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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6: “the first earplug” should apparently read --the at least one first earplug--.
In claim 13, line 1: “a system” should apparently read --the system--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the auditory canal" in line 5 (i.e., a person has multiple auditory canals) and “the respective passenger” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is also noted that “the respective passenger” is recited again numerous times throughout the claims, which may need to be amended in kind.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the eardrum" in line 3 (i.e., a person has multiple eardrums). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "at least one second sensor" in line 2. As claim 3 does not depend upon claim 2, no first sensor has been recited, so it is not clear if the claim is intending to implicitly recite both first and second sensors, or if it is only reciting one sensor.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the respective earplug" in line 2 and “the respective auditory canal” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the respective earplug" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the received sensor data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "a respective passenger" in line 3, “a sensor device” in lines 3-4, “at least one first earplug” in line 4, “a set of headphones” in lines 4-5, "acoustic signals" in line 5, and “loudspeakers” in line 7. It is not clear if these are intended to be the same components previously recited or to be separate components. If the former is intended, the limitations should read --the respective passenger--, --the sensor device--, --the at least one first earplug--, --the at least one set of headphones--, --the acoustic signals--, and --the two loudspeakers--.
Claim 13 also recites the limitation "the headphones" in line 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (only a set of headphones, or at least one set of headphones, has been previously recited).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "acoustic signals" in line 3. It is not clear if these are intended to be the same acoustic signals previously recited or to be separate signals. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the acoustic signals--.
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 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 108429970 A; cited in the IDS filed 05 August 2022; hereinafter known as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a system for reducing a kinetosis effect in at least one passenger of a vehicle (Abstract; alleviate motion sickness of a user riding in a vehicle), comprising at least one set of headphones 120 having two loudspeakers and having at least one first earplug (in-ear earphone or earplug type earphones), wherein the at least one set of headphones is configured to detect the kinetosis effect in the auditory canal of the respective passenger at least by means of a sensor device integrated in the first earplug (e.g., parameter acquisition module; acquires a pressure signal generated in the ear canal to determine heart rate information according to the pressure signal; can also acquire brain wave signal; can also acquire temperature) and to provide acoustic signals to reduce the kinetosis effect of the respective passenger by means of the two loudspeakers in dependence on the detected kinetosis effect (playing an audio signal to relieve motion sickness symptoms when the user is in a motion sickness state).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses that the sensor device comprises at least one first sensor, which is configured to detect a body temperature in the auditory canal or at the eardrum of the respective passenger (biological information such as temperature may be acquired based on the biosensor built in the earphone).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses that the sensor device comprises at least one second sensor, which is configured to detect changes in the auditory canal of the respective passenger (e.g., pressure sensor or biosensor measuring blood flow, oxygen saturation, sweating amount, temperature, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses at least one gyrometer and at least one accelerometer, which are configured to detect forces acting on the respective passenger during the operation of the vehicle (sensor for collecting motion state information comprises an acceleration sensor and a gyroscope).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses that the at least one set of headphones comprises a second earplug (Fig. 1; in-ear earphone or earplug type earphones).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses that the sensor device is at least partially also arranged in the second earplug (sensors installed on earphones).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses that the at least one set of headphones comprises a processing unit, which is configured to calculate the kinetosis effect of the respective passenger at least on the basis of sensor data of the sensor device (earphone includes a memory, processor, and computer program to determine whether user is in a motion sickness state and control playing the audio signal to relieve motion sickness).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses that the respective earplug is configured to close the respective auditory canal of the respective passenger (earplug-type earphones).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses a control and evaluation unit, which is configured to be connected to the at least one set of headphones for data transmission (e.g., terminal 110 or mobile phone related to terminal device, wirelessly communicates with the earphones).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses that the control and evaluation unit is configured to detect a health status of the respective passenger at least via the received sensor data relating to the kinetosis effect of the respective passenger (terminal device can acquire information, evaluate it to determine motion sickness, and control playing of audio).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses a method for operating a system for reducing a kinetosis effect as claimed in any one of the preceding claims (Abstract; alleviate motion sickness of a user riding in a vehicle), wherein the kinetosis effect is detected in the auditory canal of a respective passenger by means of a sensor device, which is integrated in at least one first earplug of a set of headphones (in-ear earphone or earplug type earphones; parameter acquisition module; acquires a pressure signal generated in the ear canal to determine heart rate information according to the pressure signal; can also acquire brain wave signal; can also acquire temperature), wherein acoustic signals for reducing the kinetosis effect of the respective passenger are provided in dependence on the detected kinetosis effect by means of integrated in the headphones (playing an audio signal to relieve motion sickness symptoms when the user is in a motion sickness state).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses that forces acting on the respective passenger during the operation of the vehicle are detected by means of at least one gyrometer and at least one accelerometer, wherein the acoustic signals for reducing the kinetosis effect of the respective passenger are also generated in dependence on these forces (sensor for collecting motion state information comprises an acceleration sensor and a gyroscope, used to determine motion sickness state).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses that a threshold value for the detected kinetosis effect of the respective passenger is set by the respective passenger, wherein acoustic signals for reducing the kinetosis effect of the respective passenger are only provided after exceeding the threshold value (if the difference between acquired heart rate information and standard heart rate value is greater than various preset differences, it indicates which motion sickness state the user is in; these preset differences may be set according to physiological parameters of the user’s own motion sickness; different audio signals are played according to different degrees of motion sickness).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0107103 A1; hereinafter known as “Chen”). Zhang discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the respective earplug comprises a venting unit. Chen discloses a similar earphone/earplug (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2) that comprises a venting unit 3 in order to improve sound quality and effect ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang with such a venting unit as taught by Chen in order to improve sound quality and effect.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yurusov (WO 2019/074758 A1). Zhang discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the control and evaluation unit is configured to be connected to a display and control system for data transmission (e.g., terminal 110 or mobile phone, wirelessly communicates with the earphones). Zhang fails to disclose that the display and control system is a display and control system of the vehicle. Yurusov discloses a similar system (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2) that is used in conjunction with a display and control system of a vehicle in order to compensate for motion sickness ([0032]; [0037]; [0057]; [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang so that the control and evaluation unit is configured to be connected to a display and control system of the vehicle for data transmission, as taught by Yurusov, in order to compensate for the motion sickness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asirvatham (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0368527 A1) teaches a wearable device that includes earbuds, wherein the device can be used for treating motion sickness, and can sense temperature and acceleration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791