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 .
EXAMINER’S COMMENTS
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdrawal of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/PatentForms. The form may be filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system using the document description Internet Communications Authorized to facilitate processing. If applicant authorizes Internet communications, USPTO employees may respond to email and initiate communications with applicants via email.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “wheire the control part” it should be “wherein the control part”.
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Claim 1 is recites the limitation "the fall" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is recites the limitation "the fall distance" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is recites the limitation "the sensing signal" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is recites the limitation "the calculated falling distance" in Line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is recites the limitation "the loss notification" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, the phrase "enclosed within parentheses" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. The following claim amendment is suggested: [Claim 7] The apparatus for preventing loss of wireless sound device of claim 3, wherein the control part, when calculating the falling distance, calculates the falling distance by a formula consisting of h = 1/2 x g x
t
2
,
wherein, h is the falling distance, g is the gravitational acceleration of 9.81, and t is the free fall time.
Claim 10 is recites the limitation "the current loss notification" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the parent claim does not recites “a current loss notification”.
Claims 2-6, 8-13 and 14 are rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 13 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saikawa et al (Hereinafter Saikawa) US-PG PUB No. 2024/0046773 in view of Komaba et al. (Hereinafter Komaba) JP 2015070402 (For examination purports English Machine Translation of Komaba would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 1, Saikawa teaches
An apparatus (Fig. 2 shows a communication system 11) for preventing loss of wireless sound device comprising (To give effective notice for preventing a wireless earphone from missing when it drops…..Abstract, Lines 1-10 as shown in Fig. 1):
a sensing part (Fig. 2 shows a drop event detection processing unit 112 detects the presence or absence of a drop event indicating that the earphone 32 has dropped on the basis of detection results of the proximity sensor 98 and the acceleration sensor 99.…..Para. [0085], Lines 1-5) sensing the fall of a wireless sound device (Fig. 1 shows an earphone EPL (i.e. 32L));
a communication part (Fig. 4 shows a communication control unit 111) communicating with at least one device (The communication control unit 111 controls the communication unit 115 to execute communication processing with another communication device.….Para. [0084], Lines 1-7);
a loss notification part (Fig. 4 shows a drop notification processing unit 114) outputting a loss notification of the wireless sound device (the drop notification processing unit 114 outputs sound indicating that the drop event of one earphone 32 is detected from the speaker constituting the output unit 93. …..Para. [0089], Lines 3-6; and
a control part (Fig. 2 shows a control unit 91) controlling the communication part and the loss notification part (The control unit 91 controlling communication control unit 111 and the drop notification processing unit 114 as shown in Fig. 4),
wherein the control part calculates the falling distance of the wireless sound device from the sensing signal of the sensing part, determines whether the wireless sound device is lost based on the calculated falling distance (when the drop position notification signal is transmitted from at least one of the earphones 32L and 32R in which the drop has been detected, the smartphone 31 specifies (estimates) a direction and a distance (position of earphones 32L and 32R) of the earphones 32L and 32R in which the drop has been detected on the basis of, for example, BLE AoD (Angle of Departure)…..Para. [0062], Lines 1-7), if the wireless sound device is lost, controls the loss notification part to output the loss notification (Each of the earphones 32L and 32R includes a sensor that detects a drop, and when detecting the drop, transmits a notification indicating that the drop is detected to the smartphone 31….Para. [0057], Lines 1-4).
Saikawa does not explicitly teach if movement of the wireless sound device is recognized from the sensing signal of the sensing part after the output of the loss notification, controls the loss notification part to stop outputting the loss notification.
Komaba teaches that after giving the notification, the controller 10 determines whether the smartphone 1 has been picked up based on the output detected by the acceleration sensor 15 (step S206). When the controller 10 detects that the smartphone 1 has been picked up as a result of the determination (step S206, Yes), the controller 10 stops outputting the alarm sound and ends the notification as shown in Fig. 4 and Pg. 8, Lines 8-12.
Saikawa and Komaba each disclose an apparatus for preventing loss of wireless sound device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the apparatus of Saikawa with the controller detects that the device has been picked up, the controller stops outputting the alarm sound and ends the notification, as taught by Komaba. The resulting combination would yield predictable results of provide the apparatus with a process for terminating the notification when is determined that the device is pick up.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Saikawa with the controller detects that the device has been picked up, the controller stops outputting the alarm sound and ends the notification, as taught by Komaba to yield the predictable result of terminating the loss notification when is determined that the device is pick up.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Saikawa and Komaba teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Saikawa teaches that the sensing part includes an acceleration sensor sensing changes in acceleration due to gravity (the acceleration sensor 99, for example, acceleration according to gravitational acceleration is obtained…..Para. [0160], Lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Saikawa and Komaba teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Saikawa teaches that the control part, when calculating the falling distance, if a sensing signal is received from the sensing part, identifies a free fall region from the sensing signal, obtains a free fall time corresponding to the identified free fall region, and calculates the falling distance of the wireless sound device based on the obtained free fall time (he drop event detection processing unit 112 determines whether or not the earphone 32 has dropped on the basis of the detection result of the acceleration sensor 99. More specifically, the drop event detection processing unit 112 determines whether or not the earphone 32 has dropped on the basis of whether or not a change is obtained such that, after time-series acceleration that is the detection result of the acceleration sensor 99, for example, acceleration according to gravitational acceleration is obtained, and after the earphone drops by about the height of a human, the earphone suddenly stops…..Para. [0160], Lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Saikawa and Komaba teach all the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above. Saikawa teaches that the control part, when identifying the free fall region, identifies the free fall region based on the acceleration change rate over time in the sensing signal (the drop event detection processing unit 112 determines whether or not the earphone 32 has dropped on the basis of whether or not a change is obtained such that, after time-series acceleration that is the detection result of the acceleration sensor 99, for example, acceleration according to gravitational acceleration is obtained, and after the earphone drops by about the height of a human, the earphone suddenly stops.…..Para. [0160], Lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Saikawa and Komaba teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Saikawa teaches that the control part, if the wireless sound device is determined to be lost, checks whether there is a device communicating with the communication part, and if there is a device communicating with the communication part, controls the communication part to transmit information on the loss situation of the wireless sound device to the device (In step S14, the drop event detection processing unit 112 of the earphone 32L controls the communication unit 95 to notify the smartphone 31 that the drop event of the earphone 32L has been detected…..Para. [0106], Lines 1-4).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 because the apparatus of claim 1 can performs the steps of claim 15.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saikawa in view of Komaba and further in view of Kim et al. (Hereinafter Kim) US-PG-PUB No. 2012/0157073.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Saikawa and Komaba teach all the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above.
The combination of Saikawa and Komaba do not explicitly teach that the control part, when calculating the falling distance, calculates the falling distance by a formula consisting of h = 1/2 x g x
t
2
(wherein, h is the falling distance, g is the gravitational acceleration of 9.81, and t is the free fall time).
Kim teaches calculating the falling distance, calculates the falling distance by a formula consisting of h = 1/2 x g x t^2 (wherein, h is the falling distance, g is the gravitational acceleration of 9.81, and t is the free fall time)….Para. [0147], Lines 1-8 as shown in Fig. 7.
The combination of Saikawa and Komaba and Kim each disclose calculating the falling distance of a device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the apparatus of the combination of Saikawa and Komaba with the formula, as taught by Kim. The resulting combination would yield predictable results of provide the apparatus with a control that determine the device is in a state of falling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of Saikawa and Komaba with the formula, as taught by Kim to yield the predictable result to automatically execute a predetermined function mapped to the determined falling state.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saikawa in view of Komaba and further in view of Ma CN 114157952 (For examination purports English Machine Translation of Ma would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Saikawa and Komaba teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
The combination of Saikawa and Komaba do not explicitly teach that the control part, when determining whether the wireless sound device is lost, if the falling distance is calculated, checks whether the calculated falling distance is a preset standard distance or more, and if the falling distance is the standard distance or more, determines the wireless sound device to be lost.
Ma teaches if the distance is greater than or equal to the distance set in advance, determining that the earphone is in the falling state…Pg. 5, Lines 34-39.
The combination of Saikawa and Komaba and Ma each disclose calculating the falling distance of a device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the apparatus of the combination of Saikawa and Komaba with the standard distance, as taught by Ma. The resulting combination would yield predictable results of provide the apparatus with a standard distance that determine the device is lost.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of Saikawa and Komaba with the standard distance, as taught by Ma to yield the predictable result to automatically determine whether the device is in a worn state or a falling state by a standard distance.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saikawa in view of Komaba and further in view of Uemoto et al. (Hereinafter Uemoto) JP 2020108125 (For examination purports English Machine Translation of Uemoto would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Saikawa and Komaba teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
The combination of Saikawa and Komaba do not explicitly teach that a microphone part receiving ambient noise, wherein the control part, if the wireless sound device is determined to be lost, calculates a noise level from ambient noise received by the microphone part, and controls the loss notification part to output a loss notification sound based on the noise level..
Uemoto teaches sound collection unit 20 collects, for example,
environmental sounds around the electronic device 1. The sound collection unit 20 can be realized by, for example, an ordinary microphone. The sound collecting unit 20 outputs, for example, the collected environmental sound to the ambient situation determining unit 110 as audio information.…Pg. 2, Lines 26-29. The voice control unit 162 may output a large voice when the ambient noise is relatively large, and may output a low voice when the ambient noise is relatively small. The voice control unit 162 may output a voice from the voice output unit 52 so as not to be drowned out by ambient noise, for example. In this case, the voice control unit 162 may output the voice in the low frequency band in an environment with a lot of noise in the high frequency band, and may output the voice in a high frequency band in an environment with a lot of noise in the low frequency band…..Pg. 6, Lines 10-15.
The combination of Saikawa and Komaba and Uemoto each disclose a loss notification output. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the apparatus of the combination of Saikawa and Komaba with the loss notification sound based on the noise level, as taught by Uemoto. The resulting combination would yield predictable results of provide the apparatus increase sound output when the ambient noise is relatively large.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of Saikawa and Komaba with the loss notification sound based on the noise level, as taught by Uemoto to yield the predictable result to automatically increase the sound output when the ambient noise is relatively large.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA M MCKINNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3321. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F. 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 Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7574. 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.
/ANGELICA M MCKINNEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights