DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Benefit of an Earlier Filing
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Foreign Application No. (DE) 10 2023 209 881.4 filed on 10th October, 2023.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV, Claim(s) 15-28 as illustrated in Figure(s) 4 in the reply filed on 4/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORR (EP 1750423 B1) in view of FU (US 2011/0303011 A1).
Referring to Claim 15, ORR teaches a system for structure-borne sound communication within the system ([0005]-[0008]: The devices are placed in physical contact either directly or through an intermediate medium, vibrations are generated in one device and transferred to the other, where they are detected and demodulated) , the system comprising:
a first electronic device ([0007]: The system includes a first device and a second device); and
a second electronic device ([0007]: The system includes a first device and a second device); and a second electronic device);
wherein the first electronic device includes at least a first processing unit ([0007]; [0040]: The first device and second device each include a processor housed within the main body, and identifies processors 38a and 38b in devices 10a and 10b) and a first structure-borne sound actuator ([0032]; [0035]; [0040]-[0043]: vibrator drivers 70a and vibrators 72a in first device 10a […] vibrator 72a generates vibrations that propagate through the casing of the first device), wherein the first processing unit is configured to emit a first structure-borne sound signal using the first structure-borne sound actuator ([0037]; [0042]-[0043]; [0061]-[0063]: processors 38a generating/modulating the drive signal, supplying it to vibrator driver 70a, and activating vibrator 72a so that vibrations propagate through the casing of the first device), and wherein the second electronic device includes at least a second processing unit ([0007]; [0040]; [0043]: second device includes a processor housed within the main body, and identifies second processor 38b in second device 10b) and a second structure-borne sound sensor ([0032]-[00332]; [0035]; [0040]-[0043]: vibration sensor 64b in second device 10b. Sensor 64b may include an accelerometer or piezoelectric vibration sensor), wherein the second processing unit is configured to detect a structure-borne sound signal using the second structure-borne sound sensor ([0043]; [0065]-[0066]: vibration sensor 64b detecting vibrations transferred through the casing and converting the sensed vibrations into a digital signal received by the processor 38b. The processor then demodulates the signal).
ORR doesn’t explicitly teach depending on the detected structure-borne sound signal, to determine whether a mechanical connection is present between the first electronic device and the second electronic device.
FU teaches depending on the detected structure-borne sound signal, to determine whether a mechanical connection is present between the first electronic device and the second electronic device ([0013]-[0015]: coupling is characterized and the sensed response is indicative of the coupling characteristic; [0030]-[0031]: the sensor housing 106 response to the actuator vibration signal is indicative of a coupling characteristic and the vibration sensor 110 detects the response of the sensor housing 106 to the actuator vibration signal; [0035]; [0038]: response may be compared to a threshold and used to determine usability; [0047]: coupling indicative response is compared to a predetermined threshold to determine whether the vibration measurements are usable).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure-borne sound communication system disclosed in ORR with the coupling-characterization technique taught in FU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled the system to determine, from the detected vibration response, whether an adequate mechanical coupling is present between the communication devices, thereby improving the reliability of structure-borne signal transmission and detection as taught by FU ([0004]; [0013]-[0015]; [0030]-[0031] and [0047]).
Referring to Claim 16, ORR teaches the system according to claim 15, wherein the second processing unit is configured to determine that the mechanical connection is present ([0058]) if the detected structure- borne sound signal ([0065]) is substantially the emitted first structure-borne sound signal ([0043], [0065]-[0066]).
Referring to Claim 17, ORR teaches the system according to claim 15, wherein the first processing unit is configured to emit the first structure-borne sound signal ([0042]-[0043]; [0061]-[0063]) with at least one predetermined property including and/or a bit sequence ([0044]; [0051]; [0062]).
FU teaches with at least one predetermined property including a frequency range ([0036]) and/or an amplitude range ([0032]-[0035]; [0054]), wherein the second processing unit is configured to determine that the mechanical connection is present ([0015]; [0030]-[0031]; [0038]; [0047]) if the detected structure-borne sound signal substantially has the predetermined property of the emitted first structure-borne sound signal ([0032]-[0034]; [0037]) or only has a deviation in the predetermined property ([0030]; [0032]-[0034]; [0037]) that is less than a specified maximum deviation ([0035]; [0038]; [0047]; [0054]).
Referring to Claim 20, ORR teaches the system according to claim 15, wherein the first processing unit is configured to add information to the first structure-borne sound signal ([0037]; [0040]; [0047]: the vibration transfer module 62 may modulate a drive signal with an information signal, such that the information is encoded in the vibration drive signal, and thereby encoded in the vibrations […] processor 38amodulates the drive signal with information derived from stored information 90a before activating vibrator 72a), wherein the second processing unit is configured to evaluate the information of the detected first structure-borne sound signal ([0043]: sensor 64b detects the transferred vibrations and converts them into a digital data signal received by processor 38b, and processor 38b demodulates the digital data signal to obtain the encoded stored information 90a) upon detection of the first structure-borne sound signal ([0065]-[0066]: In step 216, data is gathered from the sensor in the receiving device regarding detected vibrations and produce a received signal that corresponds to the transmitted modulated drive signal; and then in step 218, the received signal (or the sampled received signal) is demodulated. Thus, evaluation of the information follows detection of the structure-borne vibration signal).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORR in view of FU as applied to Claim(s) 15 above; and further in view of SCHULTZ (US 6,434,084 B1).
Referring to Claim 18, ORR, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 15, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first processing unit and the second processing unit are configured to carry out channel equalization for the structure-borne sound communication using an adaptive filter.
SCHULTZ teaches wherein the first processing unit and the second processing unit are configured to carry out channel equalization (Col. 1, Ln. 5-18: mechanical tubular transmission channels; Col. 2, Ln. 18-38: adaptive equalization of the distorted acoustic signal) for the structure-borne sound communication (Col. 1, Ln. 5-18; Col. 7, Ln. 1-13: describes propagating stress waves through pipe of tubing as a mechanical transmission channel and later defines the acoustic channel and defines the acoustic channel as the physical relay path along which the stress-wave signal travels) using an adaptive filter (Col. 5, Ln.5-23: the distorted signal is sent to adaptive equalizer 48, which restores the signal toward its original clean form; adaptive equalizer may be a fuzzy filter, frequency domain filter, or neural net filter; Col. 7, Ln. 63-Col. 8, Ln. 8: the adaptive equalizer filters variable noise and distortion and constantly adjusts to optimally equalize a distorted acoustic signal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure-borne sound communication system disclosed in ORR with the adaptive channel-equalization technique taught in SCHULTZ with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have compensated for distortion, attenuation, and changing transmission conditions introduced by the mechanical acoustic transmission path, thereby improving recover of the transmitted structure borne signal, as taught by SCHULTZ (Col. 1, Ln. 1-30; Col. 7, Ln. 63-Col. 8, Ln. 8).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORR in view of FU as applied to Claim(s) 15 above; and further in view of TABATA (US 2016/0157285 A1).
Referring to Claim 19, ORR teaches the system according to claim 15, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first electronic device includes a motion sensor and/or an operating element, wherein the first processing unit is configured to detect a motion of the first electronic device using the motion sensor and to emit the first structure-borne sound signal if the motion is detected, and/or to detect an operating signal using the operating element and to emit the first structure-borne sound signal if the operating signal is detected.
TABATA teaches wherein the first electronic device includes a motion sensor and/or an operating element ([0038]; [0047]: the master terminal 100 comprises an operator 170, which is an operating element. Operator 170 may include a touch panel, a keyboard, a button, or a pointing device and conveys the received user operation to the processor 110), wherein the first processing unit is configured to detect a motion of the first electronic device using the motion sensor and to emit the first structure-borne sound signal if the motion is detected, and/or to detect an operating signal using the operating element ([0047]: The operator 170 receiving a user operation and conveys information regarding that operation to the to the processor 110) and to emit the first structure-borne sound signal if the operating signal is detected ([0092]; [0099]: the master terminal 100 starts the connection target detection process simultaneously with startup or in response to a user operation and then synchronization signal transmitter 111 transmits vibrations that are a synchronization signal to the slave terminal 200. Thus, detection of the user operation causes emission of the vibration signal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure-borne sound communication system disclosed in ORR with the operating-element-triggered vibration transmission taught in TABATA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled the structure-bourne communication process to be intentionally initiated in response to a user operation received through an operation received through an operating element, thereby permitting controlled initiation of the vibration-based connection process, as taught by TABATA ([0047]; [0099]).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORR in view of FU as applied to Claim(s) 15 above; and further in view of TABATA in view of GANTMAN (US 2004/0133789 A1).
Referring to Claim 21, ORR teaches the system according to claim 15, but doesn’t explicitly teach a specified password is stored in the first electronic device and in the second electronic device in each case, wherein, in addition, a public key of a key pair is stored in the first electronic device and a private key of the key pair is stored in the second electronic device, the first processing unit is configured to encrypt the specified password with the public key of the key pair and to add the encrypted password as information to the first structure-borne sound signal, the second processing unit is configured, upon detection of the first structure- borne sound signal, to decrypt the encrypted password with the private key of the key pair and to compare the decrypted password to the password specified in the second electronic device, and the second processing unit is configured to unlock the second electronic device if the decrypted password and the specified password match.
TABATA teaches a specified password is stored in the first electronic device and in the second electronic device in each case ([0117]), wherein, in addition, a public key of a key pair is stored in the first electronic device and a private key of the key pair is stored in the second electronic device ([0118]),
the first processing unit is configured to encrypt the specified password with the public key of the key pair ([0118]) and to add the encrypted password as information to the first structure-borne sound signal ([0091]; [0118]),
the second processing unit is configured, upon detection of the first structure- borne sound signal, to decrypt the encrypted password with the private key of the key pair ([0118]) and to compare the decrypted password to the password specified in the second electronic device ([0118]).
GANTMAN teaches to compare the decrypted password to the password specified in the second electronic device ([0023]; [0057]), and
the second processing unit is configured to unlock the second electronic device if the decrypted password and the specified password match ([0048]; [0054]; [0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure-borne sound communication system disclosed in ORR with the public-key encrypted password transmission taught in TABATA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled authentication information to be securely transmitted over the vibration-based communication path while reducing risk that the PIN or password would become known to a third party, as taught by TABATA ([0117]; [0118]). And further with the password verification and access-control technique taught in GANTMAN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled the receiving device to verify the recovered password against stored authentication information and grant access only when authentication information is successfully verified, thereby preventing unauthorized access, as taught by GANTMAN ([0011]-[0015]; [0048]; [0057]-[0058]).
Referring to Claim 23, ORR teaches the system according to claim 15, wherein: but doesn’t explicitly teach the first electronic device includes a first structure-borne sound sensor, and the second electronic device includes a second structure-borne sound actuator, a public key of a key pair is stored in the first electronic device and a private key of the key pair is stored in the second electronic device, the second processing unit is configured, after determining that a mechanical connection is present between the first device and the second device, to generate a random bit sequence and to emit using the second structure-borne sound actuator a second structure-borne sound signal, to which the generated random bit sequence has been added as information, the first processing unit is configured to detect the second structure-borne sound signal using the first structure-borne sound sensor, to encrypt with the public key the bit sequence contained in the second structure-borne sound signal, and to emit using the first structure-borne sound actuator a third structure-borne sound signal, to which the encrypted bit sequence has been added as information, the second processing unit is configured to detect the third structure-borne sound signal using the second structure-borne sound sensor, and to decrypt the encrypted bit sequence with the private key of the key pair, and to compare the decrypted bit sequence to the generated random bit sequence, the second processing unit is configured to unlock the second electronic device if the decrypted bit sequence and the generated random bit sequence match.
TABATA teaches the first electronic device includes a first structure-borne sound sensor, and the second electronic device includes a second structure-borne sound actuator ([0092]; [0096]; [0112]),
a public key of a key pair is stored in the first electronic device and a private key of the key pair is stored in the second electronic device ([0118]),
the first processing unit is configured to detect the second structure-borne sound signal using the first structure-borne sound sensor ([0096]), to encrypt with the public key the bit sequence contained in the second structure-borne sound signal ([0118]), and to emit using the first structure-borne sound actuator a third structure-borne sound signal, to which the encrypted bit sequence has been added as information ([0092]; [0118]),
the second processing unit is configured to detect the third structure-borne sound signal using the second structure-borne sound sensor ([0092]; [0094]), and to decrypt the encrypted bit sequence with the private key of the key pair ([0018]),
GANTMAN teaches the second processing unit is configured, after determining that a mechanical connection is present between the first device and the second device, to generate a random bit sequence ([0050]-[0052]) and to emit using the second structure-borne sound actuator a second structure-borne sound signal, to which the generated random bit sequence has been added as information ([0038]; [0052]),
and to compare the decrypted bit sequence to the generated random bit sequence ([0051]-[0054]), the second processing unit is configured to unlock the second electronic device if the decrypted bit sequence and the generated random bit sequence match ([0048]; [0054]: the recovered access code is verified and access signal is granted if the access code is verified).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORR in view of FU in view of TABATA in view of GANTMAN as applied to Claim(s) 21 above; and further in view of KINNEY (US 2019/0158295 A1).
Referring to Claim 22, ORR, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 21, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein: the first processing unit is configured to add a first, current time stamp as information to the first structure-borne sound signal, the second processing unit is configured to compare the received first time stamp to a second, current time stamp upon detection of the first structure-borne sound signal, and the second processing unit is configured to unlock the second electronic device if, in addition, a difference between the first time stamp and the second time stamp is less than a specified threshold value.
KINNEY the first processing unit is configured to add a first, current time stamp as information to the first structure-borne sound signal ([0021]),
the second processing unit is configured to compare the received first time stamp to a second, current time stamp upon detection of the first structure-borne sound signal ([0055]: block 806, the processor 110 determines if the timestamp corresponding to the transmission time of the request signature and the time that the request signature was received at the authentication system 102 are close enough together to continue the authentication process), and
the second processing unit is configured to unlock the second electronic device if, in addition, a difference between the first time stamp and the second time stamp is less than a specified threshold value ([0055]: specified threshold (e.g., 20 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute) to determine if the delay is within a threshold window of time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure-borne sound communication system disclosed in ORR with the timestamp-based authentication technique taught in KINNEY with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled the receiving device to determine whether an authentication was received with an acceptable time interval by comparing the transmitted timestamp with the receipt time and permitting authentication to process only when the resulting delay is within a predetermined threshold, thereby preventing stale or excessively delayed authentication requests from being accepted, as taught by KINNEY (Abstract; [0055]; [0056]).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORR in view of FU in view of TABATA in view of GANTMAN as applied to Claim(s) 23 above; and further in view of KINNEY.
Referring to Claim 24, ORR teaches the system according to claim 23, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein: the first processing unit is configured to additionally add a first, current time stamp as information to the third structure-borne sound signal, the second processing unit is configured to additionally compare the received first time stamp to a second, current time stamp, and the second processing unit is configured to unlock the second electronic device if, in addition, a difference between the first time stamp and the second time stamp is less than a specified threshold value.
KINNEY teaches the first processing unit is configured to additionally add a first, current time stamp as information to the third structure-borne sound signal ([0021]; [0052]: the timestamp corresponds to the time the request is transmitted),
the second processing unit is configured to additionally compare the received first time stamp to a second, current time stamp ([0055]), and
the second processing unit is configured to unlock the second electronic device if, in addition, a difference between the first time stamp and the second time stamp is less than a specified threshold value ([0055]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure-borne sound communication system disclosed in ORR with the timestamp-based authentication technique taught in KINNEY with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled the receiving device to determine whether an authentication was received with an acceptable time interval by comparing the transmitted timestamp with the receipt time and permitting authentication to process only when the resulting delay is within a predetermined threshold, thereby preventing stale or excessively delayed authentication requests from being accepted, as taught by KINNEY (Abstract; [0055]; [0056]).
Claim(s) 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORR in view of FU as applied to Claim(s) 15 above; and further in view of CEN (US 2015/0081257 A1).
Referring to Claim 25, ORR teaches the system according to claim 15, wherein:
the first electronic device includes a first radio module, and the second electronic device includes a second radio module ([0028]; [0030]; [0038]-[0040]),
the first processing unit is configured to add a coupling request and a radio module address of the first radio module as information to the first structure-borne sound signal ([0037]-[0038]),
the second processing unit is configured, upon detection of the first structure- borne sound signal, to recognize the coupling request ([0043]), to emit to the radio module address of the first radio module using the second radio module a first radio signal which contains a coupling request as information ([0028]; [0030]),
the first processing unit is configured to detect the first radio signal using the first radio module ([0028]; [0030]), and, depending on the first radio signal, to calculate a first pairing key ([0031]) and to emit using the first structure-borne sound actuator a second structure-borne sound signal, to which the first pairing key has been added as information ([0038]-[0040]),
the second processing unit is configured to detect the second structure-borne sound signal ([0043]).
ORR doesn’t explicitly teach and also to calculate a second pairing key, and, upon detection of the second structure-borne sound signal, to compare the first pairing key to the second pairing key and, if they match, to emit, using the second radio module, a second radio signal, which confirms the coupling request of the first electronic device.
CEN teaches and also to calculate a second pairing key ([0015]; [0021]),
and, upon detection of the second structure-borne sound signal, to compare the first pairing key to the second pairing key ([0016]; [0022]) and, if they match, to emit, using the second radio module, a second radio signal, which confirms the coupling request of the first electronic device ([0021]-[0022]; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure-borne sound communication system disclosed in ORR with the device-addressed pairing-request and pairing key technique taught in CEN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled the system to identify the intended device by its device address, validate the pairing information, and establish and confirm a trusted communication channel only successful validation, thereby improving the security and reliability of device-specific pairing, as taught by CEN ([0015]-[0016]; [0021]-[0023]).
Referring to Claim 26, ORR teaches the system according to claim 15, wherein:
the first electronic device includes a first structure-borne sound sensor and a first radio module, and the second electronic device includes a second structure-borne sound actuator and a second radio module ([0028]; [0038]-[0040]),
the first processing unit is configured to add a first coupling request as information to the first structure-borne sound signal ([0037]-[0038]),
the second processing unit is configured, upon detection of the first structure- borne sound signal, to recognize the first coupling request ([0043]) and, depending thereon, to emit using the second structure-borne sound actuator a second structure-borne sound signal, which contains a radio module address of the second radio module as information ([0038]-[0040]),
the first processing unit is configured to detect the second structure-borne sound signal using the first structure-borne sound sensor ([0040]; [0043]) and, upon detection of the second structure-borne sound signal, to emit to the radio module address of the second radio module using the first radio module a first radio signal, which contains a second coupling request as information ([0028]; [0038]), and to emit using the first structure-borne sound actuator a third structure-borne sound signal, which contains the first pairing key as information ([0031]; [0038]-[0040]), and
the second processing unit is configured to detect the first radio signal using the second radio module ([0028]; [0030]) and, depending on the first radio signal, to calculate a second pairing key ([0031]) and to detect the third structure-borne sound signal ([0043]).
ORR doesn’t explicitly teach and also to calculate a first pairing key, and, upon detection of the third structure-borne sound signal to compare the first pairing key to the second pairing key and, if they match, to emit using the second radio module a second radio signal, which confirms the second coupling request of the first electronic device.
CEN teaches and also to calculate a first pairing key ([0015]),
and, upon detection of the third structure-borne sound signal to compare the first pairing key to the second pairing key ([0016]; [0022]) and, if they match, to emit using the second radio module a second radio signal, which confirms the second coupling request of the first electronic device ([0021]-[0022]; [0027]).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORR in view of FU as applied to Claim(s) 15 above; and further in view of RECIO (WO 2020/263270 A1).
Referring to Claim 27, ORR teaches the system according to claim 15, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first processing unit and/or the second processing unit are configured to use a convolutional code or block code in the structure-borne sound communication; although, ORR does supply the claimed structure-borne/vibratory communication (see [0037]-[0043]).
RECIO teaches wherein the first processing unit and/or the second processing unit are configured to use a convolutional code or block code (Pg. 9, [0033]- Pg. 10, [0034]) in the structure-borne sound communication (Pg. 7, [0027]; Pg. 9, [0033]- Pg. 10, [0034]; Pg. 11, [0040]- Pg. 12, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure-borne sound communication system disclosed in ORR with the forward-error-correction coding technique taught in RECIO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled the structure-borne communication data to be encoded using block coding or convolution coding such that the original message could still be recovered when portions of the transmitted encoded data were lost or corrupted due to noise or frequency fading, thereby improving reliability of the acoustic communication, as taught by RECIO ([0033]-[0034]).
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORR in view of FU as applied to Claim(s) 15 above; and further in view of SZETO (US 2020/0025965 A1).
Referring to Claim 28, ORR teaches the system according to claim 15 but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the second processing unit is configured, after the determination of the mechanical connection, to detect a further structure- borne sound signal using the second structure-borne sound sensor and to compare the further structure-borne sound signal to a specified structure-borne sound signal, wherein the specified structure-borne sound signal is characteristic of a mechanical disconnection process of the first electronic device and the second electronic device, and to determine that the mechanical connection between the first electronic device and the second electronic device has been disconnected, if the further structure-borne sound signal and the specified structure-borne sound signal substantially match.
FU teaches wherein the second processing unit is configured, after the determination of the mechanical connection ([0015]]; [0030]-[0031]), and to compare the further structure-borne sound signal to a specified structure-borne sound signal ([0030]; [0032]-[0038]; [0047]), if the further structure-borne sound signal and the specified structure-borne sound signal substantially match ([0030]; [0037]-[0038]; [0047]).
SZETO teaches to detect a further structure-borne sound signal using the second structure-borne sound sensor ([0078]-[0081]), wherein the specified structure-borne sound signal is characteristic of a mechanical disconnection process of the first electronic device and the second electronic device ([0024]-[0025]; [0076]-[0081]; FIG’s 8A-8B), and to determine that the mechanical connection between the first electronic device and the second electronic device has been disconnected ([0002]; [0005]-[0008]; [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure-borne sound communication system disclosed in ORR with the mechanical connection/disconnection technique taught in SZETO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled the system to continue monitoring the vibration transmission path after establishment of the mechanical connection is lost based on the resulting vibration response, thereby providing reliable detection of a disconnected condition, as taught by SZETO ([0048], [0076]-[0081]; [0085]).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PHILLIPS, (US 2017/0198401 A1) teaches linear faraday induction generator for the generation of electrical power from ocean wave kinetic energy and arrangements thereof.
SKOMRA (US 2014/0357295 A1) teaches geospatial asset tracking systems, methods and apparatus for acquiring, manipulating and presenting telematic metadata.
YANG (US 2013/0158941 A1) teaches moving direction determination with noisy signals from inertial navigation systems on mobile devices.
PHILLIPS (US 2016/0252071 A1) teaches linear faraday induction generator for the generation of electrical power from ocean wave kinetic energy and arrangements thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights