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 .
Status of Application
This communication is responsive to the applicant's preliminary amendment filed 11/27/2024.
Claims 1-13, and 16-22 are pending. Claims 14-15 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 22 recites “[A] computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, configure at least one processor to:” in lines 1-2 of the claim. In the state of the art, transitory signals are commonplace as a medium for transmitting computer instructions and thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of a “computer-readable storage medium” covers transitory medium such as “a signal” per se. A transitory signal does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matters. The phrase “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is suggested.
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) 1-5, 7-10, 12, 13, and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grokop (US-2016/0212532).
Regarding claim 1, Grokop discloses a computer-implemented method (see Figs. 4A-6) comprising: generating a sound output corresponding to an audio signal (speaker 175); emitting the sound output from a speaker port (175) defined in a housing (100) of a computing device (see Fig. 4A); receiving first sensor data that corresponds to the sound output from at least one first sensor (see Figs. 3, para [0014], [0026]-[0029]); determining, based on the first sensor data, a physical blockage of the speaker port (see para [0042]-[0046]; receiving second sensor data from at least one second sensor; determining, based on the second sensor data, a cause of the determined physical blockage of the speaker port (see Fig. 3, para [0014], [0026]-[0029], [0042]-[0046]); and in response to determining the cause of the physical blockage of the speaker port, causing the computing device to perform one or more actions to mitigate audio distortion of the sound output from the speaker port (see para [0034]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 2, see Figs. 4A-6, where a user is causing the physical blockage of the speaker port 175 by different placements of the computing device 100.
Regarding claims 3-4, and 7-9, see microphone 165, accelerometer 140, and para [0027], [0028].
Regarding claims 5 and 12, see speaker 175 and Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 10, see Fig. 6 and para [0045], [0046], where the computing device is being detected by a user’s handheld or on-body activity.
Regarding claim 13, see Fig. 2 and para [0022]-[0025].
Regarding claim 16, see Fig. 6 and para [0045], [0046], where the computing device is being detected for blocked or not blocked by a user’s handheld or body.
Regarding claim 17, see para [0022].
Regarding claim 18, see Fig. 3 and para [0038].
Regarding claim 19, see Fig. 1, display 120.
Regarding claim 20, see para [0053], wherein the at least sensed signals by the first sensor may be represented by voltage and current signals.
Apparatus claim 21 and CRM claim 22 are rejected for the same reasoning as set forth for the rejection of method claim 1, since the implementation of the method of claim 1 into the apparatus claim and the CRM claim would have performed the same functions as the method claim.
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(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grokop.
Regarding claim 6, Grokop discloses the computer-implemented method for the computer device as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Grokop does not disclose the method is further comprising inserting a non-audible tone signal into the audio signal to generate the sound output.
Grokop discloses in para [0053] that the information and signals may be represented by different types of signals such as the non-audible voltages, currents, electromagnetic waves, magnetic fields or particles, optical fields or particles, which is including non-audible tone or signal. It would have been considered an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a non-audible tone for the method of claim 1 to implement a more proper and desired calibration of the computing device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu, Luke et al, Yan, Kimbrell, Tong et al, Franklin et al, Qi et al, and Chen et al disclose various audio devices and apparatus having sound port blockage detection and sound outputs control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XU MEI whose telephone number is (571)272-7523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10-6:30 est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached on 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XU MEI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695 09/28/2026
