DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
References
D1: JP2022021931 KEISHIN February 3, 2022
D2: US20070189548 Croft August 15, 2007
D3: US20070124620 MIYAZAKI May 5, 2007
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by D1.
With regards to claim 1, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a sound generator comprising: a digital processing unit configured to mix (FIG. 2) a data signal (FIG. 2: 60) with a digital carrier (FIG. 2: 62) signal to produce a modulated digital (FIG. 2: 65) signal, the data signal representing sound information on a digital format and the digital carrier signal having a constant frequency (FIG. 2: 62) ; an amplifying circuit (20) configured to receive the modulated digital (65) signal, and based thereon produce an amplified analog ultrasonic-frequency signal; and an array of ultrasonic transducers (30) configured to emit at least one ultrasonic signal beam having an envelope (FIG. 2: 65) representing the sound information, which at least one ultrasonic signal beam is based on the amplified analog ultrasonic-frequency signal.
With regards to claim 2, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a digital processing (15) unit is configured to mix the data signal with the digital carrier signal by performing at least one modulation (FIG. 2: 65) operation causing the digital carrier signal to vary in response to the data signal (FIG. 2: 65).
With regards to claims 3 ad 15, the D1 reference discloses removing high frequency harmonic distortion.
With regards to claims 5 and 17, the D1 reference discloses applying a modulation scheme based on one of: an amplitude function (FIG. 2: 65).
With regards to claim 6, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a digital-to-analog converter (13).
With regards to claims 7 and 18, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a digital processing unit is configured to mix (15) the data signal (FIG. 4: 60) with the digital carrier signal (FIG. 4: 62) to produce the modulated digital signal by applying a pulse width modulation (FIG. 4: 67).
With regards to claim 8, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of an amplifier (20).
With regards to claims 10, 11, 19, and 20, the D1 reference processor would be capable of generating the data signal or receiving the data signal from an external source.
With regards to claims 12 and 21, the D1 reference processor would be capable of generating ultrasonic signals two times as higher than data signal.
With regards to claims 13, 22, and 23, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a CPU.
With regards to claim 14, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of pulse amplitude modulation (65) and pulse frequency modulation (67).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 4, 5, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-15, and 17-23 above, and further in combination with D2.
The difference between the D1 reference and claims 4 and 16 is that the claim recites performing a square root operation. The D2 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize performing a square root operation (see ¶ 0050). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to perform a square root operation as motivated by the D2 reference to enable the D1 system to compensate for low frequency attenuation (see ¶ 0500).
With regards to claims 5 and 17, the D2 reference teaches the utilization of single sideband modulation (¶ 0051) in the generation of parametric signals.
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-15, and 17-23 above, and further in combination with D3.
The difference between the D1 reference and claim 9 is that the claim recites the utilization of switching and a lowpass filter. The D3 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize switching and a lowpass filter (see ¶ 0077). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize switching and a lowpass filter as motivated by the D3 reference to enable the D1 system to form virtual sound source is in the vicinity of a sound wave reflecting surface such as a screen (see ¶ 0077).
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Examiner Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Isam Alsomiri, can be reached on 571-272-6970.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645