DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-41 are presented for examination.
The present application is being examined under the AIA (America Invents Act) First Inventor to File.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 are independent claims. Claims 22-27, 29-24 and 36-41 are dependent claims.
This action is responsive to the following communication: corresponding claims filed on 04-06-2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04-06-2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04-06-2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
For faster processing of Terminal Disclaimer the USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/ eTD-info-I.jsp.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claims 21-24, 27-31, 34-38 and 41 of the instant application, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,956,503 (hereinafter, “Patent No. ‘503”) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
As per claims 21, 28, 35, Patent No. ‘503 discloses a method comprising:
detecting voice of a user, wherein the detecting occurs via a device that is configured, based on the user's voice, to detect vibrations in a plurality of frequencies of the user's voice; and (selecting a tuning fork, from a plurality of tuning forks that have different harmonic frequencies, based on a user's voice corresponding to a harmonic frequency of the selected tuning fork; receiving, via the selected tuning fork, a first portion of an audio input from the user; comparing a vibration amplitude of the selected tuning fork with a reference amplitude corresponding to the selected tuning fork; claim 1)
causing, based on the detecting the voice, activation of a voice recognition process to recognize one or more words being spoken by the user. (comparing a vibration amplitude of the selected tuning fork with a reference amplitude corresponding to the selected tuning fork; based on the comparison, performing voice recognition to determine one or more voice commands in a second portion of the audio input; and causing an action based on the one or more voice commands; claims 1, 3, 11 and 14)
As per claims 22, 29, 36, Patent No. ‘503 discloses a method wherein the device comprises an array of devices each configured to detect vibrations in different frequencies. (a plurality of tuning forks that have different harmonic frequencies; claims 1 and 15)
As per claims 23, 30,37, Patent No. ‘503 discloses a method wherein the device comprises an array of devices, wherein a first subset of the array of devices is activated by the user's voice, and a second subset of the array of devices is not activated by the user's voice. (selecting a tuning fork, from a plurality of tuning forks that have different harmonic frequencies, based on a user's voice corresponding to a harmonic frequency of the selected tuning fork; claims 1, 14-15)
As per claims 24, 31, 38, Patent No. ‘503 discloses a method wherein the device comprises an array of tuning forks, wherein a first subset of the array of tuning forks is activated by the user's voice, and a second subset of the array of tuning forks is not activated by the user's voice. (selecting a tuning fork, from a plurality of tuning forks that have different harmonic frequencies, based on a user's voice corresponding to a harmonic frequency of the selected tuning fork; claims 1, 14-15)
As per claims 27, 34, 41, Patent No. ‘503 discloses a method wherein the device comprises an array of devices each configured to detect vibrations in different frequencies, and the method further comprises: prior to detecting the voice of the user, receiving a test voice input from the user; selecting a subset of the array of devices that vibrate corresponding to the test voice input; and storing information indicating the subset of the array of devices associated with the user. (Claims 1-2, 10, 16)
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) 21-23,28-30,35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2013/0013309 (hereinafter, “Adibi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0278435 (hereafter, “Ganong, III”).
As per claim(s) 21, 28 and 351, Adibi discloses a method comprising:
detecting voice of a user, (voice identification when a user speaks ¶ [0026] ) wherein the detecting occurs via a device (user's voice is captured by microphone; ¶ [0060] ) that is configured, based on the user's voice, detect vibrations in a plurality of frequencies of the user's voice; and (voice authentication scheme in the frequency domain 200 where prompts the user to speak a specific sound, such as any one of "oh", "aa", "eh" or "ee ¶ [0061], Fig’s -16)
causing, based on the detecting the voice, activation of a voice recognition process to recognize one or more words being spoken by the user. ( the mobile device 10 prompts the user to speak any one of the following sounds or tones: "oh", "aa", "eh" and "ee" where it “determines which of the sounds or tones were uttered using speech recognition”; ¶ [0090], Fig’s 5-16)
Adibi does not distinctly disclose activation of a voice recognition from different power state.
However, Ganong, III discloses that. In particular, Ganong, III discloses the following:
detecting voice of a user, (detecting whether the acoustic input includes a voice command ¶ [005] ) wherein the detecting occurs via a device (microphone detects acoustic activity; ¶ [0033] or alternatively, one or processing stages ¶s [0028]-[0037], [0055]-[0059]) ) that is configured, based on the user's voice, detect vibrations in a plurality of frequencies of the user's voice; and (audio signals receiving from one or more microphones in response to acoustic activity in the environment may be processed to determine if the audio signals contain voice content; ¶ [0080])
causing, based on the detecting the voice, activation of a voice recognition process to recognize one or more words being spoken by the user. (engaging/initiating one or more language processing stages from a low power mode to a wake-up state based on whether the acoustic input includes a voice command, where at least one of the described processing stages may include automatic speech recognition (ASR). ¶s [0028]-[0037], [0055]-[0059], [0071])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Adibi and Ganong, III because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Ganong, III’s teaching of engaging a secondary processing stage would enhance Adibi's system by allowing the system to preserve limited batter power, thus prolonging the operation of the mobile device.
As per claims 22, 29, 36, Adibi as modified discloses a method wherein the device comprises an array of devices (Ganong, III: e.g., one or more microphones; ¶ [0041]) each configured to detect vibrations in different frequencies. (Ganong, III: different voice commands which would include different frequencies ) & (Adibi: authenticating user’s voice using the frequency among different frequencies from other users; Fig’s 1-16)
As per claims 23, 30, 37, Adibi as modified discloses a method wherein the device comprises an array of devices, wherein a first subset of the array of devices is activated by the user's voice, and a second subset of the array of devices is not activated by the user's voice. (transitioning from low power mode to active mode by performing one or more processing stages; ¶ [0074], Fig’s 1-9)
Claim(s) 24, 26, 31, 33, 38, 40, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2013/0013309 (hereinafter, “Adibi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0278435 (hereafter, “Ganong, III”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0194459 (hereinafter, “Alavi”).
As per claims 24, 31, 38, Adibi as modified discloses a method, wherein the device comprises an array of tuning forks,
wherein a first subset of the array of [processing stages] is activated by the user's voice, and a second subset of the array of [processing stages] is not activated by the user's voice. (Ganong, III discloses a plurality of microphones ( ¶ [0041]) for which some processing stages are activated and some are not based on user’s voice ¶s [0028]-[0037], [0055]-[0059], [0071])
Adibi as modified does not distinctly disclose wherein a first subset of the array of tuning forks is activated, and a second subset of the array of tuning forks is not activated.
However, Alavi explicitly discloses the teaching where a first subset of the array of tuning forks is activated, and a second subset of the array of tuning forks is not activated. (Fig. 9 illustrates a plurality acoustic wave resonators that are selectively controlled by 912.1-912.4 switches)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Adibi as modified and Alavi because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Alavi’s teaching of controlling a plurality of AWRs via switches would enhance Adibi's as modified system by allowing the system to eliminate anti-resonance, further improving system resonance performance
As per claims 26, 33, 40, Adibi as modified discloses a method, the device comprises an array of devices each configured to detect vibrations in different frequencies, and (Alavi:¶ [0011]) the method further comprises: activating a plurality of switches, each corresponding to a different one of a subset of the array of devices, based on the user's voice. (Ganong, III discloses a plurality of microphones ( ¶ [0041]) for which some processing stages are activated and some are not based on user’s voice ¶s [0028]-[0037], [0055]-[0059], [0071]) & (Fig. 9 illustrates a plurality acoustic wave resonators that are selectively controlled by 912.1-912.4 switches)
Allowable Subject Matter Over 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 25, 27, 32, 34, 39 and 41 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.
Conclusion
With respect to any newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP §714.02 and § 2163.06. For example, when responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUREL PRIFTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1743. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m.- 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on 571-270-3779. 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.
/AUREL PRIFTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Aurel Prifti
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2175
Tel. (571) 270-1743
Fax (571) 270-2743
aurel.prifti@uspto.gov
1 As per independent claim(s) 28 and 35, these claims are substantially equivalent to method claim 1, because the additional feature(s) are present on any off the shelf general-purpose computer. Therefore, for at least this reason, claims 28 and 35 also stand rejected. Indeed, at least Fig’s 1-16 of Adibi further disclose the claimed first device and second device by illustrating a microphone 120 and storage elements for executing software by a processor. Similarly, Fig’s 1-10 of Ganong, III discloses the claimed features.
Prosecution Insights