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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lueg (US 2043416).
Regarding claim 1, Lueg teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising: an actuator configured to control vibration of a control target (loudspeaker L, pg 1, right hand column, ln 47 – pg 2, ln 10, left hand column, fig 1); and a vibration control circuit (amplifier E, pg 1, right hand column, ln 47 – pg 2, ln 10, left hand column, fig 1) including a vibration band extraction circuit (wires extract vibration band signals, fig 1), wherein the vibration control circuit is configured to: receive an output signal from a sensor (output signal from microphone M, pg 1, right hand column, ln 47 – pg 2, ln 10, left hand column, fig 1), wherein the sensor detects the vibration of the control target and outputs the output signal based on the detected vibration (pg 1, right hand column, ln 47 – pg 2, ln 10, left hand column, fig 1); extract a vibration frequency band component of the control target from the output of the sensor (conductors connected to sensor extra the vibration frequency band component form sensor, fig 1); generate, based on the extracted vibration frequency band component, a drive signal for the actuator for the control of the vibration (transmitted electrically with assistance of the amplifier E to the loudspeaker, pg 1, right hand column, ln 47 – pg 2, ln 10, left hand column, fig 1); and output the generated drive signal to the actuator (transmitted electrically with assistance of the amplifier E to the loudspeaker, pg 1, right hand column, ln 47 – pg 2, ln 10, left hand column, fig 1).
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) 2, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lueg and Shinno (US 20180286378).
Regasrding claim 2, Lueg teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Althouhg Lueg does not teach wherein the sensor includes an acceleration sensor, and the output signal of the sensor includes an acceleration signal, Shinno teaches an acceleration sensor for noise cancelation (Shinno, [0006], [0015]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement in Lueg since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Regarding claim 7, Lueg teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Although Lueg does not teach further comprising a portable housing attachable to the control target, Shinno teaches noise cancelation assembly attached toa car (Shinno, fig 1) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement in Lueg since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Regarding claim 9, Lueg teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Although Lueg does not teach further comprising a housing mountable on the control target, wherein the control target corresponds to a movable body, Shinno teaches a noise canceler on a car (Shinno, [0015], fig 1A) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement in Lueg since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lueg and Itabashi (US 20180233124).
Regarding claim 3, Lueg teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1
Although Lueg does not teach wherein a gain of the drive signal increases based on data indicating an abnormality of a remote apparatus, Itabashi teaches increasing a gain in a route containing a small peak or dip in a noise reduction device (Itabashi, [0072]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement in Lueg since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lueg and Itabashi, and Pan (US 20140153731).
Regarding claim 4, Lueg and Itabashi teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 3.
Although Lueg and Itabashi do not teach wherein the data indicating the abnormality includes data indicating at least one of an abnormal temperature of the actuator, an excessive amplitude of the actuator, an abnormality of the sensor, or a low battery level, Pan teaches increasing microphone sensitivity (i.e. gain) due to a rise in temperature in a noise cancelation device (Pan, [0023]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement in Lueg since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lueg and Pan.
Regarding claim 5, Lueg teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Although Lueg does not teach wherein a gain of the drive signal decreases based on at least one of an abnormal temperature of the actuator or an excessive amplitude of the actuator Pan teaches, when the ambient temperature is below room temperature, a microphone sensitivity can be reduced, resulting in a lessened responsiveness of the adaptive filter 16 (Pan, [0023]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement in Lueg since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lueg and Reis (US 10110463).
Regarding claim 6, Lueg teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Although Lueg does not teach wherein a local apparatus is turned off based on at least one of an abnormality of the sensor or a low battery level of the local apparatus, Reis teaches monitoring for a low battery and turning off an electronic device when it is low (Reis, claim 6) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement in Lueg since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lueg and Plummer (US 20180130455).
Regarding claim 8, Lueg teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Altough Lueg does not teach further comprising a housing mountable on the control target, wherein the control target corresponds to a window, Plummer teaches a noise cancellation device attached to a fenestration/window (Plummer, [0010], fig 2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement in Lueg since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lueg does not describe a circuit configured to extra a vibration frequency band component; however, vibration frequency band component is a broad concept and the audible band of audio signal (20 Hz – 20 kHz) falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation and, accordingly, Lueg is interpreted as teaching the vague concept of an audio signal of some undefined frequency band.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kile Blair whose telephone number is (571)270-3544. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/KILE O BLAIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights