Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 10826529"

See other formats


Mar. 29 2007 5:29PM HP LRSERJET 3200 IP VENTU 650 903 9800 



13 



RECEIVED 
C»ITRALFAX<»^ 

MAR2 9 2007 

REMARKS ™ 4 ^ £UUr 

Applicants previously presented claims 25 through 47 for examinatioa. In the 
above-identified Office Action, the Examiner has allowed claim 28, which Applicants 
appreciate with gratitude, and rejected ail the other claims. 

Applicants appreciate the Examiner's detailed comments la the Office Action to 
the above-identified application. For the reasons to be stated below, however. Applicants 
respectfully traverse the Examinees rejections. 

By this amendment. Applicants have (a) provided the serial numbers of 
applications on pages 1 and 22, as suggested by the Examiner; (b) amended claims 25, 
26, 27, 37-39, 41-43, 46 and 47 to further clarify the subject matter regarded as the 
invention; and (c) recast allowable claim 28 in independent form by incorporating all the 
limitations of its base and intervening claims, as suggested by the Examiner. 
Accordingly, claims 25-47 remain pending. Applicants respectfully request that the^ 
Examiner reconsider the application in light of the amendments and the remarks 
expressed herein. 



112 Rejections 

The Office Action rejected claim 28 under 35 U.S.C, 112, second paragraph, as 
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter 
which Applicants regard as the invention. Applicants respectfully disagree. 

The Office Action stated that it was unclear what the clause, "wherein the another 
mode of operation is deactivated when the speaker is attached to the clothing*', was refenring 
to. 

The antecedent basis of •*the another mode of operation" can be found in claim 27, 
which claim 28 depends on. 

The Office Action suggested changing the term "deactivated" in claim 28 to 
"activated" because the specification at paragraph 91 states that if the phone is attached to 
the clothing, the speaker of the interface unit can be automatically activated. Applicants 



Appta.ND. 10/826,529 10 Docket No. IPVBPOOl 

PACE 13/20 * RCVD AT 3/29/2007 8:10:35 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] * 8VR:U8PTO-EFXRF-5/16 * DNI8:2738300 * C8ID:650 003 0800 * DURATION (mm-ss):04-14 



Mar 29 20*07 5:29PM HP LASERJET 3200 IP VEMTU 650 903 9800 



p. 14 



PATENT 

do not believe this is necessary. Applicants* specification at paragraph 91 teaches, for 
example, the following: 

"For example, if the phone is attached to the clothing, the directional speaker of 
the interface unit can be autoinatically activated ..." 

*ToT example, when the interface unit is attached to clothing (for hands-free 
usage), a magnet or apiece of magnetizable material in the clothing can cause the 
phone to operate in the hands-free mode. When the phone is detached from 
clothing, the magnetically-activated switch can cause the phone to operate as a 
normal-mode phone." 

"In yet another example, activation can be based on orientation. If the interface 
unit is substantially in a horizontal orientation . . . the phone will operate in the 
hands-free mode. However, if the unit is substantially in a vertical orientation . . . 
the phone will operate as a normal-mode phone." 

Among different features, paragraph 91 teaches a number of embodiments with two 
modes of operations. For example, activation can be based on orientation. If the interface 
unit is substantially in a horizontal orientation, the phone will operate in a hands-free 
mode. If the unit is substantially in a vertical orientation, the phone will operate as a 
normal-mode phone. In this example, though not explicitly stated, it should be 
understood that when the phone is operating in the hands-free mode (hands-free mode 
activated), the normal-mode is deactivated. Accordingly, Applicants respectflUly request 
that the 1 12 rejections on claim 28 be reconsidered and withdrawn, 

102 Rejections 

Claims 25, 30-3 1 , 33, 35-37, 39-40 and 44 were rejected under 35 USC 102(e) as 
being anticipated by Warren (US Patent No. 7,013,009). Applicants respectfully disagree. 

Warren pertains to a microphone, a transmitter, a speaker, a receiver and a power 
source, all mounted to an eyeglasses fi-ame, a hat or other article worn on the head of a 



Apphi.No. 10/826,529 11 Docket No. IPVBPOOl 



PAGE 14«0 ' RCVD AT 3/29/2007 8:10:35 PM [Eastern Daylight nme] • SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-5/16 « DNIS:2738300 • CSID:650 903 9800 * DURATION (mm-ss):04-14 



Mar 29 2007 5:30PM HP LASERJET 3200 IP VENTU 650 303 9800 



p, 15 



PATENT 

user, for sending and receiving signals wirelessly to and finom a remote cell phone or 
other device.^ 

Regarding the speaker. Warren teaches that the speaker can be "directional so that 
it plays sounds toward the user*s ear but does not play sounds that can be easily heard by 
bystanders. For example, the speaker 24 can be a conventional miniature bone-type 
speaker that is mounted on an ear rest 26 of one of the support arms 18 generally adjacent 
to the user's ear when wearing the eyeglasses 10."^ "FIG. 9 shows a seventh alternative 
embodiment 710 . . The microphone 720 and the speaker 724 arc built into the sheet 756 
at spaced apart positions, and are directional and oriented towards the user's mouth and 
ear, respectively, when wearing the clip-on attachment member on glasses."^ "FIGS. 10 
and 1 1 show further alternative embodiments of the present invention. In these 
embodiments* the commimication components are mounted to articles that users 
commonly wear on their head for fashion, warmth, or other reasons. . . . [T]he speaker is 
disposed adjacent to and oriented toward the user's ear, thereby permitting the user to 
conveniently and privately communicate on his or her cell phone, 

Warren docs not teach or suggest a speaker configured to be attached to a piece of 
clothing, and to be intentionally spaced apart from the ears of the being, so that at 
least a portion of ultrasonic signals is transformed into audio signals via at least a 
portion of the medium in the space between the directional sneak er and at least 
one of the ears of the being 

Applicants' claim 25 states that its directional speaker is configured to be attached 
to the piece of clothing, and to be intentionally spaced apart from the ears of the user. At 
least a portion of the medium in the space between the speaker and at least one of the ears 
of the user transforms at least a portion of the ultrasonic signals into the audio signals. 
Applicants submit that Warren not only does not teach or suggest such limitations, 
Warren teaches away from such limitations. 

Warren specifically teaches that its speaker is positioned to be very close to the 
user's ear to permit the user to privately communicate. As an example, the speaker is a 



* See Warren's Abstract. 

^ Col 5, lines 5-10 in Warren. 

* Col. 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 4 in Warren. 

* CoL 7, lines 8^15 in Warren. 

Appln.No. 10/826,529 12 Docket No. IPVBPOOl 

PACE 15«0 * RCVD AT 3«9/2007 8:lfl:35 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] * SVR:USPTO.EFXRF-6/16 « DNIS:2738300 • C8ID:650 903 9800 * DURATION (mm-ss):04-14 



Man '29 2007 5:30PM HP LASERJET 3200 IP VENTU 650 903 9800 



p. 16 



PATENT 

bone-type speaker mounted on an ear rest 26 of one of the support arms adjacent to the 
user's ear. Warren further teaches that its speaker '*plays sounds toward the user's ear but 
does not play sounds that can be easily heard by bystanders.*' Every one of Warren's 
speaker is positioned to be very close to the ear of the user. 

Since Warren teaches away from limitations in Applicants' claim 25, Applicants 
respectfully request that the 102 rejections of claim 25, and its dependent claims 30-31, 
33 and 35-37 be reconsidered and withdrawn. 

Warren does not teach or suggest a communication device including two 
speakers, one generating audio signals from ultrasonic signals, and the other 
generating audio signals directly, without the need to be transformed from 
ultrasonic signals 

Since Warren does not teach or suggest its devices having two speakers, one 
generating audio signals from ultrasonic signals, and the other generating audio signals 
directly from audio signals, without the need to be transformed from ultrasonic signals, 
Warren cannot teach or suggest Applicants' claim 39, and its dependent claims 40 and 
44. Thus Applicants respectfully request that the 102 rejections on those claims be 
reconsidered and withdrawn. 

103 Rejections based on Warren and Norris 

Claims 26-27 and 41-43 were rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being 
unpatentable over Warren in view of Norris (US Patent No. 6,151,398). Applicants 
respectfully disagree. 

Norris pertains to an ultrasonic emitter device having broad fi^uency range 
capacity, with relatively large diaphragm displacement compared to typical electrostatic 
diaphragm movement. The device includes a core member to establish a first magnetic 
field and a movable diaphragm wdth a conductive coil, A variable current flows through 
the conductive coil to establish a second magnetic field. The first and the second 
magnetic fields interact to attract and repel the diaphragm at a desired frequency to 



Appln.No. 10/826.529 13 Docket No. IPVBPOOl 

PACE 16/20 * RCVD AT 3^9/2007 8:19:35 PM [Eastern Daylight Tlmel • SVR:U8PTO-EFXRF^/16 * DNIS:2738300 • CSID:650 903 9800 • DURATION (mm-ss):04-14 



Mar 29 2007 5:30PM HP LASERJET 3200 IP VENTU 650 903 9800 



p, 17 



PATENT 

generate ultrasonic waves.^ With the right modulations on the ultrasonic waves^ based on 
tiie principles of acoustic heterodyning, sonic emissions can be generated.^ 

The Office Action stated that "Warren does not mention the speaker generates 
ultrasonic signals; v^ch are transformed into audio signals,"^ which Applicants 
acknowledge. In an attempt to cure the deficiencies in Warren, Norris was introduced. 

As explained above, regarding claims 25-27, Warren teaches away fi-om 
inventions in these claims. Every one of Wanren's speakers is positioned to be very close 
to the ear of the user. 

In addition, it is not clear how one can incorporate Norris* speaker into Warren's 
(a) speaker 24 in Warren's FIG. 2, (b) speaker 424 in Warren's FIG. 6, (c) speaker 524 in 
Wan-en's FIG. 7, (d) speaker 624 in Warren's FIG. 8, (e) speaker 724 in Warren's FIG. 9, 
(f) speaker 824 in Warren's FIG: 10 or (g) speaker 924 in Warren's FIG. 1 1 , 

Regarding claims 41-42, both Norris and Warren do not teach or suggest a device 
with two speakers, one generating audio signals from ultrasonic signals, and the other 
generating audio signals directly. In addition, both references do not teach or suggest (a) 
a directional speaker able to be configured such that the volume of a portion of the audio^ 
signals is automatically changed depending on at least one hearing characteristic of the 
user, or (b) the device including a video display. 

Thus. Applicants respectfully request that the 103 rejections on claims 26-27, 29, 
and 41-43 be reconsidered and withdrawn. 

103 Rejections based on Warren and Hwang 

Claim 32 was rejected under 35 USC 1 03(a) as being unpatentable over Warren in 
view of Hwang (US Publication No. 2002/0090099). Applicants respectfully disagree. 
Irrespective of the Office Action*s rationale, since Warren does not teach or suggest 
independent claim 25, bringing in Hwang for a feature in dependent claim 32 would not 
remedy Warren's deficiency regarding independent claim 25. Thus, Applicants 
respectfully request that the 1 03 rejections on claim 32 be reconsidered and withdrawn. 



' See Abstract ia Nonris, 

* See coL 5, lines 55-59 in Noiris. 

^ The second paragrapli on page 6 of tiie QHice ActiQa 

Apphi.No. 10/826.529 14 Docket No. IPVBPOOl 

PACE 17/20 * RCVD AT 3^9/2007 8:19:35 PM [Eastern Daylight Time) * SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-5/16 * DN1S:2738300 • CSID:650 903 9800 • DURATION (mm-ss): 04-14 



Mar 29 2007 5:30PM HP LRSERJET 3200 IP VENTU 650 903 9800 



p. 18 



PATENT 

103 Reiections based on Warren and Vorota 

Claim 34 was rejepted under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren in 
view of Voroba et al. (US Publication No, 5,819,183, hereinafter "Voroba")- Applicants 
respectfully disagree. Irrespective of the OfiSce Action's rationale, since Warren does not 
teach or suggest independent claim 25, bringing in Voroba for additional features in 
dependent claim 34 would not remedy Wairen's deficiency regarding independent claim 
25. 

103 Rejections Based on Voroba and Norris 

Claim 38 was rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Voroba in 
view of Norris. Applicants respectfully disagree. 

Voroba pertains to reducing sidetone feedback in a portable wireless telephone 
system that has a speaker and a microphone. Microphone output going back through the 
speaker (in the form of a sidetone) can create a feedback loop if the output is coupled 
back from the speaker through the microphone. The feedback loop can lead to 
oscillations. Spatial separation reduces signal coupled from the speaker to the 
microphone and therefore prevents oscillation. In compact telephones, such as a wrist- 
mounted telephone, manufacturers go through elaborate designs to maintain the spatial 
s^aration.^ 

To reduce acoustic feedback, Voroba appropriately positions the speaker and the 
microphone in its wireless phone, and controls the amplifier gain in the transmitter 
section of the phone. The wireless telephone may be configured as a wrist watch, a piece 
of jewelry such as a brooch or pendant, a pager/intercom, or an identification badge for 
an employee,^ 

As admitted in the OfiBce Action, Voroba does not mention its speaker generating 
ultrasonic signals that are transformed to produce audio signals. 

To try to remedy the deficiency, the Office Action introduced Norris, and the 
Office Action argued that "it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the 



* Col. 1, Unes 29-37 in Voioba. 
^ See the Abstract in Voroba, 

Appln.No. 10/826,529 15 Docket No. IPVBPOOl 

PACE 18«0 * RCVD AT 3«9/2007 8:19:35 PM [Eastern Daylight TImeJ * SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-5/16 * DNI8:2738300 • C8ID:650 903 9800 • DURATION (mm-SS):04-14 



Mar 29 20O7 5:31PM HP LASERJET 3200 IP VENTU 650 903 9800 



p- 18 



PATENT 

time invention was made to modify above teaching of Warrea with Norris, in order to 
provide a surprising increase in volume to the audio output signal/*'^ Applicants assuine 
the Office Action meant Voroba and Norris, instead of Wairen witii Norris, The 
fallowing discussion is based on such an assumption. 

First, it is not clear how one could incorporate the speaker in Norris into the wrist 
watch, the piece of jewelry such as a brooch or pendant, the pager/^intercom, or the 
identification badge in Voroba. There are no such teachings or suggestions in Nonis. 

In addition, Norris and/or Voroba do not teach or suggest the voliirae of at least a 
portion of the audio signals being automatically changed depending on the sound level in 
the vicinity of their devices. 

Thus, Applicants respectfully request that the 103 rejections on claim 38 be 
reconsidered and withdrawn- 

1 03 Rejections based on Warren and Asada 

Claim 45 was rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren in 
view of Asada (US Pub. No. 2002/0191807). Applicants respectfully disagree. 

Irrespective of the Office Action's rationale, since Warren does not teach or 
suggest independent claim 39, bringing in Asada for additional limitations in dependent 
claim 45 would not remedy Warren's deficiency regarding independent claim 39. 

Thus, Applicants respectfully request that the 103 rejections on claim 45 be 
reconsidered and withdrawn. 

103 Rejections based on Warren and Gallery 

Claims 46-47 were rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over 
Warren in view of Gallery (US Patent No. 4, 128,738), Applicants respectfully disagree. 

As acknowledged in the Office Action, Wairen does not teach a speaker with a 
virtual cone. To remedy the deficiency, the Office Action introduced Gallery. 

Gallery pertains to a compact transrnission line loudspeaker system. To support its 
argument that Gallery teaches a virtual cone, the Office Action cited col. 3, lines 41-48. 
However, in that section. Gallery teaches that "the radiator for a direct radiator speaker is 

'® The second full paragraph on page 10 of the Office Action. 

Appto.No. 10/826,529 16 Docket No. EPVBPOOl 

PACE 19/20 * RCVD AT 3«9/2007 8:19:35 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] • SVR:USPTO-EFXRF^/16 * DNIS:2738300 * C8ID:650 903 9800 • DURATION (mm-ss):04-14 



Mar • 29 'a'OOV 5:31PM HP LHSERJET 3200 IP VENTU 650 903 9800 



PATENT 



cone $h£^6d and referred to as a speaker cone. As an example, the 5 inch diameter plastic 
cone speaker ... performs excellently in my compact loudspeaker system." Thus, Gallery 
teaches a physical cone, not a virtual cone. 

Moreover since Warren does not teach or suggest independent claims 39 and 25, 
bringing in Gallery for additional limitations in their respective dependent claims 46 and 
47 would not remedy Warren's deficiency regarding independent claims 39 and 25, 

Thus, Applicants respectfolly request that the 103 rejections on claims 46-47 be 
reconsidered and withdrawn. 

Regarding the remaining references cited by the Examiner, since they have not 
been applied against any of the claims and do not appear properly applicable thereto, no 
further mention thereof will be made. 

Reconsideration of the application and an early Notice of Allowance are earnestly 
solicited. If there are any issues remaining which the Examiner believes could be 
resolved through either a Supplemental Response or an Examiner's Amendment, the 
Examiner is respectfully requested to contact the vmdersigned representative at the 
telephone number listed below. 



Respectfully submitted, 



(650)903-9200 ext 102 



5 1 50 El Camino Real 
Building A, Suite 22 
Los Altos, CA 94022 




Appln.No. 10/826,529 17 Docket No, IPVBPOOl 

PAGE 20/20 • RCVD AT 3/29/2007 8:19:35 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] * SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-5/16 • DNIS:2738300 * CSID:650 903 9800 • DURATION (mm<s):04-14