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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “Holes (112)”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki, US-PG-PUB No. 2010/0260369.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an interference tube (An acoustic tube wherein sounds entering through side holes interfere with sounds entering from the front.....¶[0026], lines 19-24) for a microphone (¶[0022], line 1), wherein the interference tube comprises:
an internal acoustic path longer than an external dimension (Shown in Fig. 1A, sound travels laterally within the tube from the opening to the microphone, the opening dimension being visibly shorter than the lateral dimension) of the interference tube; and a plurality of sound entrance holes (Shown in Fig. 1A, acoustic tube (2) is provided with sound entrance slits (3) as well as a hole at the front end.....¶[0026], lines 15-24) configured to receive a first acoustic wave (A first sound (comprised of desired and undesired sound) from a front direction enters at the hole at the front end.....¶[0026], lines 19-24) and a second acoustic wave (Undesired sounds waves directions other than the front are also received at the sides holes.....¶[0026], lines 19-24), wherein the internal acoustic path is configured to attenuate the first acoustic wave and the second acoustic wave (The undesired sound received at the sides is out of phase with the undesired sound received at the front, destructively interfering and attenuating each other as they respectively traverse the internal acoustic path of the tube.....¶[0026], lines 19-24).
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, 6-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, US-PG-PUB No. 2010/0260369 in view of Zhu et al (hereinafter Zhu), US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0297406.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches an interference tube (An acoustic tube wherein sounds entering through side holes interfere with sounds entering from other holes.....¶[0026], lines 19-24) for a microphone (¶[0022], line 1), wherein the interference tube comprises:
a plurality of sound entrance holes (Shown in Fig. 1A, acoustic tube (2) is provided with a plurality of sound entrance slits (3) (holes) as well as an entrance away from a microphone.....¶[0024], lines 8-11) configured to receive a first acoustic wave (An undesirable sound (acoustic wave) may enter through the sound entrance slits (3), exposed through overlapped openings (1a).....¶[0026], lines 19-24) and a second acoustic wave (Undesired sounds may enter in each of the slits, each entrance comprising an individual acoustic wave.....¶[0026], lines 19-24), wherein
the internal acoustic path is configured to attenuate the first acoustic wave and the second acoustic wave (The first and second undesired sounds received at the first and second side holes are out of phase with the undesired sound received at the front, destructively interfering and attenuating each other as they respectively traverse the internal acoustic path of the tube.....¶[0026], lines 19-24).
Suzuki fails to teach wherein the interference tube comprises an internal acoustic path longer than an external dimension of the interference tube (The examiner notes that for the purposes of this rejection, “external dimension” is being read narrowly in view of applicant’s Fig. 1b, as the tube of Suzuki clearly has external dimensions (e.g. the diameter of the tube) which are shorter than the acoustic path. The examiner additionally notes that “acoustic path” is being read as the center length of the internal physical structure, and not the path which audio waves take from the front entrance to the microphone, as any reflections of the wave within the tube would result in a path by which the sound wave travels being longer than the longest dimensions of the tube).
Zhu teaches an acoustic channel for a microphone (¶[0015], lines 1-3), analogous to the interference tube of Suzuki, wherein the acoustic tube comprises an internal acoustic path longer than an external dimension of the interference tube (Shown in Fig. 9, the acoustic channel is that of a sinusoidal wave, thus the internal acoustic path is longer than the external length dimension of the channel.....¶[0040], lines 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Zhu by Zhu to provide the benefit of reduced wind noise and improved sound pick-up quality (Zhu, ¶[0015]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the interference tube comprises an internal acoustic path longer than an external dimension of the interference tube.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teaches the
interference tube of claim 1.
Zhu additionally teaches wherein the internal acoustic path is non-linear (Shown in Fig. 9, the path is wavy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Zhu by Zhu to provide the benefit of reduced wind noise and improved sound pick-up quality (Zhu, ¶[0015]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the internal acoustic path is non-linear.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teaches the
interference tube of claim 1.
Zhu additionally teaches wherein the internal acoustic path is disposed in one or more planes about an axis defined by a front opening of the interference tube and a terminal end of the interference tube (Shown in Fig. 9, the wavy acoustic path contains points off the central axis between the ends of the tube).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Zhu by Zhu to provide the benefit of reduced wind noise and improved sound pick-up quality (Zhu, ¶[0015]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the internal acoustic path is configured as a geometric waveform.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teaches the
interference tube of claim 1.
Zhu additionally teaches wherein the internal acoustic path is configured as a geometric waveform (Shown in Fig. 9, the acoustic path is wavy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Zhu by Zhu to provide the benefit of reduced wind noise and improved sound pick-up quality (Zhu, ¶[0015]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the internal acoustic path is disposed in one or more planes about an axis defined by a front opening of the interference tube and a terminal end of the interference tube.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teaches the
interference tube of claim 1.
Suzuki additionally teaches a microphone capsule (Shown in Fig. 3B, microphone unit (8)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teaches the
interference tube of claim 1.
Zhu additionally teaches a plurality of obstruction baffles (Shown in Fig. 10, spoilers (obstruction baffles) (302).....¶[0040], lines 15-22) disposed along: a first interior wall of the interference tube, and a second interior wall of the interference tube (Shown in Fig. 10, the baffles are positioned at the top and bottom walls of the tube).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Zhu by Zhu to provide the benefit of reduced wind speed (and therefore noise) (Zhu, ¶[0040]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the internal acoustic path is disposed in one or more planes about an axis defined by a front opening of the interference tube and a terminal end of the interference tube.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teaches the
interference tube of claim 1.
Suzuki additionally teaches wherein the plurality of sound entrance holes are arranged on an exterior frame of the interference tube according to a shape of the internal acoustic path (Shown in Fig. 1, the slits align with the central axis of the internal acoustic path).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches a method for attenuating sound received by a microphone (An acoustic tube attenuates sound via destructive interference.....¶[0026], lines 19-24), wherein the method comprises: receiving, by an interference tube (An acoustic tube wherein sounds entering through side holes interfere with sounds entering from the front.....¶[0026], lines 19-24), a first off-axis acoustic wave through a first opening (A first undesirable sound (an acoustic wave) is received through one of a plurality of openings (sound entrance slits (3), shown in Fig. 1A) located off the central axis of the tube, exposed through overlapped openings (1a).....¶[0026], lines 15-24, ¶[0024], lines 8-11) and a second off-axis acoustic wave through a second sound opening (As previously mentioned, there are a plurality of slits receiving a plurality of off-axis acoustic waves); routing the first off-axis acoustic wave and the second off-axis acoustic wave through an internal acoustic path of the interference tube (After receipt inside the tube, barring any acoustically absorptive material, sound waves will reflect against the walls of the tube, diffusing towards both ends of the interior of the tube (the acoustic path)), and attenuating the first off-axis acoustic wave and the second off-axis acoustic wave (The first and second sound waves received at the first and second off-axis side slits are out of phase with the same sound received at the front, destructively interfering and attenuating each other as they respectively travel the internal acoustic path of the tube and interact.....¶[0026], lines 19-24).
Suzuki fails to teach wherein the internal acoustic path is longer than an external dimension of the interference tube.
Zhu teaches an acoustic channel for a microphone (¶[0015], lines 1-3), analogous to the interference tube of Suzuki, wherein the acoustic tube comprises an internal acoustic path longer than an external dimension of the interference tube (Shown in Fig. 9, the acoustic channel is that of a sinusoidal wave, thus the internal acoustic path is longer than the external length dimension of the channel.....¶[0040], lines 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Zhu by Zhu to provide the benefit of reduced wind noise and improved sound pick-up quality (Zhu, ¶[0015]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the interference tube comprises an internal acoustic path longer than an external dimension of the interference tube.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teach the method of claim 9.
Suzuki additionally teaches wherein the routing comprises the first acoustic wave traveling a first distance through the internal acoustic path (A first acoustic wave received at a first opening provided at the distal end of the tube away from the microphone will ultimately reflect and arrive at the microphone, traveling a first acoustic path distance) and the second acoustic wave traveling a second distance through the internal acoustic path (A second acoustic wave received at a second opening at proximal end of the tube near the microphone will ultimately reflect and arrive at the microphone, traveling a second acoustic path distance), wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (The first distance is longer, as it originates further from the microphone than the second path).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teach the method of claim 9.
Zhu teaches wherein routing of acoustic waves through the internal acoustic path follows a geometry that approximates a sinusoidal waveform (Shown in Fig. 9, the acoustic path visibly approximates a sinusoidal wave, and it follows that sound traveling through it would follow that geometry).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Zhu by Zhu to provide the benefit of reduced wind noise and improved sound pick-up quality (Zhu, ¶[0015]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the routing the first off-axis acoustic wave and the second off-axis acoustic wave through the internal acoustic path follows a geometry that approximates a sinusoidal waveform.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teach the method of claim 9.
Suzuki additionally teaches further comprising affixing a terminal end of the interference tube to a microphone (Shown in Fig. 3B, microphone unit (8) is provided at the terminal end of the tube).
Claim(s) 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Suzuki.
Regarding claim 14, Zhu teaches an acoustic tube for a microphone comprising: a plurality of obstruction baffles (Shown in Fig. 10, spoilers (obstruction baffles) (302).....¶[0040], lines 15-22) disposed along a first interior wall of the acoustic tube and along a second interior wall of the acoustic tube (Shown in Fig. 10, the baffles are positioned at the top and bottom walls of the tube); and an internal acoustic path defined by the plurality of obstruction baffles (The spoilers are interleaved, therefore extending the acoustic path along the tube relative to the external dimension of the tube.....¶[0040], lines 15-22), wherein the internal acoustic path is longer than an external dimension of the interference tube (The spoilers are interleaved, therefore extending the acoustic path along the tube relative to the external dimension of the tube.....¶[0040], lines 15-22).
Zhu fails to teach wherein the acoustic tube is an interference tube.
Suzuki teaches an analogous acoustic tube for a microphone wherein sound received in the tube at multiple points performs destructive interference (an interference tube..... ¶[0026], lines 19-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu by Suzuki to provide the benefit of improved directionality (Suzuki, ¶[0020], last 3 lines). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the acoustic tube of Zhu is an interference tube.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zhu and Suzuki, as explained above, teach the interference tube of claim 14.
Suzuki additionally teaches further comprising a plurality of sound entrance holes (Shown in Fig. 1A, a plurality of sound entrance slits (3)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu and Suzuki by Suzuki to provide the benefit of improved directionality (Suzuki, ¶[0020], last 3 lines). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of a plurality of sound entrance holes.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Zhu and Suzuki, as explained above, teach the interference tube of claim 15.
Suzuki additionally teaches wherein the internal acoustic path is configured to attenuate at least a first acoustic wave and a second acoustic wave that enter the internal acoustic path through one or more of the plurality of sound entrance holes (First and waves received through first and second slits interact with sound waves received from the primary opening at the front, and destructively interfere, attenuating the waves.....¶[026], lines 19-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu and Suzuki by Suzuki to provide the benefit of improved directionality (Suzuki, ¶[0020], last 3 lines). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the internal acoustic path is configured to attenuate at least a first acoustic wave and a second acoustic wave that enter the internal acoustic path through one or more of the plurality of sound entrance holes.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zhu and Suzuki, as explained above, teach the interference tube of claim 15.
Suzuki additionally teaches wherein the plurality of sound entrance holes are arranged on an exterior frame of the interference tube according to a shape of the internal acoustic path (Shown in Fig. 1, the slits align with the central axis of the internal acoustic path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu and Suzuki by Suzuki to provide the benefit of improved directionality (Suzuki, ¶[0020], last 3 lines). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the plurality of sound entrance holes are arranged on an exterior frame of the interference tube according to a shape of the internal acoustic path.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Zhu and Suzuki, as explained above, teach the interference tube of claim 14.
Zhu additionally teaches wherein the internal acoustic path is configured as a geometric waveform (Shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Zhu and Suzuki, as explained above, teach the interference tube of claim 14.
Zhu additionally teaches wherein the internal acoustic path is configured to occupy one or more planes about an axis defined by: a front opening of the interference tube, and a terminal end of the interference tube (Shown in Fig. 9, the wavy acoustic path contains points off the central axis between the ends of the tube).
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Suzuki in further view of Omata, Japanese Patent Publication JP2009124225A,
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teach the interference tube of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the internal acoustic path is configured with a helical geometry.
Omata teaches an acoustic tube for a microphone wherein the internal acoustic path is configured with a helical geometry (Fig. 4(c), ¶[0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Zhu by Omata to provide the benefit of further extending the tube length, thus further improving directivity (Omata, ¶[0042]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the internal acoustic path is configured with a helical geometry
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Suzuki and Zhu, as explained above, teach the method of claim 9, but fail to teach wherein the routing the first off-axis acoustic wave and the second off-axis acoustic wave through the internal acoustic path follows a helical geometry.
Omata teaches an acoustic tube for a microphone wherein the internal acoustic path is configured with a helical geometry (Fig. 4(c), ¶[0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Zhu by Omata to provide the benefit of further extending the tube length, thus further improving directivity (Omata, ¶[0042]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the routing the first off-axis acoustic wave and the second off-axis acoustic wave through the internal acoustic path follows a helical geometry.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Zhu and Suzuki, as explained above, teach the interference tube of claim 14, but fail to teach wherein the internal acoustic path is configured with a helical geometry.
Omata teaches an acoustic tube for a microphone wherein the internal acoustic path is configured with a helical geometry (Fig. 4(c), ¶[0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Zhu by Omata to provide the benefit of further extending the tube length, thus further improving directivity (Omata, ¶[0042]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the internal acoustic path is configured with a helical geometry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raida et al, US Patent No. 5,940,347, teaches an acoustic radiator for a speaker, noting that it may be used with a microphone to provide enhanced directivity, a teaching which may be applied to other acoustic radiators such as the one disclosed in Magariyachi et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0051284.
Eriksson et al, US Patent No. 4,811,309, teaches an interference tube with perforations provided along the side to enable such interference.
Hanada et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2023/0224619, teaches a directional sound tube with a helical configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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 on (571) 272-7488. 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.
/SEAN RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights