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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573,220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc. 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea LarkBoats, Inc. et al.,175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By initialing the accompanying 1449 forms, examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
The information disclosure statements fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent or reference listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 4-6 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.
Regarding claim 4 the term “finding points in the amplitude modulation where a change in amplitude induced by the phase changes substantially mimics a portion of the acoustic signal undergoing amplitude modulation” is unclear regarding claim limitations. It can mean that the amplitude modulation does not change much meaning there is a threshold amount of amplitude modulation. It can mean it any point that is modulated may be equal to any other arbitrarily chosen point in the signal. It can mean that there is no change in the signal after amplitude modulation. A person of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim limitation in order to avoid infringement as they cannot determine what the phrase means.
The terms “substantia” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “substantia” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It can mean any arbitrarily chosen amount or threshold by a person of ordinary skill in the art and the term does not make clear the metes and bounds of the claim limitation in order to avoid infringement..
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the minimum portion" in claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US 11,467,536 B2) in view of McMahon (US 2021/0275056 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Xie teaches removing a substantial source of noise in an acoustic signal undergoing amplitude modulation generated by a transducer by[Intended use not much patentable weight]:
a. adding phase changes to alter the acoustic signal undergoing amplitude modulation[abstract, claim 1 has phase change and amplitude modulation in sound wave];
and b. finding points in the amplitude modulation where a change in amplitude induced by the phase changes substantially mimics a portion of the acoustic signal undergoing amplitude modulation. [abstract, claim 1 has phase change and amplitude modulation in sound wave to get change to desired levels or threshold]
While Xie implies, but does not explicitly teach removing a substantial source of noise in an acoustic signal undergoing amplitude modulation generated by a transducer.
McMahon teaches removing a substantial source of noise in an acoustic signal undergoing amplitude modulation generated by a transducer by[0167 has amplitude modulation and phase change in signal with adjusting for noise]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified amplitude modulation method in Xie with the noise removal of McMahon in order to filter or optimize signals to have a threshold or reduce noise. Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have thresholds or to filter or optimize signals to reduce noise, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, Xie, as modified, teaches wherein the phase changes are separately detectable. [abstract, claim 1 has phase change and amplitude modulation in sound wave to get change to desired levels meaning it is detectable]
Regarding claim 6, Xie, as modified, teaches wherein one of the phase changes is added before the minimum portion of the acoustic signal.[abstract, claim 1 has phase change and amplitude modulation in sound wave to get change to desired levels or threshold; See also fig 5 for various criteria meaning thresholds to limits].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (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 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights