DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hou et al. (US 2020/0170113 A1 and hereafter Hou).
Regarding claim 1, Hou anticipates:
“A wearable computing device” (see Hou, figure 1, unit 100, figure 11, unit 1100, and ¶ 0039 and 0080, where a portable electronic device is disclosed as a wearable electronic device or other audio appliance, and it is illustrated as a ‘smartphone’),
“the wearable computing device comprising: one or more processors” (see Hou, figure 4, units 400, 410, 420, and 430, figure 11, unit 1101, and ¶ 0039, 0055-0056, 0074, and 0082),
“an audio sensor” (see Hou, figure 4, units 402, 406, and 408, figure 11, unit 1105, and ¶ 0050-0051, 0055, 0058-0059, and 0088, where a combination sensor includes an audio sensor, such as a pressure-responsive sensor or a microphone);
“a port connecting the audio sensor to an exterior of a surface of the wearable computing device” (see Hou, figure 4, units 402 and 407 and ¶ 0059, where an acoustic port connects the surrounding environment to the combination sensor);
“a non-transitory computer-readable memory” (see Hou, figure 4, unit 440, figure 11, unit 1102, and ¶ 0056 and 0084);
“wherein the non-transitory computer-readable memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wearable computing device to perform operations” (see Hou, figure 11, units 1102 and 1108a and ¶ 0084, where the memory stores instructions for software to perform Hou’s disclosed features),
“the operations comprising: accessing port status data” (see Hou, figure 10, step 1004 and ¶ 0065-0067 and 0077, where one or more of the processing units uses the combination sensor signals to determine the state, or pressure condition, of the device, wherein the pressure condition is the pressure sensed in the port that connects the sensor to the exterior);
“determining, based on the port status data, a water presence likelihood value, the water presence likelihood value representing a likelihood that water is currently in the port” (see Hou, figure 10, step 1004 and ¶ 0075 and 0077, where one of the determined states is determined based on the port status, such as identifying a type or class of impairment based on observations of the combination sensor signals); and
“in accordance with a determination that the water presence likelihood value exceeds a threshold, applying a digital correction filter to data produced by the audio sensor, wherein the digital correction filter corrects the data produced by the audio sensor to compensate for a presence of water in the port” (see Hou, figure 4, unit 414, figure 10, unit 1008, and ¶ 0073, 0075, and 0077, where the device determines the pressure condition, such as the pressure condition associated with water injected into the port, exceeds a threshold and in response, the device applies a digital filter to mitigate the determined impairment).
Regarding claim 9, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Hou anticipates the “wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the port status data is generated by analyzing audio data produced by the audio sensor to identify audio distortions associated with water in the port” (see Hou, ¶ 0077, where the pressure response of the microphone is analyzed in combination with the pressure response of a barometric portion of the combination sensor by calculating a correlation to determine the type or class of impairment related to the pressure conditions).
Regarding claim 14, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Hou anticipates the “wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the threshold is predetermined” (see Hou, ¶ 0067-0068 and 0077, where the identified pressure condition is compared to a threshold, which implies a predetermined threshold).
Regarding claim 15, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Hou anticipates the “wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the threshold is adaptively determined” (see Hou, ¶ 0006-0007, where the threshold is adaptively determined because the threshold is the output signal from the microphone, which changes over time).
Regarding claim 16, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Hou anticipates the “wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the audio sensor is a microphone” (see Hou, ¶ 0050-0051, 0055, and 0088, where a combination sensor includes an audio sensor, such as a microphone).
Regarding claim 17, Hou anticipates:
“A computer-implemented method for correcting distortion introduced to audio data caused by water in a port associated with an audio sensor” (see Hou, figure 1, unit 100, figure 11, units 1100-1102 and 1108a and ¶ 0039, 0080, and 0084, where a computer performs Hou’s disclosed features, such as performed by a portable electronic device is disclosed as a wearable electronic device or other audio appliance, and it is illustrated as a ‘smartphone’; and see Hou, figure 4, units 402, 406-408, and 414, figure 10, figure 11, unit 1105, and ¶ 0050-0051, 0055, 0058-0059, 0075, 0077, and 0088, where the wearable device has an audio sensor, such as a pressure-responsive sensor or a microphone, disposed in a port and the method corrects for the distortion using a digital filter),
“the method comprising:
accessing, by a wearable computing device including one or more processors, port status data” (see Hou, figure 10, step 1004 and ¶ 0065-0067 and 0077, where one or more of the processing units uses the combination sensor signals to determine the state, or pressure condition, of the device, wherein the pressure condition is the pressure sensed in the port that connects the sensor to the exterior);
“determining, by the wearable computing device and based on the port status data, a water presence likelihood value, the water presence likelihood value representing a likelihood that water is currently in the port” (see Hou, figure 10, step 1004 and ¶ 0075 and 0077, where one of the determined states is determined based on the port status, such as identifying a type or class of impairment based on observations of the combination sensor signals); and
“in accordance with a determination that the water presence likelihood value exceeds a threshold, applying, by the wearable computing device, a digital correction filter to data produced by the audio sensor, wherein the digital correction filter corrects the data produced by the audio sensor to compensate for a presence of water in the port” (see Hou, figure 4, unit 414, figure 10, unit 1008, and ¶ 0073, 0075, and 0077, where the device determines the pressure condition, such as the pressure condition associated with water injected into the port, exceeds a threshold and in response, the device applies a digital filter to mitigate the determined impairment).
Regarding claim 19, Hou anticipates:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations” (see Hou, figure 4, unit 440, figure 11, unit 1102 and 1108a, and ¶ 0056 and 0084, where a memory stores instructions for software to perform Hou’s disclosed features),
“the operations comprising:
generating a water presence signal indicating a presence of water in the port” (see Hou, figure 10, step 1004 and ¶ 0065-0067 and 0077, where one or more of the processing units uses the combination sensor signals to determine the state, or pressure condition, of the device, wherein the pressure condition is the pressure sensed in the port that connects the sensor to the exterior; and see Hou, figure 10, step 1004 and ¶ 0075 and 0077, where one of the determined states is determined based on the port status, such as identifying a type or class of impairment based on observations of the combination sensor signals, such as determining water presence); and,
“in response to the water presence signal, applying a digital correction filter to data produced by the audio sensor, wherein the digital correction filter corrects the data produced by the audio sensor to compensate for presence of water in the port” (see Hou, figure 4, unit 414, figure 10, unit 1008, and ¶ 0073, 0075, and 0077, where the device determines the pressure condition, such as the pressure condition associated with water injected into the port, exceeds a threshold and in response, the device applies a digital filter to mitigate the determined impairment).
Regarding claim 20, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 19 above. Hou anticipates the “non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, the operations further comprising:
accessing port status data for a port associated with an audio sensor” (see Hou, figure 10, step 1004 and ¶ 0065-0067 and 0077, where one or more of the processing units uses the combination sensor signals to determine the state, or pressure condition, of the device, wherein the pressure condition is the pressure sensed in the port that connects the sensor to the exterior);
“determining, based on the port status data, a water presence likelihood value, the water presence likelihood value representing a likelihood that water is currently in the port” (see Hou, figure 10, step 1004 and ¶ 0075 and 0077, where one of the determined states is determined based on the port status, such as identifying a type or class of impairment based on observations of the combination sensor signals); and
“in accordance with a determination that the water presence likelihood value exceeds a threshold, generating the water presence signal” (see Hou, figure 4, unit 414, figure 10, unit 1004, and ¶ 0073, 0075, and 0077, where the device determines the pressure condition, such as the pressure condition associated with water injected into the port, by recognizing or identifying pressure response signatures).
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.
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) 2-5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (US 2018/0074693 A1 and hereafter Jones).
Regarding claim 2, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Hou anticipates the wearable computing device of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the features “wherein the port status data includes application data supplied by a user”.
Jones teaches a special lock mode user interface for electronic devices, such as smartwatches (see Jones, abstract, ¶ 0197, and figure 6A, unit 600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Hou with the teachings of Jones for the purpose of providing a special lock mode to minimize detection and/or processing of inadvertent inputs and efficient methods and interfaces for transitioning in to and out of the special lock mode (see Jones, ¶ 0029, 0232-0236, and 0254-0255).
Therefore, the combination of Hou and Jones makes obvious the “wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the port status data includes application data supplied by a user” (see Jones, ¶ 0232 and figures 6V-6Z, where the user supplies information about a swimming session).
Regarding claim 3, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 2 above. The combination makes obvious the “wearable computing device of claim 2, wherein the application data supplied by a user includes recent activity data logged by the user” (see Jones, ¶ 0233-0237, where swimming or a workout are tracked, or logged).
Regarding claim 4, see the preceding rejection with respect to claims 1 and 2 above. Hou anticipates the device of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the features “wherein the port status data includes data describing user interactions with the wearable computing device”. For the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Hou with the teachings of Jones for the purpose of providing a special lock mode to minimize detection and/or processing of inadvertent inputs and efficient methods and interfaces for transitioning in to and out of the special lock mode (see Jones, ¶ 0029, 0232-0236, and 0254-0255).
Therefore, the combination makes obvious the “wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the port status data includes data describing user interactions with the wearable computing device” (see Jones, ¶ 0232 and figures 6V-6Z, where the user supplies information about a swimming session or workout are input).
Regarding claim 5, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 4 above. The combination makes obvious the “wearable computing device of claim 4, wherein the user interactions with the wearable computing device include the user selecting a clear water function” (see Jones, ¶ 0254-0256, where the user unlocks the smartwatch from the special lock mode such that the device emits a sound via the speaker to expel liquid).
Regarding claim 18, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 17 above. Hou anticipates the computer-implemented method of claim 17, but does not appear to teach the features “wherein the port status data includes application data supplied by a user”.
Jones teaches a special lock mode user interface for electronic devices, such as smartwatches (see Jones, abstract, ¶ 0197, and figure 6A, unit 600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Hou with the teachings of Jones for the purpose of providing a special lock mode to minimize detection and/or processing of inadvertent inputs and efficient methods and interfaces for transitioning in to and out of the special lock mode (see Jones, ¶ 0029, 0232-0236, and 0254-0255).
Therefore, the combination of Hou and Jones makes obvious the “computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein the port status data includes application data supplied by a user” (see Jones, ¶ 0232 and figures 6V-6Z, where the user supplies information about a swimming session).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zadesky et al. (US 2016/0241945 A1 and hereafter Zadesky).
Regarding claim 6, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Hou anticipates the wearable computing device of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the features “wherein the wearable computing device includes a humidity sensor and wherein the port status data includes humidity data produced by the humidity sensor”.
Zadesky teaches a method for clearing water from an acoustic port including a heating element (see Zadesky, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Hou with the teachings of Zadesky for the purpose of removing liquid from an acoustic cavity and preventing damage to other electronics within the device (see Zadesky, ¶ 0002-0004 and 0009).
Therefore, the combination makes obvious the “wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the wearable computing device includes a humidity sensor and wherein the port status data includes humidity data produced by the humidity sensor” (see Zadesky, ¶ 0065-0069, where the device includes a humidity sensor for determining the device was immersed in a liquid).
Regarding claim 8, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Hou anticipates the wearable computing device of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the features “wherein the wearable computing device includes electrodes in the port and the port status data includes data produced by the electrodes indicating whether water is sensed in the port”.
Zadesky teaches a method for clearing water from an acoustic port including a heating element (see Zadesky, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Hou with the teachings of Zadesky for the purpose of removing liquid from an acoustic cavity and preventing damage to other electronics within the device (see Zadesky, ¶ 0002-0004 and 0009).
Therefore, the combination makes obvious the “wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the wearable computing device includes electrodes in the port and the port status data includes data produced by the electrodes indicating whether water is sensed in the port” (see Zadesky, ¶ 0065-0069, where the device includes an exposed electrode pair for determining the device was immersed in a liquid).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of well-known prior art.
Regarding claim 11, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Hou anticipates the wearable computing device of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the features “wherein the digital correction filter is a fixed compensating filter”.
Official Notice is given that one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date would have found it obvious that the digital correction filter is a fixed compensation filter, because it is well-known prior art to design digital filters that have fixed properties based on various assumptions related to the application of the digital filter. Hou teaches the filter H is used to compensate for a determined impairment based on an identified impairment, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that determined impairments, such as mitigating predetermined acoustic effects allows a fixed digital filter design, such as a fixed frequency response. Therefore, the combination of Hou and the well-known prior art makes obvious the “wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the digital correction filter is a fixed compensating filter” because it is obvious to compensate for predetermined acoustic effects with a fixed filter design.
Regarding claim 12, see the preceding rejection with respect to claims 1 and 11 above. Hou anticipates the wearable computing device of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the features “wherein the digital correction filter is an adaptive compensating filter”.
For similar reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1, Official Notice is given that one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date would have found it obvious that the digital correction filter is an adaptive compensation filter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that determined impairments, such as mitigating acoustic effects that change over time allows an adaptive digital filter design, such as a filter that minimizes the error between an expected response and the measured response (e.g., an adaptive filter employing a least-means squared, or LMS-type, algorithm). Therefore, the combination of Hou and the well-known prior art makes obvious the “wearable computing device of claim 1, wherein the digital correction filter is an adaptive compensating filter” because it is obvious to compensate for changing acoustic effects with an adaptive filter design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel R Sellers whose telephone number is (571)272-7528. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-4:00.
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, Fan S Tsang can be reached at (571)272-7547. 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.
/Daniel R Sellers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694