DETAILED ACTION
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 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that “devices et” should be “device set” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6-8, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 6, 14 and 18, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the sensing pulse” and “the sensing area.”
As to claim 7, it is unclear if “at least two of the capacitive pixels” spaced apart by at least 120 degrees are the same “at least two of the capacitive pixels” spaced apart by at least 90 degrees in claim 1, or if they are different capacitive pixels.
As to claims 8 and 20, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the sensing area.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 11, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2020/0100010 A1), hereinafter “Yang.”
As to claim 1, Yang discloses an earphone (Fig. 1) comprising:
a device housing that defines an internal cavity within the device housing (¶0035 and Fig. 1. Housing shown. Sensors inside housing.);
an acoustic port formed through the device housing and having an opening at an exterior surface of the device housing (¶0026, Fig. 1. Acoustic port shown on side of earbud head 3 in Fig. 1. Earbuds well-known in the art to have the acoustic port at various positions on the earbud head.);
an audio driver disposed within the device housing and aligned to emit sound through the acoustic port (¶0002, Fig. 1. Audio driver implicit, if not inherent, in earbuds.);
a plurality of capacitive pixels disposed within the internal cavity, wherein at least two of the capacitive pixels are disposed radially around the acoustic port and (¶0026-0027, Fig. 1. “This embodiment is described based on the earbud model in FIG. 1, but a person skilled in the art should understand that the earbud model is only exemplary.” “the wearing sensor 2 includes three capacitive sensing units, respectively a capacitive sensing unit 21, a capacitive sensing unit 22, and a capacitive sensing unit 23.” Earbuds with central acoustic ports are well-known, routine and conventional in the art, in which case the capacitive sensing units would be disposed radially around the port.); and
sensor control circuitry disposed within the internal cavity and operatively coupled to drive the plurality of capacitive pixels at a predetermined frequency to readout a capacitance at each of the plurality of capacitive pixels and determine if the earphone is within an ear of a user (¶0036-0037, Fig. 3. “the detection processing circuit includes a driver; as shown in FIG. 3… the driver is connected with all the capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensors and the touch sensor, and is configured to drive all the capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensors and the touch sensor.” Driving with a predetermined frequency implicit/conventional.).
Yang does not expressly disclose the capacitive pixels are spaced apart from each other by at least 90 degrees.
However, Yang (¶0027) does disclose, “This embodiment is exemplified by the wearing sensor including three adjacent capacitive sensing units, but it should be understood by a person skilled in the art that the situation of adjacent capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensor is only an exemplary description, and in actual use, the person skilled in the art may select the wearing sensor including capacitive sensing units that are not adjacent to implement this solution with reference to the solution of the embodiment of the present application.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the capacitive sensing units apart by at least 90 degrees. The motivation would have been it was obvious to try due to the finite amount of space that they capacitive sensors can occupy on the earbud head.
As to claim 2, Yang discloses the device housing includes a housing wall that defines both an exterior surface of the earphone and an interior surface of the device housing (¶0035, Figs. 1 and 4. “the capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensors may be directly arranged on the inner surface of an earbud housing.”);
the earphone further comprises a plurality of recessed regions formed in the housing wall (¶0035. “or arranged inside the earbud housing by an injection molding process or other process.” Arranging in a recess of the housing inner surface is an obvious other process.); and
each capacitive pixel in the plurality of capacitive pixels is disposed within a unique one of the plurality of recessed regions (¶0027 and ¶0035. “the person skilled in the art may select the wearing sensor including capacitive sensing units that are not adjacent to implement this solution.”).
As to claim 3, Yang does not expressly disclose wherein each capacitive pixel has a thickness of 500 microns or less.
However, Yang (¶0028) does disclose, “the person skilled in the art may select the capacitive sensing units of different shapes and sizes to implement this solution.” While the exact size is not disclosed, using capacitive sensors with a thickness of 500 microns or less would have been obvious in the context of installation on interior surface of an earbud housing or inside the earbud housing (¶0035) based on the conventional size of earbuds and their internal components.
As to claim 7, Yang does not expressly disclose wherein at least two of the capacitive pixels in the plurality of capacitive pixels are disposed radially around the acoustic port and spaced apart from each other by at least 120 degrees.
However, Yang (¶0027) does disclose, “This embodiment is exemplified by the wearing sensor including three adjacent capacitive sensing units, but it should be understood by a person skilled in the art that the situation of adjacent capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensor is only an exemplary description, and in actual use, the person skilled in the art may select the wearing sensor including capacitive sensing units that are not adjacent to implement this solution with reference to the solution of the embodiment of the present application.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the capacitive sensing units apart by at least 120 degrees. The motivation would have been it was obvious to try due to the finite amount of space that they capacitive sensors can occupy on the earbud head.
As to claim 8, Yang does not expressly disclose wherein a diameter of the sensing area of each capacitive pixel in the plurality of capacitive pixels is 4 mm or less.
However, Yang (¶0028) does disclose, “the person skilled in the art may select the capacitive sensing units of different shapes and sizes to implement this solution.” While the exact size is not disclosed, using capacitive sensors with a diameter of 4 mm or less would have been obvious in the context of installation on interior surface of an earbud housing or inside the earbud housing (¶0035) based on the conventional size of earbuds and their internal components.
As to claim 9, Yang discloses wherein the sensor control circuitry determines if the earphone is within an ear of a user based on a predetermined in-ear detect algorithm that includes determining whether or not multiple measured capacitance values of the two or more pixels are greater than or less than a predetermined threshold (¶0032, Fig. 1. “If any capacitance value detected on the capacitive sensing unit 21, the capacitive sensing unit 22, and the capacitive sensing unit 23 is smaller than the correct wearing thresholds corresponding to the capacitive sensing unit 21, the capacitive sensing unit 22, and the capacitive sensing unit 23, the earbud is determined to be not correctly worn.”).
As to claim 10, Yang does not expressly disclose wherein the sensor control circuitry determines if the earphone is within an ear of a user based an artificial intelligence engine.
However, Yang discloses “the capacitance values detected from all the wearing sensors are used as the basis for detecting that the earbud is in the worn state” (¶0029). Yang further discloses, “the detection processing circuit includes a main control chip. When the state is worn and unworn, the main control chip may update the current wearing state with preset frequencies, so that wearing action of the user may be monitored at any time.” (¶0036, Fig. 3. Detection Processing Circuit.).
Using AI is well-known, routine and conventional in the art and simply implementing known processing steps with an AI engine is not inventive.
As to claim 11, Yang discloses an earphone (Fig. 1) comprising:
a device housing that includes a housing wall that defines both an exterior surface of the earphone and an interior surface of the device housing (¶0035 and Figs. 1 and 4. Housing shown. Sensors inside housing.);
an acoustic port formed through the device housing and having an opening at an exterior surface of the device housing (¶0026, Fig. 1. Acoustic port shown on side of earbud head 3 in Fig. 1. Earbuds well-known in the art to have the acoustic port at various positions on the earbud head.);
an audio driver disposed within the device housing and aligned to emit sound through the acoustic port (¶0002, Fig. 1. Audio driver implicit, if not inherent, in earbuds.);
a plurality of recessed regions formed in the housing wall (¶0035. “the capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensors may be directly arranged on the inner surface of an earbud housing or arranged inside the earbud housing by an injection molding process or other process.” Arranging in a recess of the housing inner surface is an obvious other process.);
a plurality of capacitive pixels disposed within the device housing (¶0027, Fig. 1 “the wearing sensor 2 includes three capacitive sensing units, respectively a capacitive sensing unit 21, a capacitive sensing unit 22, and a capacitive sensing unit 23.” Earbuds with central acoustic ports are well-known, routine and conventional in the art, in which case the capacitive sensing units would be disposed radially around the port.),
wherein each capacitive pixel in the plurality of capacitive pixels is disposed within a unique one of the plurality of recessed regions (¶0035. “or arranged inside the earbud housing by an injection molding process or other process.” Arranging in a recess of the housing inner surface is an obvious other process.) and
wherein at least two of the capacitive pixels are disposed radially around the acoustic port (¶0026-0027, Fig. 1. “This embodiment is described based on the earbud model in FIG. 1, but a person skilled in the art should understand that the earbud model is only exemplary.” “the wearing sensor 2 includes three capacitive sensing units, respectively a capacitive sensing unit 21, a capacitive sensing unit 22, and a capacitive sensing unit 23.” Earbuds with central acoustic ports are well-known, routine and conventional in the art, in which case the capacitive sensing units would be disposed radially around the port.); and
sensor control circuitry disposed within the internal cavity and operatively coupled to drive the plurality of capacitive pixels at a predetermined frequency to readout a capacitance at each of the plurality of capacitive pixels and determine, based on an algorithm, if the earphone is within an ear of a user (¶0032 and ¶0036-0037, Fig. 3. “if any capacitance value detected on the capacitive sensing unit 21, the capacitive sensing unit 22, and the capacitive sensing unit 23 is smaller than the correct wearing thresholds corresponding to the capacitive sensing unit 21, the capacitive sensing unit 22, and the capacitive sensing unit 23, the earbud is determined to be not correctly worn.” “the detection processing circuit includes a driver; as shown in FIG. 3… the driver is connected with all the capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensors and the touch sensor, and is configured to drive all the capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensors and the touch sensor.” Driving with a predetermined frequency implicit/conventional.).
Yang does not expressly disclose the capacitive pixels are spaced apart from each other by at least 120 degrees.
However, Yang (¶0027) does disclose, “This embodiment is exemplified by the wearing sensor including three adjacent capacitive sensing units, but it should be understood by a person skilled in the art that the situation of adjacent capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensor is only an exemplary description, and in actual use, the person skilled in the art may select the wearing sensor including capacitive sensing units that are not adjacent to implement this solution with reference to the solution of the embodiment of the present application.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the capacitive sensing units apart by at least 90 degrees. The motivation would have been it was obvious to try due to the finite amount of space that they capacitive sensors can occupy on the earbud head.
As to claim 15, Yang discloses a portable acoustic device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a device housing comprising a speaker housing portion and a stem portion extending away from the speaker housing portion, wherein the speaker housing portion and stem portion combine to define an internal cavity within the device housing (¶0026, Fig. 1. The earbud includes a head 3 and a stem 6.);
an acoustic port formed through a wall of the speaker housing portion and having an opening at an exterior surface of the device housing (¶0026, Fig. 1. Acoustic port shown on side of earbud head 3 in Fig. 1. Earbuds well-known in the art to have the acoustic port at various positions on the earbud head.);
an audio driver disposed within the speaker housing portion and aligned to emit sound through the acoustic port (¶0002, Fig. 1. Audio driver implicit, if not inherent, in earbuds.);
a plurality of capacitive pixels disposed within the internal cavity, wherein at least two of the capacitive pixels are disposed radially around the acoustic port (¶0026-0027, Fig. 1. “This embodiment is described based on the earbud model in FIG. 1, but a person skilled in the art should understand that the earbud model is only exemplary.” “the wearing sensor 2 includes three capacitive sensing units, respectively a capacitive sensing unit 21, a capacitive sensing unit 22, and a capacitive sensing unit 23.” Earbuds with central acoustic ports are well-known, routine and conventional in the art, in which case the capacitive sensing units would be disposed radially around the port.); and
sensor control circuitry disposed within the internal cavity and operatively coupled to drive the plurality of capacitive pixels at a predetermined frequency to readout a capacitance at each of the plurality of capacitive pixels and determine, based on an algorithm, if the earphone is within an ear of a user (¶0036-0037, Fig. 3. “the detection processing circuit includes a driver; as shown in FIG. 3… the driver is connected with all the capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensors and the touch sensor, and is configured to drive all the capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensors and the touch sensor.” Driving with a predetermined frequency implicit/conventional.).
Yang does not expressly disclose the capacitive pixels are spaced apart from each other by at least 90 degrees.
However, Yang (¶0027) does disclose, “This embodiment is exemplified by the wearing sensor including three adjacent capacitive sensing units, but it should be understood by a person skilled in the art that the situation of adjacent capacitive sensing units of the wearing sensor is only an exemplary description, and in actual use, the person skilled in the art may select the wearing sensor including capacitive sensing units that are not adjacent to implement this solution with reference to the solution of the embodiment of the present application.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the capacitive sensing units apart by at least 90 degrees. The motivation would have been it was obvious to try due to the finite amount of space that they capacitive sensors can occupy on the earbud head.
As to claim 19, it is rejected under claim 15 using the same motivation as claim 2 above.
As to claim 20, it is rejected under claim 15 using the same motivation as claims 3 and 8 above. The same rationale for 500 microns in claim 3 applies to 100 microns of the instant claim.
Claims 4, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as applied to claims 1, 11 and 15 above, in view of Islam (Islam, Tarikul. Advanced Interfacing Techniques for the Capacitive Sensors. 2017, pp. 73-109.).
As to claim 4, Yang does not expressly disclose wherein each capacitive sensor comprises a stack of layers including: a first conductive layer comprising an active area and a guard ring surrounding and spaced apart from the active area; a conductive shield layer; and a dielectric layer disposed between the first conductive layer and the conductive shield layer.
Islam discloses wherein each capacitive sensor comprises a stack of layers including: a first conductive layer comprising an active area and a guard ring surrounding and spaced apart from the active area; a conductive shield layer; and a dielectric layer disposed between the first conductive layer and the conductive shield layer (Islam, pp. 81-82, Section 3.2, Fig. 9. See below.).
PNG
media_image1.png
192
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang and Islam are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to capacitors.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a guard ring, as taught by Islam. The motivation would have been to avoid inaccuracy in the exact value of the capacitance (Islam, p. 81 Section 3.2).
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under claims 11 and 15 using the same motivation as claim 4 above.
Claims 5, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Islam, as applied to claims 4, 12 and 16 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 6,373,264 B1), hereinafter “Matsumoto.”
As to claim 5, Yang in view of Islam does not expressly disclose apply a pulsed voltage to the guard ring and the conductive shield layer at the same frequency and time as the capacitive pixels are driven.
Matsumoto discloses apply a pulsed voltage to the guard ring and the conductive shield layer at the same frequency and time as the capacitive pixels are driven (Matsumoto, Col. 1 lines 40-54. “the detection circuit comprises an integrator for detection including a humidity sensor as a capacitance which changes its value in response to humidity, and a reference integrator for comparison which does not change the time constant. In an operation of the detection circuit, the same pulse signal is input to both the integrators, and the difference between signals output from the respective integrators is delivered from a differential amplifier.”).
Yang, Islam and Matsumoto are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to capacitance sensing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the same pulse signal for both, as taught by Matsumoto. The motivation would have been detect a change in humidity based on difference.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under claims 12 and 16 using the same motivation as claim 5 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mohammadi et al. (US 2019/0297408 A1), Powell et al. (US 2019/0098388 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695