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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 7-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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) 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brzezinski et al. (US 2018/0064224) in view of Chandramohan et al. (US 2017/0094399), further in view of either KR 2017-0017416, hereafter KR’416 (see attached English machine translation) OR KR 2017-0022421 (see attached English machine translation), AND Dragicevic et al. (US 10893353).
With regard to claim 7, Brzezinski et al. disclose a wireless charging case for earphones that includes a case with two recesses to accommodate wireless earphones, a battery, and a power reception module to wirelessly charge the battery (see Figures 1-3 and 11 and descriptions thereof). The power reception module includes a magnetic shielding layer(1108) and coils (1102) wherein the shielding sheet faces the interior components of the case. The reference is silent with regard to (1) the use of magnetic to secure earphones in the recesses in the case and the use of a magnetic shielding sheet having a saturation magnetic flux density of 1.2T or more wherein the saturation magnetic flux density “enables the sheet body to prevent magnetic saturation due to a direct current magnetic field generated from the pair of permanent magnets”; and (2) the newly added limitation of claim 1 requiring earphone accommodation parts having a “first portions having a first depth and a second portion having a second depth deeper than the first depth and a planar area smaller than the first portions” wherein the first portion of each accommodation parts includes a charging terminal to supply power to charge the earphone batteries.
With regard to feature (1) noted above, Brzezinski discloses a ferrite shielding layer which is known in the art to have a saturation magnetic flux density lower than the claimed range.
Chandramohan et al. teaches that it was known in the art to use permanent magnets in an earbud case structure in order to magnetically secure the earbuds in the earbud accommodation recesses in a charge case (see 130 in Fig 3 and description thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use permanent magnets in the recessed portion of the case taught by Brzezinski in order to secure the earphones in the recesses as taught by Chandramohan et al. It would have been obvious to position the magnets below the earphones in the case taught by Brzezinski such that they would necessarily be directly facing “an upper portion of the sheet body” (see sheet body 1108).
With regard to the saturation magnetic flux and composition of the magnetic shielding sheet, KR2017-0022421 discloses a wireless power charging module for use in portable electronics that includes an antenna unit on a magnetic shielding sheet that is formed from ferrites, or amorphous or nanocrystalline materials such as FeSiB (see p. 3 of translation). While the reference does not disclose the saturation magnetic flux density of the FeSiB material, it is known in the art that FeSiB materials have high saturation magnetic flux densities on the order of 1.5T or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a FeSiB nanocrystalline shielding layer for the ferrite shielding layer taught by Brzezinski in view of the art recognized suitability of both materials for wireless charging applications as taught by KR’421.
Furthermore, use of a high saturation magnetic flux density material such as FeSiB for layer 1108 (Fig 11 of Brzezinski) would be expected to enable the sheet body to “prevent magnetic saturation due to a direct current magnetic field generated from the pair of permanent magnets” positioned below the earbuds in the manner taught by Chandramohan. The same material in the same position (i.e, facing the permanent magnets and separating the permanent magnets from coils (1102)) would necessarily exhibit the claimed shielding property.
With regard to feature (2), noted above, requiring first and second portions of the accommodation parts, Brzezinski is silent with regard to the particular shape of the cavities for holding and charging the wireless earphones inserted therein. The reference does however teach the use of various types of earphones (see para [0005] and [0033]-[0034] for broad teaching of cavities to accommodate various earphone types).
Dragicevic et al. teaches a charging case for wireless earphones having accommodation parts with a first portion including a charging port for a wireless earphone and a second portion that is deeper than that of the first portion and a planar area at the base of the second portion that is smaller than the first portion (see Fig 5 and col. 4, lines 40-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form accommodation parts in the case taught by Brzezinski in the shape suggested by Dragicevic in order to provide a charging case for an earphone shape as disclosed by Dragicevic.
With regard to claim 9, Brzezinski discloses the use of a circuit board within the case housing (para [0060]). Depending on the orientation of the case (lying on its front face or back face, for instance), the shielding layer 1108 can be “disposed under the circuit board.” Brzezinski fails to disclose the use of permanent magnets disposed in the case and cover in order to maintain the cover in the closed position.
However, Chandramohan et al. teaches that it was known in the art to use permanent magnets in an earbud case structure in order to magnetically secure the lid to the charge case body (see (310a and 310b in Fig 3 and para [0109]-[0112]). The reference teaches the use of either magnetic means or a torsion spring structure to secure the lid (see para [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use permanent magnets in the lid portion and adjacent body of the case taught by Brzezinski in order to secure the lid to the case body.
It is noted that the limitation “heat-treated” in claims 10 and 15 is a process limitation in an article claim. There is no evidence of record to establish that the claimed process results in a product with additional unclaimed structural or compositional features. In the absence of such a showing, the prior art appears to meet the claim.
With regard to claims 11-12 and 16-17, KR’421 discloses FeSiB and FeSiBCuNb for use in shielding units having 2 or more layers. Choice of any number of layers above 2, including 2-10 and 10-30 as claimed, would have been prima facie obvious.
With regard to claims 13 and 18, the limitation requiring that the amorphous ribbon sheet “is formed separately into a plurality of pieces” can be interpreted to mean plural pieces in the thickness direction of the ribbon. Thus, the layers 12a, 12b, and 12c shown by KR ‘421 in Figure 10 read on the “plurality of pieces.”
With regard to the limitations of claims 13-14 and 18-19 requiring that the amorphous ribbon sheet has “a magnetic permeability of 400 or more”, KR ‘421 discloses that shielding unit 12 can have permeabilities selected from a range of 30-1500Wb/Am or 2000-3500 Wb/Am in a low frequency band. Thus, values of 400 or more and 600-1200 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/10/25 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that none of the applied references to Brzezinski et al., Chandramohan et al., KR’416 and KR ‘421 teach the newly added features directed to the configuration of the first and second portions of accommodation parts. However, Dragicevic et al. has now been applied under 103 as teaching the particular features of the claims directed to the accommodation parts.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs 9am-3pm EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached on 571-272-1291. 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785