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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
detection module in claim 12; and
audio adjustment module in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10-19 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 10 recites the limitation "the sound hole" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 18 disclose “the acoustic waveguide structure forms a physical barrier between the sound hole and exterior”. From the present claim language it is not clear what the term “the exterior” is referring to within the claim. Exterior to what? Due to the lack of clarity the claim is regarded as indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the sound hole" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 discloses “and transmitting the detected operation status to outside” in line 4. From the present claim language it is not clear what the term “outside” is referring to within the claim. Outside of what? Due to the lack of clarity the claim is regarded as indefinite.
Claim 12 discloses “and sends the first control signal to outside” in lines 8-9. From the present claim language it is not clear what the term “outside” is referring to within the claim. Outside of what? Due to the lack of clarity the claim is regarded as indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sound hole" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the sound hole" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19 recites the limitation "the sound hole" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pattikonda et al (US 11526034 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Pattikonda discloses an audio control method for controlling a wearable device (fig.1 #102), wherein the wearable device comprises an acoustic waveguide structure (fig.6-7 #180) configured to implement a sound focusing function (col.4 ln.38-67, col.5 ln.1-6; sliding foam tube #180 is an acoustic waveguide for focusing sound towards a user’s ear during a privacy mode).
The embodiment shown in figures 6 and 7 of Pattikonda does not disclose expressly wherein the audio control method comprises: acquiring an operation status of the acoustic waveguide structure, and generating a first control signal when the operation status of the acoustic waveguide structure is in an enabled state; and reducing a sound volume of a loudspeaker of the wearable device according to the first control signal.
Pattikonda discloses in the embodiment of figure 5, a wearable device comprising a speaker enclosure (fig.5 #170) configured to operate in a privacy mode when positioned towards an ear (fig.5 #150) of a user, and an audio control method comprising: acquiring an operation status of the speaker enclosure, and generating a first control signal when the operation status of the speaker enclosure is in an enabled state (col.4 ln.21-37; a sensor would detect the position of the speaker enclosure and generate control signal); and reducing a sound volume of a loudspeaker of the wearable device according to the first control signal (col.4 ln.21-37 a volume of the speaker would be automatically reduced when in the privacy mode, i.e. when the speaker enclosure is directed towards the ear).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to person of ordinary skill in the art to use the control signal generation and sound volume reduction of the embodiment of figure 5 of Pattikonda, in the embodiment of figures 6 and 7 of Pattikonda. The motivation for doing so would have been to automatically lower the sound volume when it is detected that the waveguide/sliding foam tube #180 is directed towards the ear of the user, thereby improving the listening experience in the privacy mode.
With respect to claim 10, Pattikonda discloses the audio control method of claim 1, wherein when the acoustic waveguide structure is in the enabled state, the acoustic waveguide structure forms a physical barrier between the sound hole (fig.3 #146/160; fig.6-7 #146) and exterior, and sound propagating around from a sound hole is gathered in a direction toward a user of the wearable device by physical barrier of the acoustic waveguide structure (col.3 ln.54-67, col.4 ln.1-6 slit #160 is a sound hole in speaker module #146) (col.4 ln.58-67, col.5 ln.1-6).
With respect to claim 12, Pattikonda discloses a wearable device (fig.1 #102) comprising:
an acoustic waveguide structure (fig.6-7 #180) configured to implement a sound focusing function (col.4 ln.38-67, col.5 ln.1-6; sliding foam tube #180 is an acoustic waveguide for focusing sound towards a user’s ear during a privacy mode);
a detection module (fig.1 #110; col.3 ln.21-23, “sensors”);
an audio adjustment module (fig.1 #104) configured to adjust a sound volume of a loudspeaker; and
a processor (fig.1 #104) configured to acquire the operation status of the acoustic waveguide structure.
The embodiment shown in figures 6 and 7 of Pattikonda does not disclose expressly wherein the detection module is configured to detect an operation status of the acoustic waveguide structure and transmit the detected operation status to outside; and wherein the processor generates a first control signal and sends the first control signal to outside when the acoustic waveguide structure is in an enabled state, and wherein the audio adjustment module acquires the first control signal and reduces the sound volume of the loudspeaker of the wearable device.
Pattikonda discloses in the embodiment of figure 5, a wearable device comprising a speaker enclosure (fig.5 #170) configured to operate in a privacy mode when positioned towards an ear (fig.5 #150) of a user, and an audio control method comprising: wherein the detection module is configured to detect an operation status of the speaker enclosure, and generating a first control signal when the operation status of the speaker enclosure is in an enabled state (col.4 ln.21-37; a sensor would detect the position of the speaker enclosure and generate control signal); and wherein the processor (#104) generates a first control signal and sends the first control signal to outside when the acoustic waveguide structure is in an enabled state, and wherein the audio adjustment module acquires the first control signal and reduces the sound volume of the loudspeaker of the wearable device (col.4 ln.21-37 a volume of the speaker would be automatically reduced when in the privacy mode, i.e. when the speaker enclosure is directed towards the ear).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to person of ordinary skill in the art to use the control signal generation and sound volume reduction of the embodiment of figure 5 of Pattikonda, in the embodiment of figures 6 and 7 of Pattikonda. The motivation for doing so would have been to automatically lower the sound volume when it is detected that the waveguide/sliding foam tube #180 is directed towards the ear of the user, thereby improving the listening experience in the privacy mode.
With respect to claim 13, Pattikonda discloses the wearable device of claim 12, wherein the wearable device is glasses (col.2 ln.10-17 “eyewear”).
With respect to claim 14, Pattikonda discloses the wearable device of claim 13, wherein the acoustic waveguide structure (fig.6-7 #180) is located on a housing (#142) of the wearable device at a side of the sound hole (fig.3 #146/160; fig.6-7 #146) away from a user of the wearable device (col.3 ln.54-67, col.4 ln.1-6 slit #160 is a sound hole in speaker module #146).
With respect to claim 15, Pattikonda discloses the wearable device of claim 13, wherein the acoustic waveguide structure comprises a movable baffle (fig.6-7 #180) which is straight or curved (col.4 ln.38-67; col.5 ln.1-6).
With respect to claim 16, Pattikonda discloses the wearable device of claim 13, wherein the baffle is stretched out from the housing when the acoustic waveguide structure is enabled, and is retracted into and accommodated in the housing when the acoustic waveguide structure is disabled (col.4 ln.38-67; col.5 ln.1-6 “retracted or parked position”; “extended position”).
With respect to claim 17, Pattikonda discloses the wearable device of claim 12, however does not disclose expressly wherein the detection module comprises a Hall sensor, and a magnetic element matching with the Hall sensor is disposed on the baffle of the acoustic waveguide structure.
Official Notice is taken that Hall sensors are well-known in the art for detecting proximities of magnetic elements. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a Hall sensor and magnetic element as the sensor in the detection module of Pattikonda. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a well-known sensor for detecting the position of the acoustic waveguide.
With respect to claim 18, Pattikonda discloses the wearable device of claim 13, wherein when the acoustic waveguide structure is in the enabled state, the acoustic waveguide structure forms a physical barrier between the sound hole and exterior, and sound propagating around from a sound hole is gathered in a direction toward a user of the wearable device by physical barrier of the acoustic waveguide structure (col.4 ln.58-67, col.5 ln.1-6).
With respect to claim 19, Pattikonda discloses the wearable device of claim 13, wherein when the acoustic waveguide structure is in the enabled state, the acoustic waveguide structure changes the propagation direction of the sound wave from the sound hole (fig.6A; col.4 ln.58-67, col.5 ln.1-6).
With respect to claim 20, Pattikonda discloses an electronic device comprising a memory configured to store computer programs and a processor configured to execute the computer programs to implement the audio control method of claim 1 (fig.1 #140; col.3 ln.13-39).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are 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.
Claim 11 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.
Porter et al (US 20240027795 A1) discloses smart glasses with acoustic channel.
Zhang et al (US 20210377645 A1) discloses an acoustic output apparatus with sound waveguide.
Ito et al (US 11109137 B2) discloses a headphone for attachment to glasses.
Monti et al (US 20190208301 A1) discloses an audio device with an acoustic valve for blocking or admitting ambient sounds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R KURR whose telephone number is (571)270-5981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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 (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 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.
JASON R. KURR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/JASON R KURR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights