Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/700,278

PAPR Frame

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 21, 2022
Examiner
SIPPEL, RACHEL T
Art Unit
3785
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
416 granted / 791 resolved
-17.4% vs TC avg
Strong +57% interview lift
Without
With
+57.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
834
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 791 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-18, filed 3/21/22, are currently pending. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The first page of the claims in the upper left recites “(L),” which is suggested to be removed since the claims need to be on their own separate page from the remainder of the disclosure. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-18 recite “1” and “2” for example to designate the particular claim, but should be changed to “Claim 1” and “Claim 2,” respectively, and so on for the remainder of the claims. Claims 1-18 (two places in claim 10) recite “Sound Attenuation Structure” which should not be capitalized because they are not proper nouns. Claim 1 recites a semicolon at the end of the claim, suggested to be changed to a period. Claim 5 (lines 4, 6, 10 and 12) and claim 14 (lines 4, 6, 10 and 12) recite “some of the support ridges” suggested to be changed to --some of the plurality of support ridges, for consistency. Claims 5 and 14 recite “to left leg” in lines 4 and 10, suggested to be changed to --to the left leg-- for grammatical reasons. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 recites “inserted to” in lines 6 and 8, suggested to be changed to --inserted into-- for grammatical reasons. 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. Claims 1-5, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by James (5,283,914). Regarding claim 1, in figures 1 and 3-4 James discloses a Sound Attenuation Structure (structure in figures 3-4 on both sides of the user’s head), comprising: (a) a right sound attenuation structure (structure in fig. 2-3 on the right ear); the right sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a clip (each of 115); the clip comprising: (1) a left leg (left 115); (2) a right leg (right 115); and (3) a slot formed between the left leg and the right leg (Fig. 4); (ii) a barrier (remaining structure in fig. 3-4 not including the clip); (iii) where the barrier is joined to the clip (Fig. 3-4), (iv) where the barrier abuts against the left leg of the clip (Fig. 4); (b) a left sound attenuation structure (structure in fig. 2-3 on the left ear); the left sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a clip (each of 115); the clip comprising: (1) a left leg (left 115); a right leg (right 115); and (3) a slot formed between the left leg and the right leg (Fig. 4); (ii) a barrier (remaining structure in fig. 3-4 not including the clip); (iii) where the barrier is joined to the clip (Fig. 3-4), (iv) where the barrier abuts against the right leg of the clip (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 2, James discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a front wall (wall of 101 that 115 are connected to); (ii) a back wall (opposite wall to where 115 are attached to of 101); (iii) one or more cavities (cavity formed by the barrier structure, fig. 3); (b) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a front wall (wall of 101 that 115 are connected to); (ii) a back wall (opposite wall to where 115 are attached to of 101); (iii) one or more cavities (cavity formed by the barrier structure, fig. 3); (c) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure is hollow (Fig. 3), (d) where the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure is hollow (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 3, James discloses (a) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure is solid (the barrier is solid, not a liquid or gas), (b) where the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure is solid (the barrier is solid, not a liquid or gas). Regarding claim 4, James discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) one or more inner walls (wall of 101 extending between the front and back wall); (ii) where the one or more inner walls join the front wall to the back wall (Fig. 4), (b) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) one or more inner walls (wall of 101 extending between the front and back wall); (ii) where the one or more inner walls join the front wall to the back wall (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 5, James discloses (a) wherein the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges (at least the circular ridge protruding from 102, ridge surrounding perimeter of 103); (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (b) wherein the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges (at least the circular ridge protruding from 102, ridge surrounding perimeter of 103); (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure. Regarding claim 10, James discloses (a) a face shield (30 and 52); the face shield comprising: (i) a left side (left side of visor); and (ii) a right side (right side of visor); (b) where the left side of the face shield is inserted to the clip of the left sound attenuation structure (Col. 4, ll. 57-63), (c) where the right side of the face shield is inserted to the clip of the right sound attenuation structure (Col. 4, ll. 57-63). Regarding claim 11, James discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a front wall (wall of 101 that 115 are connected to); (ii) a back wall (opposite wall to where 115 are attached to of 101); (iii) one or more cavities (cavity formed by the barrier structure, fig. 3); (b) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a front wall (wall of 101 that 115 are connected to); (ii) a back wall (opposite wall to where 115 are attached to of 101); (iii) one or more cavities (cavity formed by the barrier structure, fig. 3); (c) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure is hollow (Fig. 3), (d) where the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure is hollow (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 12, James discloses (a) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure is solid (the barrier is solid, not a liquid or gas), (b) where the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure is solid (the barrier is solid, not a liquid or gas). Regarding claim 13, James discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) one or more inner walls (wall of 101 extending between the front and back wall); (ii) where the one or more inner walls join the front wall to the back wall (Fig. 4), (b) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) one or more inner walls (wall of 101 extending between the front and back wall); (ii) where the one or more inner walls join the front wall to the back wall (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 14, James discloses (a) wherein the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges (at least the circular ridge protruding from 102, ridge surrounding perimeter of 103); (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg (at least indirection) of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (b) wherein the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges (at least the circular ridge protruding from 102, ridge surrounding perimeter of 103); (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure. Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes (9,894,952). Regarding claim 1, in figures 1 and 12 Hayes discloses a Sound Attenuation Structure (14 on both sides of the user’s head), comprising: (a) a right sound attenuation structure (14 on the right ear); the right sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a clip (upper portion of 14 including one of 48); the clip comprising: (1) a left leg (portion of 14 to the left of 48); (2) a right leg (portion of 14 to the right of 48); and (3) a slot 48 formed between the left leg and the right leg; (ii) a barrier (remaining portion of 14); (iii) where the barrier is joined to the clip (Fig. 12), (iv) where the barrier abuts against the left leg of the clip (Fig. 12); (b) a left sound attenuation structure (14 on the left ear); the left sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a clip (upper portion of 14 including one of 48); the clip comprising: (1) a left leg (portion of 14 to the left of 48); (2) a right leg (portion of 14 to the right of 48); and (3) a slot 48 formed between the left leg and the right leg; (ii) a barrier (remaining portion of 14); (iii) where the barrier is joined to the clip (Fig. 12), (iv) where the barrier abuts against the right leg of the clip (Fig. 12). Regarding claim 2, Hayes discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a front wall (portion of 14 towards the front in use); (ii) a back wall (portion of 14 towards the back in use); (iii) one or more cavities 46; (b) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a front wall (portion of 14 towards the front in use); (ii) a back wall (portion of 14 towards the back in use); (iii) one or more cavities 46; (c) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure is hollow (cavity 46 is hollow), (d) where the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure is hollow (cavity 46 is hollow). Regarding claim 10, Hayes discloses (a) a face shield (16, which extends in front of at least a portion of the user’s face, fig. 13); the face shield comprising: (i) a left side (left side of 16); and (ii) a right side (right side of 16); (b) where the left side of the face shield is inserted to the clip of the left sound attenuation structure (Col. 5, ll. 30-32), (c) where the right side of the face shield is inserted to the clip of the right sound attenuation structure (Col. 5, ll. 30-32). Regarding claim 11, Hayes discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a front wall (portion of 14 towards the front in use); (ii) a back wall (portion of 14 towards the back in use); (iii) one or more cavities 46; (b) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure comprising: (i) a front wall (portion of 14 towards the front in use); (ii) a back wall (portion of 14 towards the back in use); (iii) one or more cavities 46; (c) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure is hollow (cavity 46 is hollow), (d) where the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure is hollow (cavity 46 is hollow). 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 5-9 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes, as applied to claims 2, 5, and 11 above, and further in view of Mendez (2016/0338429). Regarding claim 5, Hayes is silent regarding (a) wherein the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges; (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (b) wherein the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges; (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure. However, in fig. 1a, 1c and 12b Mendez teaches a left sound attenuation structure (16 and 18 on the left side) comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges 36 and a right sound attenuation structure (16 and 18 on the right side) comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges 36. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes’ left and right sound attenuation structures with the addition of clips 18 that have ridges, as taught by Mendez, for the purpose of frictionally gripping temple arms of eyeglasses ([0071] Mendez). The modified Hayes discloses (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure. Regarding claim 6, Hayes discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) an upper right corner (upper right corner of 14 on the left sound attenuation structure); and (b) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) an upper left corner (upper left corner of 14 on the right sound attenuation structure), but is silent regarding the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (ii) a temple notch; (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper right corner of the barrier, (iv) where a first temple of a pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the left sound attenuation structure, and wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (ii) a temple notch; (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper left corner of the barrier, (iv) where a second temple of the pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the right sound attenuation structure. However, in fig. 1a, 1c and 12b Mendez teaches a barrier of the left sound attenuation structure (14 on the left side) further comprising: (ii) a temple notch (between each of 36); (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper right corner of the barrier (Fig. 1c), (iv) where a first temple of a pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the left sound attenuation structure (Fig. 12b due to the resiliency of 36 [0071]), and wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure (14 on the right side) further comprising: (ii) a temple notch (between each of 36); (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper left corner of the barrier (Fig. 1c), (iv) where a second temple of the pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the right sound attenuation structure (Fig. 12b due to the resiliency of 36 [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes’ left and right sound attenuation structures with the addition of clips 18 that have ridges and notches, as taught by Mendez, for the purpose of frictionally gripping temple arms of eyeglasses ([0071] Mendez). Regarding claim 7, Hayes discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a top end (top end of 14); and (ii) a bottom end (bottom end of 14); (b) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a top end (top end of 14); and (ii) a bottom end (bottom end of 14); but is silent regarding that (iii) where the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure. However, in fig. 2a Mendez teaches a barrier of the left sound attenuation structure (16 on the left side) tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure (16 on the right side) tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes’ left and right sound attenuation structure barrier shapes with tapering shapes, as taught by Mendez, for the purpose of providing an alternately shaped barrier having the predictable results of providing a barrier. Regarding claim 8, the modified Hayes discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a top end (top end of 14, Hayes); and (ii) a bottom end (bottom end of 14, Hayes); (b) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a top end (top end of 14, Hayes); and (ii) a bottom end (bottom end of 14, Hayes); but is silent regarding that (iii) where the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure. However, in fig. 2a Mendez teaches a barrier of the left sound attenuation structure (16 on the left side) tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure (16 on the right side) tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes’ left and right sound attenuation structure barrier shapes with tapering shapes, as taught by Mendez, for the purpose of providing an alternately shaped barrier having the predictable results of providing a barrier. Regarding claim 9, the modified Hayes discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) an upper right corner (upper right corner of 14 on the left sound attenuation structure, Hayes); the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure (14 on the left side, Hayes) further comprising: (ii) a temple notch (between each of 36, Mendez); (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper right corner of the barrier (Fig. 1c, Mendez), (iv) where a first temple of a pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the left sound attenuation structure (Fig. 12b due to the resiliency of 36 [0071] Mendez), and (b) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) an upper left corner (upper left corner of 14 on the right sound attenuation structure, Hayes), and wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure (14 on the right side, Hayes) further comprising: (ii) a temple notch (between each of 36, Mendez); (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper left corner of the barrier (Fig. 1c, Mendez), (iv) where a second temple of the pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the right sound attenuation structure (Fig. 12b due to the resiliency of 36 [0071], Mendez). Regarding claim 14, Hayes is silent regarding (a) wherein the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges; (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (b) wherein the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges; (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure. However, in fig. 1a, 1c and 12b Mendez teaches a left sound attenuation structure (16 and 18 on the left side) comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges 36 and a right sound attenuation structure (16 and 18 on the right side) comprising: (i) a plurality of support ridges 36. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes’ left and right sound attenuation structures with the addition of clips 18 that have ridges, as taught by Mendez, for the purpose of frictionally gripping temple arms of eyeglasses ([0071] Mendez). The modified Hayes discloses (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the left sound attenuation structure, (ii) where some of the support ridges are joined to left leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure, (iii) where some of the support ridges are joined to the right leg (at least indirectly) of the clip of the right sound attenuation structure. Regarding claim 15, Hayes discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) an upper right corner (upper right corner of 14 on the left sound attenuation structure); and (b) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) an upper left corner (upper left corner of 14 on the right sound attenuation structure), but is silent regarding the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (ii) a temple notch; (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper right corner of the barrier, (iv) where a first temple of a pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the left sound attenuation structure, and wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (ii) a temple notch; (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper left corner of the barrier, (iv) where a second temple of the pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the right sound attenuation structure. However, in fig. 1a, 1c and 12b Mendez teaches a barrier of the left sound attenuation structure (14 on the left side) further comprising: (ii) a temple notch (between each of 36); (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper right corner of the barrier (Fig. 1c), (iv) where a first temple of a pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the left sound attenuation structure (Fig. 12b due to the resiliency of 36 [0071]), and wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure (14 on the right side) further comprising: (ii) a temple notch (between each of 36); (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper left corner of the barrier (Fig. 1c), (iv) where a second temple of the pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the right sound attenuation structure (Fig. 12b due to the resiliency of 36 [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes’ left and right sound attenuation structures with the addition of clips 18 that have ridges and notches, as taught by Mendez, for the purpose of frictionally gripping temple arms of eyeglasses ([0071] Mendez). Regarding claim 16, the modified Hayes discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a top end (top end of 14, Hayes); and (ii) a bottom end (bottom end of 14, Hayes); (b) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a top end (top end of 14, Hayes); and (ii) a bottom end (bottom end of 14, Hayes); but is silent regarding that (iii) where the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure. However, in fig. 2a Mendez teaches a barrier of the left sound attenuation structure (16 on the left side) tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure (16 on the right side) tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes’ left and right sound attenuation structure barrier shapes with tapering shapes, as taught by Mendez, for the purpose of providing an alternately shaped barrier having the predictable results of providing a barrier. Regarding claim 17, the modified Hayes discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a top end (top end of 14, Hayes); and (ii) a bottom end (bottom end of 14, Hayes); (b) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) a top end (top end of 14, Hayes); and (ii) a bottom end (bottom end of 14, Hayes); but is silent regarding that (iii) where the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure. However, in fig. 2a Mendez teaches a barrier of the left sound attenuation structure (16 on the left side) tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure, (iii) where the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure (16 on the right side) tapers from the bottom end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure towards the top end of the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayes’ left and right sound attenuation structure barrier shapes with tapering shapes, as taught by Mendez, for the purpose of providing an alternately shaped barrier having the predictable results of providing a barrier. Regarding claim 18, the modified Hayes discloses (a) wherein the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) an upper right corner (upper right corner of 14 on the left sound attenuation structure, Hayes); the barrier of the left sound attenuation structure (14 on the left side, Hayes) further comprising: (ii) a temple notch (between each of 36, Mendez); (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper right corner of the barrier (Fig. 1c, Mendez), (iv) where a first temple of a pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the left sound attenuation structure (Fig. 12b due to the resiliency of 36 [0071] Mendez), and (b) wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure further comprising: (i) an upper left corner (upper left corner of 14 on the right sound attenuation structure, Hayes), and wherein the barrier of the right sound attenuation structure (14 on the right side, Hayes) further comprising: (ii) a temple notch (between each of 36, Mendez); (iii) where the temple notch is located on the upper left corner of the barrier (Fig. 1c, Mendez), (iv) where a second temple of the pair of glasses is placed through the temple notch of the right sound attenuation structure (Fig. 12b due to the resiliency of 36 [0071], Mendez). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rieppel et al. (4,103,359) and Daniels et al. (2015/0342282) directed towards a noise suppressing structure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM. 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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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. /RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12544604
Nose Mask
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539379
DEVICE FOR UNBLOCKING AND REMOVING SECRETIONS FROM AIRWAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12539376
Inhaler
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12533279
CAM AND NON-CIRCULAR GEAR PAIR FOR UNPOWERED MULTI-JOINT SYNCHRONOUS TRAINING DEVICE, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, TRANSMISSION MECHANISM USING THE SAME, AND UNPOWERED MULTI-JOINT SYNCHRONOUS TRAINING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12533478
Oil leaking prevention structure and aromatherapy machine with the same
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+57.2%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 791 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month