DETAILED ACTION
35 USC § 112 - 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.
Claim 1 limitation “detection module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 7-8, 10 and 17-20 limitation “communication module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 7, 9-10 and 17-20 limitation “control module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 7, 10 and 17-20 limitation “signal receiving module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Detection module – this module correspond to the structure of an acceleration sensor [0020].
Communication module – this module correspond to the structure of a communication processor that is use regularly with microprocessor [0049].
Control module – this module correspond to the structure of a microprocessor [0049].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7, 10, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recites “signal receiving module” which invokes 112 (f). Examiner could not find in the specification sufficient structure or material to perform it’s recited function. Based on applicant’s disclosure in the specification such as [0037]-[0044], applicant just mentions the pickup 100 which contains the detection module and transmits the signal of the signal receiving module 6 to the control module of an interphone; the control module 7 of the interphone is configured to place the interphone in a transmitting mode when a signal received by the signal receiving module 6 (i.e. a vibration signal detected by the detection module 1 of the pickup 100) coincides with a preset transmitting switch signal, and place the interphone in a receiving mode when the signal received by the signal receiving module 6 is inconsistent with the preset transmitting switch signal. It is unclear whether the signal receiving module is part of the interphone or part of the microphone sensor package that is not shown in the drawings (note: the detection module of the pickup 100 as shown in fig. 4 cannot be used to read on the signal receiving module as claimed since applicant states that the signal receiving module is configured to receive signals from the pickup (element 100 of applicant's fig. 4)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anjanappa US PG-Pub 2004/0202344.
Regarding claim 1, Anjanappa discloses a pickup configured to be mounted to a bone conduction sound transmitting organ in a mouth (Fig. 1 & Fig. 4 & [0027]: bone conduction microphone-7), the pickup comprising a detection module, and the detection module being configured to detect a vibration signal of the bone conduction sound transmitting organ ([0027]-[0029]: the tooth microphone/bone conduction microphone is a accelerometer that detects vibration that detects small vibration and process the signal using the signal conditioning circuit).
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 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anjanappa US PG-Pub 2004/0202344 in view of Smith US PG-Pub 2021/0076770.
Regarding claim 2, Anjanappa teaches wherein the detection module comprises at least one acceleration sensor ([0027]-[0029]: the tooth microphone/bone conduction microphone is a accelerometer that detects vibration that detects small vibration and process the signal using the signal conditioning circuit).
Anjanappa failed to teach at least one acceleration sensor is configured to detect vibration in at least one of a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction.
However, Smith teaches at least one acceleration sensor is configured to detect vibration in at least one of a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction; wherein the first direction, the second direction and the third direction are pairwise perpendicular to each other ([0015] & [0051]: vibration sensor can be used on jaw & vibration sensor includes accelerometer with multi-axis).
Anjanappa and Smith are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio sensors. Therefore, 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, because using multi axis accelerometer will yielded predictable results and resulted in an improve system as the sensor provides a more complete picture. While Anjanappa does not explicitly teach wherein the first direction, the second direction and the third direction are pairwise perpendicular to each other. However, the 3 direction in perpendicular to each other is the most common way to setup a 3 axis sensor as it conform to the common X, Y, Z axis. Therefore, 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.
Regarding claim 3, Anjanappa discloses wherein the acceleration sensor is a single-axis acceleration sensor, a two-axis acceleration sensor, or a three-axis acceleration sensor ([0027]: single axis vibration sensor).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anjanappa US PG-Pub 2004/0202344 in view of Newzella DE102017006611.
Regarding claim 4, Anjanappa teaches wherein the detection module comprises a acceleration sensor for detecting vibrations ([0027]: single axis vibration sensor).
Anjanappa failed to teach a plurality of acceleration sensors with different bandwidths for detecting vibrations in the same direction.
However, Newzella teaches a plurality of acceleration sensors with different bandwidths for detecting vibrations in the same direction (pg. 6 last paragraph: two or more inertial sensor having different bandwidth).
Anjanappa and Newzella are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely device with acceleration sensors. Therefore, 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, because having multiple sensors with different characteristic like bandwidth, the system can select the optimal sensor for the task.
Claim 5-8, 10-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anjanappa US PG-Pub 2004/0202344 in view of Proulx US PG-Pub 2011/0319021.
Regarding claim 5, Anjanappa teaches wherein the pickup further comprises a housing (Fig. 5-20), a circuit board and a power supply module (Fig. 5-19 ); the detection module (Fig. 5- 13), the power supply module and other component all mounted in the housing (Fig. 5: battery-19, signal conditioner-14, etc… all in the casing-20), and the power supply module is configured to supply power to the and the detection module (Fig. 1: power going to MEMS accelerometer).
Anjanappa failed to explicitly teach a circuit board; the circuit board is electrically connected with the detection module and controls the operation of the detection module.
However, Proulx teaches a circuit board; the circuit board is electrically connected with the detection module and controls the operation of the detection module (Fig. 6A: the circuit board/DSP is electrically connected to the microphone package to control the detection).
Anjanappa and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because having a circuit board with extra processing to control other circuits provides more control of the whole system.
Regarding claim 6, Anjanappa teaches wherein the pickup further comprises a fixing retainer, the housing is fixed to the fixing retainer, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the fixing retainer is configured to be attach on the tooth (Fig. 5- polypropylene retainer-5).
Anjanappa failed to explicitly teach fixing sleeve, the housing is fixed to the fixing sleeve, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the fixing sleeve is configured to be sleeved on the tooth; or the pickup further comprises a clamping member, the housing is fixed to the clamping member, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the clamping member is configured to be clamped on the tooth; or the housing is provided with a bonding part, and the bonding part is configured to be bonded to the bone conduction sound transmitting organ.
However, Proulx teaches the pickup further comprises a clamping member, the housing is fixed to the clamping member, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the clamping member is configured to be clamped on the tooth (Fig. 5A: a clamp-22 to attach the microphone-20 to the tooth).
Anjanappa and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because there are different ways to attach sensors to teeth and no unexpected result will arise.
Regarding claim 7, Anjanappa teaches a communication device, comprising a communication module (Fig. 1: Wireless communication circuit) and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the pickup outward (Fig. 1: the MEMS accelerometer signal is pass through wireless communication circuit to be output) and pickup according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Anjanappa failed to teach a signal receiving module; wherein the control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of a pickup device, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward.
However, Proulx teaches a signal receiving module (Fig. 6A: audio receive amplifier/filter); wherein the control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of a pickup device, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward (Fig. 6A: the control module/DSP is electrically connected to the signal receiving module/microphone package-20 and the communication module/Radio Chip, which will transmit the signal through the communication module).
Anjanappa and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because a processor with extra processing to control other circuits provides more control of the whole system.
Regarding claim 8, Proulx teaches wherein the communication device is an interphone, and the communication module is configured to send and receive signals ([0061]: the communication device can be a handheld radio or any communication device capable to receiving and transmitting a signal wirelessly). Therefore, 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, because being able to send and receive signal helps to provide two way communication to improve communication between people.
Regarding claim 10, Anjanappa teaches pickup according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), and a communication device, wherein the communication device a communication module (Fig. 1: Wireless communication circuit) and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the pickup outward (Fig. 1: the MEMS accelerometer signal is pass through wireless communication circuit to be output).
Anjanappa failed to teach signal receiving module; control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of the pickup, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward.
However, Proulx teaches a signal receiving module (Fig. 6A: audio receive amplifier/filter); control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of the pickup, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward (Fig. 6A: the control module/DSP is electrically connected to the signal receiving module/microphone package-20 and the communication module/Radio Chip, which will transmit the signal through the communication module).
Anjanappa and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because a processor with extra processing to control other circuits provides more control of the whole system.
Regarding claim 11, Anjanappa teaches wherein the pickup further comprises a housing (Fig. 5-20), a circuit board and a power supply module (Fig. 5-19 ); the detection module (Fig. 5- 13), the power supply module and other component all mounted in the housing (Fig. 5: battery-19, signal conditioner-14, etc… all in the casing-20), and the power supply module is configured to supply power to the and the detection module (Fig. 1: power going to MEMS accelerometer).
Anjanappa failed to explicitly teach a circuit board; the circuit board is electrically connected with the detection module and controls the operation of the detection module.
However, Proulx teaches a circuit board; the circuit board is electrically connected with the detection module and controls the operation of the detection module (Fig. 6A: the circuit board/DSP is electrically connected to the microphone package to control the detection).
Anjanappa and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because having a circuit board with extra processing to control other circuits provides more control of the whole system.
Regarding claim 12, Anjanappa teaches wherein the pickup further comprises a fixing retainer, the housing is fixed to the fixing retainer, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the fixing retainer is configured to be attach on the tooth (Fig. 5- polypropylene retainer-5).
Anjanappa failed to explicitly teach fixing sleeve, the housing is fixed to the fixing sleeve, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the fixing sleeve is configured to be sleeved on the tooth; or the pickup further comprises a clamping member, the housing is fixed to the clamping member, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the clamping member is configured to be clamped on the tooth; or the housing is provided with a bonding part, and the bonding part is configured to be bonded to the bone conduction sound transmitting organ.
However, Proulx teaches the pickup further comprises a clamping member, the housing is fixed to the clamping member, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the clamping member is configured to be clamped on the tooth (Fig. 5A: a clamp-22 to attach the microphone-20 to the tooth).
Anjanappa and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because there are different ways to attach sensors to teeth and no unexpected result will arise.
Regarding claim 13, Anjanappa teaches wherein the pickup further comprises a housing (Fig. 5-20), a circuit board and a power supply module (Fig. 5-19 ); the detection module (Fig. 5- 13), the power supply module and other component all mounted in the housing (Fig. 5: battery-19, signal conditioner-14, etc… all in the casing-20), and the power supply module is configured to supply power to the and the detection module (Fig. 1: power going to MEMS accelerometer).
Anjanappa failed to explicitly teach a circuit board; the circuit board is electrically connected with the detection module and controls the operation of the detection module.
However, Proulx teaches a circuit board; the circuit board is electrically connected with the detection module and controls the operation of the detection module (Fig. 6A: the circuit board/DSP is electrically connected to the microphone package to control the detection).
Anjanappa and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because having a circuit board with extra processing to control other circuits provides more control of the whole system.
Regarding claim 14, Anjanappa teaches wherein the pickup further comprises a fixing retainer, the housing is fixed to the fixing retainer, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the fixing retainer is configured to be attach on the tooth (Fig. 5- polypropylene retainer-5).
Anjanappa failed to explicitly teach fixing sleeve, the housing is fixed to the fixing sleeve, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the fixing sleeve is configured to be sleeved on the tooth; or the pickup further comprises a clamping member, the housing is fixed to the clamping member, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the clamping member is configured to be clamped on the tooth; or the housing is provided with a bonding part, and the bonding part is configured to be bonded to the bone conduction sound transmitting organ.
However, Proulx teaches the pickup further comprises a clamping member, the housing is fixed to the clamping member, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the clamping member is configured to be clamped on the tooth (Fig. 5A: a clamp-22 to attach the microphone-20 to the tooth).
Anjanappa and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because there are different ways to attach sensors to teeth and no unexpected result will arise.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches a communication device, comprising a communication module (Anjanappa, Fig. 1: Wireless communication circuit) and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the pickup outward (Anjanappa, Fig. 1: the MEMS accelerometer signal is pass through wireless communication circuit to be output) and pickup according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
The combination failed to teach signal receiving module; wherein the control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of a pickup device, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward.
However, Proulx teaches a signal receiving module (Fig. 6A: audio receive amplifier/filter); wherein the control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of a pickup device, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward (Fig. 6A: the control module/DSP is electrically connected to the signal receiving module/microphone package-20 and the communication module/Radio Chip, which will transmit the signal through the communication module).
The combination and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because a processor with extra processing to control other circuits provides more control of the whole system.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anjanappa US PG-Pub 2004/0202344 in combination with Proulx US PG-Pub 2011/0319021 in view of AL US PG-Pub 2022/0337651.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches interphone (Proulx, [0061]: the communication device can be a handheld radio or any communication device capable to receiving and transmitting a signal wirelessly).
The combination failed to teach wherein the control module is configured to place the interphone in a transmitting mode when the signal received by the signal receiving module coincides with a preset transmitting switch signal, and place the interphone in a receiving mode when the signal received by the signal receiving module is inconsistent with the preset transmitting switch signal.
However, AL teaches wherein the control module is configured to place the interphone in a transmitting mode when the signal received by the signal receiving module coincides with a preset transmitting switch signal, and place the interphone in a receiving mode when the signal received by the signal receiving module is inconsistent with the preset transmitting switch signal ([0124]: having a VOX control that when the microphone picks up sound above a threshold it will set the interphone to transmitter mode and when sound below the threshold the interphone is set to receiver mode).
The combination and AL are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely interphone. Therefore, 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, because using VOX helps to do hands free communication.
Claim 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anjanappa US PG-Pub 2004/0202344 in combination with Newzella DE102017006611 in view of Proulx US PG-Pub 2011/0319021.
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches wherein the pickup further comprises a housing (Anjanappa, Fig. 5-20), a circuit board and a power supply module (Anjanappa,Fig. 5-19 ); the detection module (Anjanappa,Fig. 5- 13), the power supply module and other component all mounted in the housing Anjanappa, (Fig. 5: battery-19, signal conditioner-14, etc… all in the casing-20), and the power supply module is configured to supply power to the and the detection module (Anjanappa,Fig. 1: power going to MEMS accelerometer).
The combination failed to explicitly teach a circuit board; the circuit board is electrically connected with the detection module and controls the operation of the detection module.
However, Proulx teaches a circuit board; the circuit board is electrically connected with the detection module and controls the operation of the detection module (Fig. 6A: the circuit board/DSP is electrically connected to the microphone package to control the detection).
The combination and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because having a circuit board with extra processing to control other circuits provides more control of the whole system.
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches wherein the pickup further comprises a fixing retainer, the housing is fixed to the fixing retainer, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the fixing retainer is configured to be attach on the tooth (Anjanappa, Fig. 5- polypropylene retainer-5).
The combination failed to explicitly teach fixing sleeve, the housing is fixed to the fixing sleeve, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the fixing sleeve is configured to be sleeved on the tooth; or the pickup further comprises a clamping member, the housing is fixed to the clamping member, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the clamping member is configured to be clamped on the tooth; or the housing is provided with a bonding part, and the bonding part is configured to be bonded to the bone conduction sound transmitting organ.
However, Proulx teaches the pickup further comprises a clamping member, the housing is fixed to the clamping member, the bone conduction sound transmitting organ is a tooth, and the clamping member is configured to be clamped on the tooth (Fig. 5A: a clamp-22 to attach the microphone-20 to the tooth).
The combination and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because there are different ways to attach sensors to teeth and no unexpected result will arise.
Claim 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anjanappa US PG-Pub 2004/0202344 in combination with Smith US PG-Pub 2021/0076770 in view of Proulx US PG-Pub 2011/0319021.
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches a communication device, comprising a communication module (Anjanappa, Fig. 1: Wireless communication circuit) and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the pickup outward (Anjanappa, Fig. 1: the MEMS accelerometer signal is pass through wireless communication circuit to be output) and pickup according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2).
The combination failed to teach signal receiving module; wherein the control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of a pickup device, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward.
However, Proulx teaches a signal receiving module (Fig. 6A: audio receive amplifier/filter); wherein the control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of a pickup device, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward (Fig. 6A: the control module/DSP is electrically connected to the signal receiving module/microphone package-20 and the communication module/Radio Chip, which will transmit the signal through the communication module).
The combination and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because a processor with extra processing to control other circuits provides more control of the whole system.
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches a communication device, comprising a communication module (Anjanappa, Fig. 1: Wireless communication circuit) and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the pickup outward (Anjanappa, Fig. 1: the MEMS accelerometer signal is pass through wireless communication circuit to be output) and pickup according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3).
The combination failed to teach signal receiving module; wherein the control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of a pickup device, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward.
However, Proulx teaches signal receiving module (Fig. 6A: audio receive amplifier/filter); wherein the control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of a pickup device, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward (Fig. 6A: the control module/DSP is electrically connected to the signal receiving module/microphone package-20 and the communication module/Radio Chip, which will transmit the signal through the communication module).
The combination and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because a processor with extra processing to control other circuits provides more control of the whole system.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anjanappa US PG-Pub 2004/0202344 in combination with Newzella DE102017006611 in view of Proulx US PG-Pub 2011/0319021.
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches a communication device, comprising a communication module (Anjanappa, Fig. 1: Wireless communication circuit) and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the pickup outward (Anjanappa, Fig. 1: the MEMS accelerometer signal is pass through wireless communication circuit to be output) and pickup according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4).
The combination failed to teach signal receiving module; wherein the control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of a pickup device, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward.
However, Proulx teaches signal receiving module (Fig. 6A: audio receive amplifier/filter); wherein the control module is configured to be electrically connected with the signal receiving module and the communication module and capable of controlling the operation of the signal receiving module and the communication module, the signal receiving module is configured to be capable of receiving the signal of a pickup device, and the communication module is configured to be capable of transmitting the signal of the signal receiving module outward (Fig. 6A: the control module/DSP is electrically connected to the signal receiving module/microphone package-20 and the communication module/Radio Chip, which will transmit the signal through the communication module).
The combination and Proulx are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor, namely audio devices. Therefore, 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, because a processor with extra processing to control other circuits provides more control of the whole system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA whose telephone number is (571)270-5519. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-9am and 11am-6pm.
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.
/WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695