moveable mass and the signal processor are arranged on opposite sides of the carrier substrate.
Chen teaches a similar vibration sensor wherein a mass 132 and a signal processor 110 are located on opposite sides of the carrier substrate (see figure 1); wherein the carrier substrate comprises a first PCB 106 comprising first and second opposing surfaces; wherein the signal processor 110 is secured to the second surface of the PCB 106 (see figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Littrell with the teaching of Chen since this is a well-known configuration in the art.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell in view of Robert (U.S. 2019/0233278).
Littrell teaches the claimed invention except wherein the sensor further comprises a spacer secured to the PCB, which comprises one or more vias electrically connected to the second surface of the PCB.
Robert teaches a sensor package which uses vias 17 that extend in the thickness of the substrate 1 (see para. 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Littrell with the teaching of Robert since this is a well-known configuration in the art.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell in view of Sheplak (WO 2008/134530, hereafter referred to as Sheplak).
Littrell teaches the claimed invention except wherein the sensor further comprises a spacer secured to the PCB, which comprises one or more vias electrically connected to the second surface of the PCB.
Sheplak teaches a microphone configuration comprising a first PCB 12, a spacer 18, and a second PCB 19, wherein spacer 18 further includes vias 20 electrically connected to each PCB, and further comprising contact pads 21.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Littrell with the teaching of Robert since this is a well-known configuration in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855