DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
means for generating an analog signal of claim 19;
means for generating an input signal of claim 19;
means for applying a transfer function of claim 19;
means for removing direct current offset of claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 20200219477 A1) in view of Smith ("The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing", copyright ©1997-1998 by Steven W. Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Honda discloses a system, comprising:
a transducer (microphone FF on left of figure 5) configured to receive an incident signal and to generate an analog signal (paragraph [0035] incorporates patents US 8073150 and 8073151 to show details of DSP use, figure 3a of such show analog signal of FF microphone converted to digital signal by A/D converter 310) as a function of the incident signal (microphones transduce ambient air pressure signals to electrical signals); and
an open loop correction circuit (172 of figure 5) configured to:
receive an input signal (input to 172) that represents the analog signal (the digital version), wherein the input signal is associated with a first frequency response (figure 4A and paragraph [0042], curve 154 represents an actual frequency response of a microphone) having a pole at a first frequency (25 Hz, figure 4A and paragraph [0042], poles set -3dB frequency), wherein the first frequency is within a first range of low-frequency roll-off points that the open loop correction circuit is configured to correct (any range around 25 Hz, see claims 5 and 21, paragraphs [0005], and [0054] to [0057], device is tunable/adjustable to the actual measured roll-off frequency, paragraph [0066], can be measured before or after assembly); and
apply a transfer function to the input signal to generate an output signal (output of 172), wherein the output signal is associated with a second frequency response (paragraph [0042], curve 152 represents an ideal response) in which the pole at the first frequency is replaced by a pole at a second frequency (35 Hz, figure 4A and paragraph [0042], poles set -3dB frequency), wherein the second frequency is within a second range of low-frequency roll-off points for the output signal (any range around 35 Hz), and wherein the open loop correction circuit is configured to correct a low-frequency roll-off point in the first range such that the output signal has a low-frequency roll-off point in the second range (see at least paragraphs [0011], [0049] to [00] [0064]).
Honda does not expressly disclose where the frequency responses may comprise poles.
Smith teaches where in high pass frequency response may comprise a pole (see figure 19-5 and supporting discussion, at least single pole filter response).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider the poles as expressly disclosed by Smith in the system of Honda for the benefit of mathematically and precisely deriving the desired correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Smith with Honda, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Honda discloses wherein the transfer function cancels the pole at first frequency with a zero and replaces the cancelled pole with a corrected pole at the second frequency (see compensator of paragraphs [0006] and [0042], the resultant overall frequency response looks similar to a frequency response with a pole in a different place, see figure 4A).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses wherein the zero is a function of the first frequency (see Fc discussion starting page 324) and a sampling frequency (see note for equation 19-7, expressing as a fraction of the sampling rate, also see figure 19-5), and wherein the corrected pole is a function of the second frequency (see Fc discussion starting page 324) and the sampling frequency (see note for equation 19-7, expressing as a fraction of the sampling rate, also see figure 19-5).
Regarding claim 4, Honda discloses further comprising:
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to receive the analog signal from the transducer and to convert the analog signal to the input signal that digitally represents the analog signal (paragraph [0035] incorporates patents US 8073150 and 8073151 to show details of DSP use, figure 3a of such show analog signal of FF microphone converted to digital signal by A/D converter 310).
Regarding claim 5, although Honda does not expressly disclose removing DC components, the examiner takes official notice that removing direct current components from microphone output signals was well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise wherein the open loop correction circuit is further configured to remove a direct current offset from the input signal before the transfer function is applied to the input signal in the system of Honda for the benefit of removing DC noise from the microphone signal which should comprise only AC components.
Regarding claim 6, Honda discloses wherein the first frequency is a low frequency roll off (LFRO) point associated with the transducer (paragraphs [0041] to [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Honda discloses wherein the second frequency is a programmed value (read broadly as a designed value, disclosure has no special definition of “a programmed value”, see paragraphs [0042] to [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, although Honda is silent to the exact frequencies that may be used, it would have been obvious to the designer than any ranges of audio frequency could be used at the designer’s preference to meet their needs. Also, although Honda does not expressly disclose limiting which frequencies in the ranges may be selected, it would have been obvious to the designer that intermediate design constraints may be made, at their preference, to limit design possibilities, thereby lowering testing requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise wherein the first range extends from 25 hertz to 200 hertz, wherein the second range extends from 20 hertz to 40 hertz and is narrower than and overlaps overlapping with the first range, and wherein the second frequency is selected, at 5-hertz increments, from 20 hertz through 40 hertz in the system of Honda for the benefit of setting some well-defined design constraints for use in describing the system for other designers and end users.
Regarding claim 9, Honda discloses wherein the transducer is a micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) acoustic transducer (see abstract and at least paragraph [0042]).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected in an analogous manner to claim 1.
Claims 11-18 are rejected in an analogous manner to claims 2-9.
Claim 20 is rejected in an analogous manner to claims 5 and 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous drawing and claim objections.
Regarding the notice of references cited and the Joho references (US 8073150 and 8073151, see applicant’s arguments dated July 22nd, 2026, bottom of page 9), applicant must have confused this case with another, or possibly there was a scanning error. The previous action does not include any mention of a Joho reference. Applicant is welcome to call the examiner if any question still exists.
In general applicant argues that the amendments to the previous claims are not found in prior art (see applicant’s arguments dated July 22nd, 2026, starting middle of page 11). A new ground of rejection has been established as above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 pm.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
