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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/07/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended. Claims 2-4 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 9-15 are pending on the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the independent claims to be more precise about the structure, and to specify what the retention structure is configured to do. See the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 9-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirszenblat (US 20180235540 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kirszenblat discloses
An ear tip for an earpiece (Kirszenblat Fig 10 (1004) par [0080]), comprising:
a body (see edited Kirszenblat Fig 10 below);
an insertion end coupled to the body (see edited Kirszenblat Fig 10 below) and configured to be at least partially inserted into a human ear canal (Kirszenblat par [0021]);
a mushroom cap coupled to a distal end of the insertion end (see edited Kirszenblat Fig 10 below) and configured to form an acoustic seal in the ear canal (Kirszenblat par [0041] acoustic seal); and
a retention structure including an inner leg and an outer leg, each of the inner leg and the outer leg being coupled to the body at a first end and joined together to form a tip at a second end, the outer leg configured to conform, at least in part, to a cymba concha portion of the ear (Kirszenblat Fig 10 see inner and outer legs);
one or more electrically conductive contacts disposed on the elongated fin and configured to provide electrical contact with the cymba concha (Kirszenblat par [0080] electrodes made of conductive rubber);
PNG
media_image1.png
304
236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
700
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kirszenblat on the left, instant application on the right
Kirszenblat fails to explicitly disclose an elongated fin running at least a portion of the length of the outer leg and configured to provide additional contact area with the cymba concha than the outer leg alone.
However, Kirszenblat does disclose that the retention structure is there to increase the contact area and conform to the geometry of the ear. The need to increase skin contact in this situation would lead one skilled in the art to alter the geometry of the retention structure, and there are few, predictable solutions to that problem. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter the geometry of the retention structure of the invention of Kirszenblat to create an elongated fin running at least a portion of the length of the outer leg and configured to provide additional contact area to provide additional contact area (MPEP 2143.IE).
Regarding claim 9, Kirszenblat discloses
An ear tip for an earpiece (Kirszenblat Fig 10 (1004) par [0080]), comprising:
a body (see edited Kirszenblat Fig 10 above);
an insertion end coupled to the body (see edited Kirszenblat Fig 10 above) and configured to be at least partially inserted into a human ear canal (Kirszenblat par [0021]);
a retention structure coupled to the body and including an inner leg and an outer leg, each of the inner leg and the outer leg joined together to form a tip distal from the body, the outer leg (see edited Kirszenblat Fig 10 above) configured to conform, at least in part, to a cymba concha portion of the ear (Kirszenblat Fig 4 shows where the device is placed in the ear and shows that the structure would conform, at least in part, to a cymba concha portion of the ear. See location of cymba concha below).
Kirszenblat fails to explicitly disclose an elongated fin running at least a portion of the length of the outer leg and configured to provide additional contact area with the cymba concha than the outer leg alone.
However, Kirszenblat does disclose that the retention structure is there to increase the contact area and conform to the geometry of the ear. The need to increase skin contact in this situation would lead one skilled in the art to alter the geometry of the retention structure, and there are few, predictable solutions to that problem. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter the geometry of the retention structure of the invention of Kirszenblat to create an elongated fin running at least a portion of the length of the outer leg and configured to provide additional contact area to provide additional contact area (MPEP 2143.IE).
Regarding claim 10, Kirszenblat discloses
The ear tip of claim 9 further comprising an electrically conductive contact disposed on the elongated fin to provide an electrode in contact with the cymba concha (Kirszenblat Fig 10 par [0080] conductive rubber on entire surface; may be separated into electrode contacts).
Regarding claim 11, Kirszenblat discloses
The ear tip of claim 9 further comprising an umbrella associated with the insertion end (see edited Kirszenblat Fig 10 below) and configured to form an acoustic seal near an entrance to the ear canal (Kirszenblat par [0041] acoustic seal).
Regarding claim 12, Kirszenblat discloses
The ear tip of claim 11 further comprising one or more electrically conductive contacts associated with the umbrella to provide one or more electrodes in contact with the ear near an entrance to the ear canal (Kirszenblat Fig 10 par [0080] conductive rubber on entire surface; may be separated into electrode contacts).
Regarding claim 13, Kirszenblat discloses
The ear tip of claim 9 further comprising a mushroom cap coupled to a distal end of the insertion end (see edited Kirszenblat Fig 10 below), the mushroom cap having one or more electrically conductive elements Kirszenblat par [0080] electrodes made of conductive rubber) configured to provide electrical contact in the ear canal between an entrance to the ear canal and a first bend in the ear canal (Due to positioning and the fully conductive surface there would be electrically conductive elements there).
Regarding claim 15, Kirszenblat discloses
An ear tip for an earpiece (Kirszenblat Fig 10 (1004) par [0080]), comprising:
a body (see annotated Kirszenblat Fig 10 above);
an insertion end coupled to the body (see annotated Kirszenblat Fig 10 above) and configured to be at least partially inserted into a human ear canal (Kirszenblat par [0021]);
a retention structure coupled to the body and including an inner leg and an outer leg, each of the inner leg and the outer leg joined together to form a tip distal from the body (see annotated Kirszenblat Fig 10 above), the outer leg configured to conform, at least in part, to a cymba concha portion of the ear (Kirszenblat Fig 4 shows where the device is placed in the ear and shows that the structure would conform, at least in part, to a cymba concha portion of the ear);
and an electrically conductive contact disposed on the outer leg to provide an electrode in contact with the cymba concha (Kirszenblat Fig 10 par [0080] conductive rubber on entire surface; may be separated into electrode contacts).
Kirszenblat fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the outer leg further comprises an elongated fin upon which the electrically conductive contact is disposed, the elongated fin running at least a portion of the length of the outer leg and configured to provide additional contact area with the cymba concha than the outer leg alone.
However, Kirszenblat does disclose that the retention structure is there to increase the contact area and conform to the geometry of the ear. The need to increase skin contact in this situation would lead one skilled in the art to alter the geometry of the retention structure, and there are few, predictable solutions to that problem. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter the geometry of the retention structure of the invention of Kirszenblat to create an elongated fin running at least a portion of the length of the outer leg and configured to provide additional contact area to provide additional contact area (MPEP 2143.IE).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirszenblat (US 20180235540 A1) in view of Leedom (US 20020027996 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kirszenblat discloses
The ear tip of claim 13.
Kirszenblat fails to explicitly disclose an umbrella associated with the insertion end, disposed between the body and the mushroom cap and configured to make contact with the ear near an entrance to the ear canal.
However, Leedom discloses a similar ear tip comprising an umbrella associated with the insertion end, disposed between the body and the mushroom cap and configured to make contact with the ear near an entrance to the ear canal (Leedom Fig 14 umbrella and mushroom cap (62,64) par [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kirszenblat to include an umbrella between the body and the mushroom cap, as such a structure can provide comfort, ease of insertion, sound attenuation, and can help to anchor the unit in an ear (Leedom par [0108]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MATTHEW DAVID BECTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3794