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 .
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, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell (US20190289405) in view of Blore (US20210105557).
With respect to claim 1 Littrell discloses an acoustic device compri9sing:
A transducer (14);
An integrated circuit (see elements 16,18,12);
A substrate (22) coupled to the transducer and the integrated circuit and the substrate defines an acoustic pathway (24) from the transducer to the surrounding ambient environment; and
The production of an ultrasonic acoustic wave (see Littrell para 0008).
Littrell does not disclose the at least one attenuator formed in the substrate and acoustically coupled to the acoustic pathway to absorb an ultrasonic acoustic wave.
Blore discloses the presence an attenuator (see 410 in figure 4a) formed on the horn of a transducer to absorb a selected wave.
It would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blore to use an attenuator on the acoustic pathway with the substrate forming the acoustic pathway of Littrell, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to absorb an ultrasonic wave as the transducer of Littrell is disclosed to produce an ultrasonic wave.
With respect to claim 2 Littrell as modified further discloses wherein the attenuator comprises an open end coupled to the acoustic pathway that extends to a closed chamber (see again Blore figure 4a element 410).
With respect to claim 3 Littrell as modified further discloses wherein the attenuator comprises a length dimension smaller than the ultrasonic acoustic wave (see paragraph 49 discussion of quarter wavelength resonant cavities).
With respect to claim 4 Littrell as modified further discloses wherein the attenuator comprises an elongated neck portion that is open to the acoustic pathway (see Blore embodiment of figure 6a, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any known form of a resonator to act as the attenuator.) As it regards the use of a curved neck portion this is a known means of elongating the neck portion so as to take advantage of available space. Such a shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 10 as it regards the specific claimed range of 20kHz to 100kHz the selection thereof would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple matter of tuning the structure for desired output. It has been held that here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 11 Littrell as modified (see Littrell para 0008) wherein the transducer is a MEMS microphone.
With respect to claim 12 Littrell as modified further discloses a lid (28) coupled to the substrate to enclose the transducer and the integrated circuit.
With respect to claim 13 Littrell as modified further discloses a microphone package comprising:
A microphone (14 see para 0008);
A substrate (22) coupled to the microphone defining an acoustic pathway (24) from the microphone to a surrounding ambient environment and
A subwavelength attenuator (see Blore element 410 described as quarter wavelength ) formed in the substrate and acoustically coupled to the acoustic pathway to absorb an ultrasonic wave (due to the use with an ultrasonic transducer this would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art).
With respect to claim 14 Littrell further discloses wherein the subwavelength attenuator comprises an open end coupled to the acoustic pathway (see Blore) and extends to a closed chamber.
With respect to claim 15 while not expressly disclosing a dimension at least ten times smaller than the ultrasonic wave, the selection of such a value would have been a matter of optimization of the structure based upon the desired attenuation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 16 Littrell as modified further discloses wherein the attenuator comprises an elongated neck portion that is open to the acoustic pathway (see Blore embodiment of figure 6a, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any known form of a resonator to act as the attenuator.) As it regards the use of a curved neck portion this is a known means of elongating the neck portion so as to take advantage of available space. Such a shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Claims 5-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell (US20190289405) in view of Blore (US20210105557) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and in further view of Welch (US4206831).
With respect to claims 5 and 17 Littrell as modified further discloses wherein the attenuator is a first attenuator in an array of attenuators (see figures 4-6 of Blore).
Littrell as modified does not expressly disclose each attenuator in the array of attenuators is dimensioned to absorb a different frequency.
Welch disclsoes (see figure 4 elements 32 and 34) the use of multiple different sized absorbers on an acoustic pathway each of which absorbs a different frequency.
It would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art5 before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Welch to use different sized resonators to absorb different frequencies with the device of Littrell as modified to provide a smoothing of the sounds across a wider bandwidth and thus improve the audio output.
With respect to claims 6 and 18 Littrell as modified by Blore and Welch further discloses wherein the first attenuator is dimensions to absorb an ultrasonic acoustic wave in a first frequency range (see Welch element 32) and the second attenuator is dimension to absorb an ultrasonic acoustic wave within a second frequency range (see 34)
With respect to claims 7-9 and 19-20 Littrell as modified further discloses wherein the array of attenuators comprises a first series or column of attenuators (see Blore figure 5a) a second column of attenuators (see again Blore 5a). While not expressly disclosing an inverse order for the columns this would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow for the stacking of the resonators in the same space on opposed portions of the horn in the manner as shown by Blore figure 5a. As it regards a third column, it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any number of columns or series of attenuators as a matter of mere duplication. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tyson (US20250380077) discloses a microphone port for acoustic suppression; Hatipoglu (US20250113138) discloses a wideband subwavelength acoustic attenuator; and Hrudley (US20200382862) discloses a vented acoustic transducer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FORREST M PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-9020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00-5:00.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights