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 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) 1, 4, 6-8, 12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2016/0202224 A1 to Lloyd in view of US Patent Pub No 2019/0124434 A1 to Hiipakka.
As to claim 1, Lloyd discloses an electronic device, comprising: a housing having an opening (port 424, see figures 4A-4B; pg. 6, ¶ 0059); a speaker disposed within the housing and having an output port aligned with the opening in the housing (speaker 210/402, see figures 2A-4B; pg. 4, ¶ 0039 - ¶ 0040; pg. 6, ¶ 0057); an airflow sensor disposed in an airflow path that includes the output port and the opening (air sensor 430, see figure 4A; pg. 6, ¶ 0060), wherein the speaker comprises: a front volume; a back volume; a structure separating the front volume and the back volume (volumes separated by structure 422, see figures 4A-4B; pg. 4, ¶ 0040; pg. 6, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0062); speaker circuitry disposed in the back volume (substrate 205/305, see figures 2A-4B; pg. 4, ¶ 0039); and a conductive trace coupled to the speaker circuitry and having a first portion disposed in the back volume and running in parallel to a first side of the structure that separates the front volume and the back volume (traces electrically coupling upper sensor to lower substrate(s), see figures 2A-4B; pg. 5, ¶ 0050; pg. 6, ¶ 0061, ¶ 0064).
Lloyd does not expressly disclose the conductive trace comprising a second portion disposed in the airflow path. However such a configuration is considered obvious depending on the type of air sensor being used (see pg. 4, ¶ 0042), as the use of air flow sensors comprising traces or wires are known in the art. For example, Hiipakka discloses a similar electronic device with a speaker, and further discloses the use of an airflow sensor positioned in a front volume of the speaker that includes the use of wires exposed to the airflow (see figure 2a; pg. 3, ¶ 0043). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being depending on the type of airflow sensor being selected for the device, and further as wire sensors such as a hot-wire anemometers are compact as the sensing element is comprised of wires, yet effective at detecting the airflow (Hiipakka pg. 3, ¶ 0043).
As to claim 4, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses further comprising an audio processor configured to: measure a velocity of an airflow through the airflow path based on resistive changes in the second portion of the conductive trace (Lloyd pg. 3, ¶ 0032; pg. 9, ¶ 0102; Hiipakka pg. 3, ¶ 0043); and adjust audio output of the speaker based on the measured velocity (Lloyd pg. 4, ¶ 0036; pg. 9, ¶ 0094 - ¶ 0099, ¶ 0102).
As to claim 6, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses wherein the airflow sensor is configured to measure an electrical property of the second portion of the conductive trace (Hiipakka pg. 3, ¶ 0043).
As to claim 7, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses wherein the electrical property comprises a resistance of the second portion of the conductive trace (Hiipakka pg. 3, ¶ 0043).
As to claim 8, Lloyd discloses a speaker (speaker 210/402, see figures 2A-4B; pg. 6, ¶ 0057), comprising: a front volume; a back volume; a structure separating the front volume and the back volume (volumes separated by structure 422, see figures 4A-4B; pg. 4, ¶ 0040; pg. 6, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0062); an audio output port (see figures 2A-4B); speaker circuitry disposed in the back volume (substrate 205/305, see figures 2A-4B; pg. 4, ¶ 0039); and a conductive trace coupled to the speaker circuitry and having a first portion disposed in the back volume and running in parallel to a first side of the structure that separates the front volume and the back volume (traces electrically coupling upper sensor to lower substrate(s), see figures 2A-4B; pg. 5, ¶ 0050; pg. 6, ¶ 0061, ¶ 0064).
Lloyd does not expressly disclose the conductive trace comprising a second portion disposed in an airflow path though the audio output port. However such a configuration is considered obvious depending on the type of air sensor being used in the airflow path of the speaker (see figure 4A; pg. 4, ¶ 0042; pg. 6, ¶ 0060), as the use of air flow sensors comprising traces or wires are known in the art. For example, Hiipakka discloses a similar electronic device with a speaker, and further discloses the use of an airflow sensor positioned in a front volume of the speaker that includes the use of wires exposed to the airflow (see figure 2a; pg. 3, ¶ 0043). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being depending on the type of airflow sensor being selected for the device, and further as wire sensors such as a hot-wire anemometers are compact as the sensing element is comprised of wires, yet effective at detecting the airflow (Hiipakka pg. 3, ¶ 0043).
As to claim 12, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses wherein the speaker is configured to adjust an audio output of the speaker based on a velocity of airflow through the airflow path, the velocity measured based on a resistive change in the second portion of the conductive trace (Lloyd pg. 4, ¶ 0036; pg. 9, ¶ 0094 - ¶ 0099, ¶ 0102; Hiipakka pg. 3, ¶ 0043).
As to claim 14, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses wherein the conductive trace is configured to conduct a control signal to the speaker circuitry from device circuitry of an electronic device (Lloyd figure 1; pg. 3, ¶ 0031, ¶ 0033; pg. 9, ¶ 0102).
As to claim 15, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses wherein the conductive trace is configured to conduct a control signal from the speaker circuitry to a voice coil of the speaker (Lloyd voice coil as inherent feature of cone speaker, see figures 2A-4B; pg. 4, ¶ 0039 - ¶ 0040; pg. 9, ¶ 0102).
As to claim 16, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses wherein the conductive trace is configured to conduct a control signal to a voice coil of the speaker from device circuitry of an electronic device (Lloyd voice coil as inherent feature of cone speaker, see figures 2A-4B; pg. 4, ¶ 0039 - ¶ 0040; pg. 9, ¶ 0102).
As to claim 17, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses wherein the second portion of the conductive trace is spaced apart from a second side of the structure, to allow airflow over and under the second portion of the conductive trace (Lloyd figure 4A; Hiipakka figure 2a; pg. 3, ¶ 0043).
As to claim 18, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses wherein the second portion of the conductive trace runs along a second side of the structure, in contact with the second side of the structure (Lloyd figure 4A; pg. 5, ¶ 0047; pg. 6, ¶ 0060).
As to claim 19, Lloyd discloses a method, comprising: operating a speaker to generate an audio output; measuring airflow in an airflow path of the speaker (see figures 2A-4B; pg. 4, ¶ 0037, ¶ 0042; pg. 6, ¶ 0060), with an airflow sensor comprising a first portion of a conductive trace that includes a second portion disposed in a back volume of the speaker (traces electrically coupling sensor to the speaker, see figures 2A-4B; pg. 4, ¶ 0042; pg. 5, ¶ 0045, ¶ 0050; pg. 6, ¶ 0061, ¶ 0064); and modifying the audio output of the speaker, based on the airflow, to reduce the airflow by an amount that depends on the audio output generated by the speaker (see pg. 9, ¶ 0094 - ¶ 0099, ¶ 0102).
Lloyd does not expressly disclose the conductive trace first portion being disposed in the airflow path. However such a configuration is considered obvious depending on the type of air sensor being used in the airflow path of the speaker (see figure 4A; pg. 4, ¶ 0042; pg. 6, ¶ 0060), as the use of air flow sensors comprising traces or wires are known in the art. For example, Hiipakka discloses a similar electronic device with a speaker, and further discloses the use of an airflow sensor positioned in a front volume of the speaker that includes the use of wires exposed to the airflow (see figure 2a; pg. 3, ¶ 0043). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being depending on the type of airflow sensor being selected for the device, and further as wire sensors such as a hot-wire anemometers are compact as the sensing element is comprised of wires, yet effective at detecting the airflow (Hiipakka pg. 3, ¶ 0043).
As to claim 20, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses wherein the speaker comprises a speaker of an electronic device having a housing with an opening through which the airflow is configured to flow (Lloyd figure 4A; pg. 6, ¶ 0057, ¶ 0059; Hiipakka figure 2a).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd in view of Hiipakka and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2010/0052082 A1 to Lee et al. (“Lee”).
As to claim 2, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka discloses the electronic device of claim 1.
Lloyd in view of Hiipakka does not expressly disclose wherein the conductive trace comprises a third portion that passes through the structure from the back volume to the front volume at a first location. However it does disclose the structure being a printed circuit board material electrically coupled to the substrate and the sensor (Lloyd figures 2A-4B; pg. 2, ¶ 0020; pg. 4, ¶ 0040; pg. 5, ¶ 0047). Having a conductive trace passing through the structure from the back volume to the front volume at a first location is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Lloyd in view of Hiipakka, and further as such a configuration is known in the art of circuit board elements. For example as taught by Lee, which discloses a MEMS package device, and further discloses the use of connection vias passing through the structure to provide an electrical connection (see figures 2-7; pg. 4, ¶ 0079; pg. 5, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0084). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide an electrical connection between spaces or volumes that are separated by a structure, as already taught by Lloyd in view of Hiipakka, and doing so via an interconnecting element in the structure itself (Lee figures 2-7; pg. 4, ¶ 0079; pg. 5, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0084).
As to claim 3, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka and Lee further discloses wherein the conductive trace further comprises a fourth portion that passes through the structure from the back volume to the front volume at a second location (Lee figures 5-6).
As to claim 9, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka and Lee further discloses wherein the conductive trace comprises a third portion that passes through the structure from the back volume to the front volume at a first location (Lee figures 2-7; pg. 4, ¶ 0079; pg. 5, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0084).
As to claim 10, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka and Lee further discloses wherein the conductive trace further comprises a fourth portion that passes through the structure from the back volume to the front volume at a second location (Lee figures 5-6).
As to claim 11, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka and Lee further discloses wherein the third portion and the fourth portion each comprise a conductive via extending through the structure to conductively couple the first portion to the second portion (Lee figures 5-6; pg. 4, ¶ 0079; pg. 5, ¶ 0082 - ¶ 0083).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd in view of Hiipakka and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2004/0101153 A1 to Grudin et al. (“Grudin”).
As to claim 5, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka discloses the electronic device of claim 1.
Lloyd in view of Hiipakka further discloses further comprising one or more processors configured to modify an output of the speaker (Lloyd pg. 3, ¶ 0031, ¶ 0034; pg. 9, ¶ 0102), and further discloses the audio profiles for sensor measurements can include audible and inaudible signals (Lloyd pg. 9, ¶ 0094 - ¶ 0095), but does not expressly disclose the modification being responsive to a determination that an airflow, measured by the airflow sensor and generated by the speaker, is above an airflow threshold.
Grudin discloses a similar speaker with flow sensing element (see figures 2, 7 and 15; pg. 5, ¶ 0068), and further discloses wherein the speaker output is modified based on the sensor signal when compared to a reference signal (see figure 15; pg. 5, ¶ 0071).
Lloyd in view of Hiipakka and Grudin are analogous art because they are drawn to devices with flow sensing elements.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the comparison and subsequent modification of a speaker output as taught by Grudin in the device as taught by Lloyd in view of Hiipakka. The motivation being to reduce distortions in the audible frequencies output by the speaker, particularly when amplitudes at certain frequencies are great (Grudin pg. 1, ¶ 0007; pg. 5, ¶ 0071).
As to claim 13, Lloyd in view of Hiipakka and Grudin further discloses wherein the speaker is configured to modify an output of the speaker responsive to a determination that an airflow, measured by an airflow sensor including the second portion of the conductive trace and generated by the speaker, is above an airflow threshold (Lloyd pg. 3, ¶ 0031, ¶ 0034; pg. 9, ¶ 0102; Hiipakka pg. 3, ¶ 0043; Grudin pg. 5, ¶ 0071).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights