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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, in response to applicants argument that Straeussnigg et al. (US 10,659,889 B2), hereinafter Strae, and Bach et al. (US 2018/0063644 A1), hereinafter Bach, do not disclose “wherein a corner frequency of the LPF is configurable via a multi-bit input value provided to the LPF”, this is not persuasive because Bach discloses, in figures 3A, 3C, 5A, & 5B, that the low-pass filter modules (205 & 207) of the configurable digital filter (220) have 8-bit coefficients that are programmable via the coefficient and structure selection unit (240) that loads the selected coefficients into the digital filter (Para [0033] & [0053]). The coefficients selected provide different frequency responses across different frequency bands of operation and directly affect the cut-off frequency [i.e., the corner frequency] of the digital filter (Para [0053]), as illustrated in Figures 5A & 5B (see curve 502). Thus, a corner frequency of the LPF is configurable via a multi-bit input value provided to the LPF is disclosed, as required by the invention as claimed.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-12, & 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straeussnigg et al. (US 10,659,889 B2), hereinafter Strae, in view of Bach et al. (US 2018/0063644 A1), hereinafter Bach.
Regarding claim 1, Strae discloses, in figure 2 & 6, a system, comprising:
a transducer to convert an input to an analog signal (Col. 4, Lines 28-29, “MEMS microphone comprises a transducer 111 implemented as a MEMS device”);
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) to convert the analog signal to a digital signal (Col. 4, Lines 36-38, “ analog-to-digital converter 110 in order to provide a digital representation of the microphone signal 112 in the digital domain”); and
a low-pass filter (LPF) to filter the digital signal to create a filtered digital signal (Col. 3, Lines 55-57, “example embodiments comprise a low-pass filter within the equalizer device [104]. A low-pass filter may be implemented…as a digital filter”), wherein the LPF is configured such that noise near a resonance frequency of the transducer is reduced in the filtered digital signal (Col. 6, Lines 4-10, “the frequency responses of the corresponding graphs 600a to 600c illustrate that the spectral requirement may also be achieved by means of a low-pass filter, which may, for example, be implemented using an IIR-filter. The example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 6 also leads to an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio of the modified microphone signal”), but fails to disclose wherein a corner frequency of the LPF is configurable via a multi-bit input value provided to the LPF.
However, Bach discloses, in figure 3A, 3C, 5A, & 5B, wherein a corner frequency of the LPF (Para [0032], “digital filter 220 may include a low-pass filter”) is configurable (Para [0053], “coefficient and structure selection unit 240 loads selected coefficients into digital filter 220 and digital noise shaper 230…the different sets of coefficients may provide different sensitivity scaling (e.g., gain adjustment), different frequency responses to equalize the analog channel, and different frequency bands of operation”) via a multi-bit input value provided to the LPF (Para [0053] & [0033], “coefficient and structure selection unit 240 loads selected coefficients [different from input from 210] into digital filter 220 and digital noise shaper 230, in accordance with settings of one or more control bits in programmable coefficients selection control memory 260, in various embodiments… low-pass filter modules 205 and 207 each has 8-bit coefficients that are programmable (e.g., adjustable by setting or loading a user specified value)…modules 205, 207 correspond to the configurable digital filter and gain adjustment module 220”…see figures 5A & 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the multi-bit input value of Bach in the LPF of Strae, to achieve the benefit of providing different sensitivity scaling, different frequency responses to equalize the analog channel, and different frequency bands of operation as necessitated by the system (Bach, Para [0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 1, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 6, wherein the LPF is configured (Col. 6, Lines 4-10, “the frequency responses of the corresponding graphs 600a to 600c illustrate that the spectral requirement may also be achieved by means of a low-pass filter, which may, for example, be implemented using an IIR-filter. The example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 6 also leads to an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio of the modified microphone signal”) such than an increase in sensitivity of the transducer in a particular frequency range is reduced in the filtered digital signal (see figure 6 showing a reduced increase in sensitivity of the transducer from roughly 10kHz to 25kHz).
Regarding claim 3, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 1, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 2, wherein the transducer comprises a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) device (Col. 4, Lines 28-29, “MEMS microphone comprises a transducer 111 implemented as a MEMS device”).
Regarding claim 4, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 1, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 2, wherein the transducer comprises a microphone (Col. 5, Lines 19-20, “MEMS-microphone as it may be used as a microphone 102 within a microphone package”).
Regarding claim 5, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 1, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 2 & 6, wherein a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the digital signal is improved by approximately 1 decibel (dB) in the filtered digital signal (Col. 6, Lines 8-11, “The example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 6 also leads to an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio of the modified microphone signal of the microphone package 100 by 2 dB.”).
Regarding claim 6, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 1, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 2 & 6, wherein the resonance frequency of the transducer is in a range from approximately 16 kHz to approximately 30 kHz (resonance frequency within a range from approximately 15kHz to 25 kHz).
Regarding claim 7, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 1, and Bach continues to disclose, in figure 3A & 3C, wherein the multi-bit input value is stored by the LPF (Para [0047], “once coefficients are loaded into digital filter 220, the coefficients remain unchanged during operation until new coefficients are loaded”…[i.e., stored])
Regarding claim 8, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 1, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 2 & 6, wherein a corner frequency of the LPF is in a range from approximately 5 kHz to approximately 20 kHz (corner frequency of the LPF as depicted in figure 6 is approximately 20 kHz).
Regarding claim 11, Strae discloses, in figure 2 & 6, a system, comprising:
a transducer to provide an analog signal in response to an input (Col. 4, Lines 28-29, “MEMS microphone comprises a transducer 111 implemented as a MEMS device”);
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) to convert an ADC input to a digital signal (Col. 4, Lines 36-38, “analog-to-digital converter 110 in order to provide a digital representation of the microphone signal 112 in the digital domain”); and
a low-pass filter (LPF) to filter an LPF input and provide a filtered output (Col. 3, Lines 55-57, “example embodiments comprise a low-pass filter within the equalizer device [104]. A low-pass filter may be implemented…as a digital filter”), wherein the LPF is configured such that noise associated with resonance of the transducer is reduced in the filtered output (Col. 6, Lines 4-10, “the frequency responses of the corresponding graphs 600a to 600c illustrate that the spectral requirement may also be achieved by means of a low-pass filter, which may, for example, be implemented using an IIR-filter. The example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 6 also leads to an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio of the modified microphone signal”), but fails to disclose wherein a corner frequency of the LPF is configurable via a multi-bit input value provided to the LPF.
However, Bach discloses, in figure 3A, 3C, 5A, & 5B, wherein a corner frequency of the LPF (Para [0032], “digital filter 220 may include a low-pass filter”) is configurable (Para [0053], “coefficient and structure selection unit 240 loads selected coefficients into digital filter 220 and digital noise shaper 230…the different sets of coefficients may provide different sensitivity scaling (e.g., gain adjustment), different frequency responses to equalize the analog channel, and different frequency bands of operation”) via a multi-bit input value provided to the LPF (Para [0053] & [0033], “coefficient and structure selection unit 240 loads selected coefficients [different from input from 210] into digital filter 220 and digital noise shaper 230, in accordance with settings of one or more control bits in programmable coefficients selection control memory 260, in various embodiments… low-pass filter modules 205 and 207 each has 8-bit coefficients that are programmable (e.g., adjustable by setting or loading a user specified value)…modules 205, 207 correspond to the configurable digital filter and gain adjustment module 220”…see figures 5A & 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the multi-bit input value of Bach in the LPF of Strae, to achieve the benefit of providing different sensitivity scaling, different frequency responses to equalize the analog channel, and different frequency bands of operation as necessitated by the system (Bach, Para [0053]).
Regarding claim 12, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 11, and continues to disclose, in figure 2, wherein the ADC input is the analog signal and the LPF input is the digital signal (Col. 4, Lines 36-38, “analog-to-digital converter 110 in order to provide a digital representation of the microphone signal 112 in the digital domain”…analog signal provided to the ADC and the digital signal 112 provided to the LPF).
Regarding claim 14, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 11, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 6, wherein the LPF is configured (Col. 6, Lines 4-10, “the frequency responses of the corresponding graphs 600a to 600c illustrate that the spectral requirement may also be achieved by means of a low-pass filter, which may, for example, be implemented using an IIR-filter. The example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 6 also leads to an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio of the modified microphone signal”) such than an increase in sensitivity of the transducer in a particular frequency range is reduced in the filtered output (see figure 6 showing a reduced increase in sensitivity of the transducer from roughly 10kHz to 25kHz).
Regarding claim 15, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 11, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 2, wherein the transducer comprises a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) device (Col. 4, Lines 28-29, “MEMS microphone comprises a transducer 111 implemented as a MEMS device”).
Regarding claim 16, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 11, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 2, wherein the transducer comprises a microphone (Col. 5, Lines 19-20, “MEMS-microphone as it may be used as a microphone 102 within a microphone package”).
Regarding claim 17, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 11, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 2 & 6, wherein a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the digital signal is improved by approximately 1 decibel (dB) in the filtered output (Col. 6, Lines 8-11, “The example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 6 also leads to an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio of the modified microphone signal of the microphone package 100 by 2 dB.”).
Regarding claim 18, Strae discloses, in figure 2 & 6, a system, comprising:
converting, by a transducer of a system, an input to an analog signal (Col. 4, Lines 28-29, “MEMS microphone comprises a transducer 111 implemented as a MEMS device”);
converting, by an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) of the system, the analog signal to a digital signal (Col. 4, Lines 36-38, “analog-to-digital converter 110 in order to provide a digital representation of the microphone signal 112 in the digital domain”); and
filtering, by a low-pass filter (LPF) of the system, the digital signal and to create a filtered digital signal (Col. 3, Lines 55-57, “example embodiments comprise a low-pass filter within the equalizer device [104]. A low-pass filter may be implemented…as a digital filter”), wherein the filtering of the digital signal reduces noise near a resonance frequency of the transducer (Col. 6, Lines 4-10, “the frequency responses of the corresponding graphs 600a to 600c illustrate that the spectral requirement may also be achieved by means of a low-pass filter, which may, for example, be implemented using an IIR-filter. The example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 6 also leads to an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio of the modified microphone signal”) and reduces a sensitivity increase of the transducer in a particular frequency range (see figure 6 showing a reduced increase in sensitivity of the transducer from roughly 10kHz to 25kHz), but fails to disclose wherein a corner frequency of the LPF is configurable via a multi-bit input value provided to the LPF.
However, Bach discloses, in figure 3A, 3C, 5A, & 5B, wherein a corner frequency of the LPF (Para [0032], “digital filter 220 may include a low-pass filter”) is configurable (Para [0053], “coefficient and structure selection unit 240 loads selected coefficients into digital filter 220 and digital noise shaper 230…the different sets of coefficients may provide different sensitivity scaling (e.g., gain adjustment), different frequency responses to equalize the analog channel, and different frequency bands of operation”) via a multi-bit input value provided to the LPF (Para [0053] & [0033], “coefficient and structure selection unit 240 loads selected coefficients [different from input from 210] into digital filter 220 and digital noise shaper 230, in accordance with settings of one or more control bits in programmable coefficients selection control memory 260, in various embodiments… low-pass filter modules 205 and 207 each has 8-bit coefficients that are programmable (e.g., adjustable by setting or loading a user specified value)…modules 205, 207 correspond to the configurable digital filter and gain adjustment module 220”…see figures 5A & 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the multi-bit input value of Bach in the LPF of Strae, to achieve the benefit of providing different sensitivity scaling, different frequency responses to equalize the analog channel, and different frequency bands of operation as necessitated by the system (Bach, Para [0053]).
Regarding claim 19, Strae in view of Bach discloses the method of claim 18, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 2, wherein the transducer comprises a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) device (Col. 4, Lines 28-29, “MEMS microphone comprises a transducer 111 implemented as a MEMS device”).
Regarding claim 20, Strae in view of Bach discloses the method of claim 18, and Strae continues to disclose, in figure 2, wherein the transducer comprises a microphone (Col. 5, Lines 19-20, “MEMS-microphone as it may be used as a microphone 102 within a microphone package”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strae in view of Bach, as applied to claims 1-8, 11-12, & 14-20 above, and further in view of Bach et al. (US 2019/0123762 A1), hereinafter Bach 762.
Regarding claim 9, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a sample rate of the LPF is in a range from approximately 600 kHz to approximately 6 MHz.
However, Bach 762 discloses, in figure 2, wherein a sample rate of the LPF (Para [0020], “lowpass filter 102…is configured to operate at sampling frequency F2”) is in a range from approximately 600 kHz to approximately 6 MHz (Para [0022], “sampling frequency F2…may range substantially from 750 kHz to 8 MHz”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the sampling frequency of Bach 762 in the LPF of Strae and Bach, to achieve the benefit of improving power efficiency of the system while including the ability to target a wide range of audio applications (Bach, Para [0019]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strae in view of Bach as applied to claims 1-8, 11-12, & 14-20 above, and further in view of McGibney et al. (US 10,554,215 B1), hereinafter McGibney.
Regarding claim 10, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the LPF comprises a single pole infinite impulse response (IIR) filter and a sinc filter.
However, McGibney discloses, in figure 31, wherein the LPF comprises a single pole infinite impulse response (IIR) filter and a sinc filter (Col. 27 & 28, Lines 62-67 & 1-21, “filter 274 is a lowpass filter (e.g., one or more finite impulse response (FIR) filters, one or more comb filters, one or more raised cosine filters, one or more cascaded integrated comb (CIC) filters, one or more infinite impulse response (IIR) filters, one or more decimation stages, one or more fast Fourier transform (FFT) filters, and/or one or more discrete Fourier transform (DFT) filters, etc)… FIR filter has a sin x/x (e.g., or “sinc”) frequency response”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the filters of McGibney in the LPF of Strae and Bach, to achieve the benefit of implementing a LPF with appropriate frequency responses as necessary to attenuate unwanted signals at differing frequency points (McGibney, Col. 28, Lines 1-5).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strae in view of Bach, as applied to claims 1-8, 11-12, & 14-20 above, and further in view of Medina (US 10,181,858 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Strae in view of Bach discloses the system of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the LPF input is the analog signal and the ADC input is the filtered output.
However, Medina discloses, in figure 3, wherein the LPF input is the analog signal and the ADC input is the filtered output (Col. 6, Lines 46-48, “[analog] signal is filtered by low-pass filter (LPF) 341, then digitized by analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 320”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the order of Medina in the system of Strae and Bach, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions [i.e., filtering the signal before digitizing rather than digitizing and then filtering the signal to attenuate unwanted frequencies and reduce noise in the system], and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J PERENY whose telephone number is (571)272-4189. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 571-272-1988. 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.
/TYLER J PERENY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2842
Prosecution Insights