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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. This communication in response to an RCE amendment filed 08/28/2026. No claims have been added. Claim 6 has been canceled. Claims 1, 7 and 8 have been amended. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are now pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al. (US. PUB. 2015/0163572 A1) in view of Chaikin et al. (9,560,460 B2) in view of Wright (US PAT # 8,208,670 B2) and further in view of Lawrence et al. (Pub.No.: 2019/0281341).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Weiss teaches an air pressure adjustment method and apparatus (this reads on pressure vent for speaker of microphone modules, see abstract and [0007]), the air pressure adjustment method and apparatus comprising:
controlling a speaker to emit a first sound (reads speaker to emit acoustic pulses for clearing or relieving pressure in a rare cavity, see [0031]); and
performing a pressure relief process of a rear cavity of the speaker (reads on speaker or microphone module may be capable of further attempting to drive the liquid from the cavity by producing one or more modified tones or pulses, see [0031]).
Weiss limitations are already addressed in the above rejection. Weiss does not specifically teach “analyzing the sound signal to obtain a corresponding amplitude value” and “determining whether the amplitude value is less than a preset amplitude threshold”.
However, Chaikin teaches a sound emitted from a speaker, a microphone receiving the emitted sound, a processor that computes amplitude or SPL from the microphone signal, a comparison against a preset amplitude threshold and a corrective action performed if the measured amplitude falls below the threshold (see col. 17, lines 23-60).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the amplitude-based feedback control, as taught by Chaikin, into the system of Weiss, because both relate to adjusting speaker operation based on acoustic conditions, and applying known microphone-derived amplitude analysis to determine whether to continue or initiate cavity relief constitutes a predictable use of known signa-processing control methods to improve operational accuracy.
Weiss and Chaikin features are discussed in the above rejection. Neither Weiss nor Chaikin specifically teaches “the wrist-worn device” and “receiving a sound signal picked up by a microphone”. Also, note that Weiss Is not limited to a wrist device, and does not require that the device include a microphone.
Wright teaches a wrist worn electronic device that includes both speaker and microphone in the housing with a control circuitry capable of driving the speaker and receiving audio from the microphone (see col. 3, lines 12-34).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the combined system in a wrist-worn device as taught by Wright, into the system of Weiss because Weiss is not limited to any particular from factor, and placing acoustic components into a wrist-worn devices is considered well known. Using the known wrist-mounted housing of Wright represents a routine adaptation of location and packaging and it does not result in an unexpected improvement.
Note that while Wright teaches “receiving a sound signal picked up by a microphone” (as discussed above, col. 3, lines 12-34), the underline newly claimed feature of “corresponding to the first sound” is already taught by Chaikin (because Chaikin teaches the loudspeaker generates/reproduces a test signal, and the microphone picks up/measures the acoustics response of that emitted test signal, see col. 17, lines 5-14/steps 710-714).
Weiss, Chaikin and Wright features are discussed in the above rejection, however neither Weiss, Chaikin nor Wright specifically teach “wherein determining whether the amplitude value is less than the preset amplitude threshold comprises:
determining a target preset amplitude threshold according to a current volume of the speaker based on a pre-established correspondence between a volume of the speaker and the preset amplitude threshold; and
determining whether the amplitude value is less than the target preset amplitude threshold” as recited in claims 1 and 8.
Yet Lawarence teaches performing a volume calibration procedure that measures probe volume for various TV/AVR speaker volume values, so that the system knows the output probe sound level relative to different speaker volume levels and gain factors. Lawrence further teaches sampling a calibration curve for various gain factor/probe levels (see [0161]), also teaches that a threshold value may be stored in memory accessible by a controller, and that the threshold may be used with the probe signal level and volume level (see [0162]). Lawrence further teaches generating a probe signal, putting the probe signal from one or more speakers, and detecting an audio signal including the probe audio signal by a microphone (see [0164-0166]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the volume-dependent threshold calibration taught by Lawarence into the acoustic feedback control of Chaikin, as applied to the pressure relief system of Weiss and implemented in the wrist-worn device of Wright, because the amplitude/SPL detected from a speaker-emitted sound depends on the current speaker volume. Using a pre-established correspondence between speaker volume and a target threshold predictably normalizes the threshold to the expected output level, reduces false determinations caused by normal volume changes, and improves accuracy in determining whether to initiate or continue the pressure relief process of Weiss.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Weiss, Chaikin, Wright and Lawrence teaches wherein, before controlling the speaker of the wrist-worn device to emit the first sound, the method further comprises:
determining whether an audio system of the wrist-worn device is in an idle state, and if so, performing controlling the speaker of the wrist-worn device to emit the first sound (note that Chaikin teaches performing acoustic test/calibration sound only when the system is place in calibration mode, which inherently assumes no active audio playback is outputted).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Weiss, Chaikin, Wright and Lawrence teaches wherein controlling the speaker of the wrist-worn device to emit the first sound comprises:
after receiving a command to turn on a pressure relief mode, controlling the speaker of the wrist-worn device to emit the first sound (Weiss teaches a speaker having a rear cavity and a pressure – relief vent structure to relief pressure within cavity, see [0031]. Wright teaches wrist worn device that have both speaker and a microphone, see (col. 3, lines 12-34). Chaikin teaches emitting a sound from a speaker after a mode being activated, receiving the microphone signal, signal analyzing amplitude to preset threshold to determine whether to continue corrective mode (see Fig. and Fig.4A with corresponding texts). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the command-activated speaker emission control, as taught by Chaikin into the structure of Weiss, implemented in the wrist worn device of Wright, to provide condition-based pressure relief in portable acoustic system).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Weiss, Chaikin, Wright and Lawrence teaches an air pressure adjustment system for a wrist-worn device, applied to the wrist-worn device, the air pressure adjustment system comprising:
a memory (see Weiss [0068]) configured to store a computer program; and
a processor (the claimed processor is inherent within the system of Weiss because Weiss discloses controlled circuitry configured to control speaker operation and initiate the pressure relief process. It is well understood that such control circuitry includes a processor for executing the described control steps) configured to implement, when executing the computer program, the air
pressure adjustment method (see Weiss [0007] and [0015]) of the wrist-worn device according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Weiss, Chaikin, Wright and Lawrence teaches a wrist-worn device comprising a speaker (see Wright col. 3, lines 12-34), a microphone (see Wright col. 3, lines 12-34) and the air pressure adjustment system (reads on speaker module that includes a barometric pressure vent 118, see [0036] and Fig. of Weiss) of the wrist-worn device (see Fig. 1 of Wright) of claim 9.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al. (US. PUB. 2015/0163572 A1) in view of Chaikin et al. (9,560,460 B2) in view of Wright (US PAT # 8,208,670 B2) Lawrence et al. (Pub.No.: 2019/0281341) and further in view of Zadesky et al. (Pub.No.: 2015/0326959 A1).
Claim 2 recites “wherein performing the pressure relief process of the rear cavity of the speaker comprises:
controlling the speaker to emit a low-frequency sound, so that a displacement of a diaphragm of the speaker reaches a preset value to relieve pressure in the rear cavity of the speaker”.
Weiss, Chaikin, Wright and Lawrence features are addressed and discussed in the rejection of independent claims 1and 8 rejections. Neither Weiss, Chaikin, Wright no Lawrence specifically teach the limitation of claim 2.
However, Zadesky teaches acoustic module 303 may also include a speaker formed from a diaphragm element 310 and a voice coil 309. In cases where the acoustic module includes a speaker, one or more acoustic energy pulses may be applied to further facilitate expulsion of liquid from the acoustic module 303. In one example, the acoustic energy pulses may be generated at a frequency that is outside the audible range of a human ear. A typical range of acoustic frequencies that are audible to humans may be between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Thus, the acoustic energy pulse(s) used to help expel the liquid may be less than 20 Hz or greater than 20,000 Hz (see [0042]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the low-frequency diaphragm displacement, as taught by Zadesky, into the combination of Weiss, Chaikin, Wright and Lawrence, in order to improve pressure relief performance in compact speaker housing.
Claim 4 recites “wherein controlling the speaker of the wrist-worn device to emit the first sound comprises:
controlling the speaker of the wrist-worn device to emit the first sound having a frequency band in a low-frequency non-audible band”.
Weiss, Chaikin, Wright and Lawrence features are addressed and discussed in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 rejections. Neither Weiss, Chaikin nor Wright specifically teach the limitation of claim 4.
However, Zadesky teaches that acoustic energy pulses may be generated at a frequency that is outside the audible range of a human ear (see [0042]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to emit low frequency non-audible band, as taught by Zadesky, into the combination of Weiss, Chaikin, Wright and Lawrence, in order to equalize internal air pressure, maintain or restore diaphragm’s neutral resting position, and reduce acoustic distortion or long-term mechanical stress without distributing the user.
Claim 5 recites “wherein controlling the speaker to emit the low-frequency sound, so that a displacement of a diaphragm of the speaker reaches the preset value comprises:
controlling the speaker to emit the low-frequency sound having a frequency band in a low-frequency non-audible frequency band, so that the displacement of the diaphragm of the speaker reaches the preset value”.
Weiss, Chaikin, Wright and Lawrence features are addressed and discussed in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8. Neither Weiss, Chaikin, Wright nor Lawrence specifically teach the limitation of claim 5.
However, Zadesky teaches acoustic module 303 may also include a speaker formed from a diaphragm element 310 and a voice coil 309. In cases where the acoustic module includes a speaker, one or more acoustic energy pulses may be applied to further facilitate expulsion of liquid from the acoustic module 303. In one example, the acoustic energy pulses may be generated at a frequency that is outside the audible range of a human ear. A typical range of acoustic frequencies that are audible to humans may be between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Thus, the acoustic energy pulse(s) used to help expel the liquid may be less than 20 Hz or greater than 20,000 Hz (see [0042]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the low-frequency diaphragm displacement, as taught by Zadesky, into the combination of Weiss, Chaikin, Wright and Lawrence, in order to improve pressure relief performance in compact speaker housing.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rasha S. AL-Aubaidi whose telephone number is (571) 272-7481. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on (571) 272-7488.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RASHA S AL AUBAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights