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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 5/19/25, 1/18/25 and 5/9/24 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the element “34” as discussed in the written specification is not depicted in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2-5, 9, 11-15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 as being anticipated by Mortazavi et al. (US 2016/0314805 A1), cited by applicant.
Re claims 2 and 11: Mortazavi et al. teaches an apparatus (figure 4) comprising:
a switch (418) including an input port (from output of (402), a first output port, a second output port (see the two output ports from (418), and a control port (see input control port from (410), wherein the input port is coupled to an output of an acoustic sensor element (402) to receive an output signal from the acoustic sensor element;
a first channel (including elements 404, 406)) coupled to the first output port of the switch and configured to convert the output signal from the acoustic sensor element into a first digitized output signal, the first channel configured to operate at a first power level (low power, paragraph [0044]);
a second channel (including elements (414, 416)) coupled to the second output port of the switch and configured to convert the output signal from the acoustic sensor element into a second digitized output signal, the second channel configured to operate at a second power level that is higher than the first power level (high power, paragraph [0044]); and a
digital voltage level detector (satisfied by (DSP 410) including a first input coupled to the first channel (see figure 4 by the use of (420) for selection of which output path from the channels is inputted to (410), paragraph [0045]), a second input coupled to the second channel, and an output coupled to the control port of the switch channel (see figure 4 by the use of (420) for selection of which output path from the channels is inputted to (410), paragraph [0045]), wherein the digital voltage level detector is configured to produce a control signal (422) at the control port of the switch to select the second output port of the switch based on a determination that the first digitized output signal from the first channel meets a threshold criteria indicative of a presence of specified acoustic activity (paragraph [0046] for detection of voice activity, paragraph [0053]). The method operations of claim 11 correspond to the operations of those elements discussed in claim 2 and therefor satisfied by the teaching of Mortazavi et al. as discussed.
Re claim 3: the claimed first analog front end and first analog-to digital converter as set forth are satisfied by elements (404 and 406) respectively.
Re claim 4: the second analog front end and second analog-to digital converter as set forth are satisfied by elements (414, 416) respectively.
Re claim 5: see elements (406) and (416)
Re claims 9 and 20: see figure 5 teaching trigger (502, 504) thresholds used in determining which channel of the circuit in figure 4 that is selected as discussed in paragraph [0046]
Re claim 12: the digital voltage level detector (satisfied by (DSP 410) including a first input coupled to the first channel (see figure 4 by the use of (420) for selection of which output path from the channels is inputted to (410), paragraph [0045]), a second input coupled to the second channel, and an output coupled to the control port of the switch channel (see figure 4 by the use of (420) for selection of which output path from the channels is inputted to (410), paragraph [0045])
Re claim 13: the claimed first analog front end and first analog-to digital converter as set forth are satisfied by elements (404 and 406) respectively
Re claim 14: the second analog front end and second analog-to digital converter as set forth are satisfied by elements (414, 416) respectively.
Re claim 15: see elements (406) and (416)
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) 6-7, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortazavi et al. in view of Braithwaite et al. (US 2017/0214968 A1), cited by applicant.
Re claims 6 and 16: The teaching of Mortazavi et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Additionally, Mortazavi et al. teaches a circuit (420), figure 4 between the converters as set forth. Mortazavi et al. however does not teach that the circuit (420) includes a conversion aspect to format the output to an audio signal. Braithwaite et al. teaches in a similar environment that a conversion circuit (121) can be used when it is desired to convert a signal into an audio format. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a circuit as taught by Braithwaite et al. into the arrangement of Mortazavi et al. to predictably provide a way of signal conversion into an audio format. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claims 7 and 17: see buffer (408), figure 4 of Mortazavi et al.
Re claim 18: Note when Mortazavi et al. in view of Braithwaite et al. (US 2017/0214968 A1) are combined as discussed above the buffer (408) functions as set forth
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortazavi et al. in view of Kerth et al. (U. S. Patent 5,644,308), cited by applicant
Re claims 8 and 19: The teaching of Mortazavi et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Maortazavi et al. teaching the use of lower power converters and high power converters but does not teach that these converters are a successive approximation register type (SAR type) and a Sigma-Delta type as set forth. Kerth et al. teaches in column 1, lines 14-39 that each of these types of converters have specific performance characteristics and power consumptions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to look at the converters being used in Mortazavi et al. and the power requirements of each and predictably select a SAR type and a Sigma-Delta type as taught by Kerth et al. to meet the intended purpose (power level of operation) as desired in Mortazavi et al. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortazavi et al. in view of Littrell et al. (WO 2017/151650 A1), cited by applicant.
Re claims 10 and 21: The teaching of Mortazavi et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Mortazavi et al. however does not teach that the microphone used is a MEMs piezoelectric-based microphone. Littrell et al. teaches in a similar environment that MEMS piezoelectric-based microphones can be used for sound detection, providing an improved acoustic sensitivity without increasing power needs (page 7, lines 1-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such microphones as taught by Littrell et al. into the arrangement of Mortazavi et al. to predictably allow for improved acoustic detection without increasing power needs. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Littrell (‘488) is a patent obtained by applicant with related claimed invention
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 2/5/26