Prior art

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent 9,235,259

This analysis examines the prior art cited during the prosecution of US Patent 9,235,259. The following references were considered by the USPTO examiner and are listed in the patent's file wrapper. Each entry details the reference, its relevance, and a preliminary analysis of which claims it might anticipate.

The primary innovation claimed in US 9,235,259 is the two-step, coarse-to-fine method for detecting a specific audio "tick." This method conserves computational resources by only engaging the more intensive "fine" processing after a "coarse" analysis flags a potential event. The fine detection is further distinguished by its use of a device-specific, pre-trained set of reference properties or "fingerprint" to confirm the tick.

---

Cited Prior Art References

Based on the patent's "Citations" list, the following prior art was considered.

1. US20030132950A1 - Detecting, classifying, and interpreting input events based on stimuli in multiple sensory domains

• Publication Date: July 17, 2003
• Filing Date: November 27, 2001
• Assignee: Fahri Surucu
• Description: This application describes a system for interpreting user input events on a device by using multiple sensors, such as acoustic and motion sensors. It discloses detecting a "tap" on a device's housing and using the acoustic signature of that tap as an input command. The system can learn and recognize different types of taps based on their acoustic characteristics.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference appears relevant to the general concept of using an acoustic signature from a tap as an input. It discloses detecting a tap and analyzing its acoustic properties. It could potentially anticipate the broader concepts within Claim 1 and Claim 9, which cover detecting a tick on a device and using its characteristics for identification. However, '259 distinguishes itself with its specific two-step "coarse-to-fine" processing architecture designed to save power, which is not explicitly detailed in this reference.

2. EP1978508A1 - Beat extraction device and beat extraction method

• Publication Date: October 8, 2008
• Filing Date: January 25, 2006
• Assignee: Sony Corporation
• Description: This document, which is also discussed in the background section of the '259 patent itself, discloses a method for detecting musical beats in an audio file. It proposes detecting initial "beat positions from large instantaneous peaks in the time-series waveform" (a coarse-like step) and then performing a more detailed analysis on a spectrogram using an FFT to refine the beat timing.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference is highly relevant. The patentee of '259 acknowledges this reference in the specification, attempting to distinguish it by arguing that it applies to musical rhythms and not singular, aperiodic "ticks" for device pairing. However, the described method of a coarse peak detection followed by a more detailed FFT-based analysis of the spectrogram bears a strong resemblance to the process in Claim 1, 5, 9, 20, and 22. The core method of a two-stage analysis is present. An argument for anticipation could be made that applying this known audio analysis technique to a "tick" instead of a "beat" would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art.

3. US20090153342A1 - Interacting with devices based on physical device-to-device contact

• Publication Date: June 18, 2009
• Filing Date: December 12, 2007
• Assignee: Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
• Description: This application discloses a method where physical contact or a "tap" between two devices initiates an action or communication. The system detects the tap using sensors, which can include a microphone to detect the sound of the contact. The characteristics of the tap (e.g., sound, vibration) can be analyzed to trigger a specific function.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference establishes the context of "tap-to-pair" or "tap-to-interact." It discloses detecting a tap sound and using it to trigger an event, which is foundational to the use case described in the '259 patent. It could be seen as anticipating the general framework of Claim 2 and Claim 14, which describe using the detected tick for pairing mobile devices. The novelty of '259 rests on how the tick is detected (the coarse-to-fine method), not the act of using a tick for pairing itself.

4. EP2018032A1 - Identification of proximate mobile devices

• Publication Date: January 21, 2009
• Filing Date: July 20, 2007
• Assignee: Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast-Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek TNO (the original assignee of '259)
• Description: This application, from the same original assignee, describes a method for identifying proximate devices by having them both detect a common, externally generated audio event (like a hand clap or a tap). The devices then compare characteristics of the detected sound to confirm they heard the same event, thereby establishing their proximity and enabling pairing. This is the core concept behind the application mentioned in the '259 patent's background section (WO 2009/014438).
• Potential Anticipation: This reference solidifies the problem the '259 patent aims to solve. It describes the overall system of using a common audio event for pairing but does not specify the power-saving, two-step coarse-to-fine detection method. Therefore, it provides context but is unlikely to anticipate the specific method claims (e.g., Claims 1, 4, 5, 20) which detail the two-processor architecture and signal processing steps.

5. WO2006094739A1 - Communication terminal with a tap sound detecting circuit

• Publication Date: September 14, 2006
• Filing Date: March 7, 2005
• Assignee: Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
• Description: This application describes a mobile device equipped with a circuit specifically for detecting tap sounds on its casing. It discusses using a microphone to capture the sound and a processing unit to distinguish tap sounds from other ambient noises.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference further supports the general idea of detecting a tap on a device using a microphone and processing the signal. It speaks to the general concept of Claim 1 and Claim 9. However, like other references, its strength lies in establishing the concept of tap detection rather than disclosing the specific two-stage, computationally efficient method claimed in '259. The novelty of '259 is in the implementation details designed for low-power operation on mobile devices.