DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-11 of Remarks, filed 11/26/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 USC 103 using spring 225 of Li have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of second spring 420 of Li. A copy of a machine translation from Google patents is provided and used in the rejection below as it appears to be clearer than the previously provided translation.
Applicant arguments, see pp. 12-15 of Remarks filed 11/26/25, regarding claim 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant arguments, see pp. 21-23 of Remarks filed 11/26/25, regarding claim 24 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant submits that “Wei discloses that the bone conduction speakers 12 are set within both glasses feet 10, and what is connected to the glasses legs 2 by a spring hinge device 15 is the glasses feet. In contrast, as recited in claim 1, what is connected to the end of one glasses temple through a hinge assembly is the bone conduction speaker directly.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, claim 24 recites, “a bone conduction speaker connected to an end of one glasses temple through a hinge assembly.” At no point does that claim specify that the physical bone conduction speaker is connected to a glasses temple through a hinge assembly directly. Even so, any person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the bone conduction speaker 12 set within glasses feet 13 is connected to glasses leg (i.e. temple) by hinge 15.
Additionally, Wei (¶0028 and Fig. 7), “the Bluetooth circuit board 7 and the bone conduction speaker 12 are connected through the conducting wires 4,” i.e. the speaker is directly connected to the leg through the hinge assembly via wire 4. It is unclear how Applicant considers housed speaker 30 of instant application Fig. 1 to be connected to temple 12 directly but the housed speaker 12 of Wei is not directly connected to leg 2.
Applicant further submits that Lang involves the technical field of minimally invasive ablation, which is not the same technical field as the present application and cannot disclose claim 19. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As asserted in the previous Office Action, Lang is directed to the same filed of endeavor with respect to vibration sensing.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 111142274 A – citations made to Google Patents machine English translation) in view of Wong et al. (US 9,277,334 B1), hereinafter “Wong.”
As to claim 1, Li discloses glasses (Fig. 1), comprising:
a glasses body, including a glasses frame and two glasses temples, wherein the two glasses temples are physically connected to the glasses frame, respectively (p. 4, ¶06, Figs. 1 and 4. “Frame 120 includes a rim 121 and a temple 122, and temple 122 is hinged to the outer peripheral wall of frame 120.”); and
at least one bone conduction microphone configured to convert a vibration signal into an electric signal (p. 4, ¶07, Figs. 1-3 and 10-11. “The bone conduction microphone 200 can convert sound into mechanical vibration of different frequencies.”), wherein
the at least one bone conduction microphone is physically connected to the glasses frame or at least one glasses temple of the two glasses temples, and the at least one bone conduction microphone is configured to receive vibration signals from the glasses frame, the at least one glasses temple or a user's body (p. 5 ¶02, Figs. 1-3. “make bone conduction microphone 200 more laminate in user's skull thereby reach good conduction effect, strengthen the suitability of bone conduction intelligent glasses.”); and
wherein the glasses body includes an installation cavity for accommodating the at least one bone conduction microphone, one end of the bone conduction microphone extends out of the installation cavity, another end of the bone conduction microphone is elastically connected to a side wall of the installation cavity through an elastic element, the elastic element is configured to press the bone conduction microphone to directly contact the user (p. 4 ¶08, p. 5 ¶02 and p. 5 ¶04-06, Figs. 1-3 and 7-11. “connector 300 is used to make a connection between bone conduction microphone 200 and temple 122.” “the bone conduction microphone 200 is rotated by inserting the protrusion 221 into the notch 312.” “a pressing member 400 is disposed in the accommodating chamber 314, and the pressing member 400 includes a pressing plate 410 and a second spring 420.” “the surface of the conduction part 210 of the bone conduction microphone 200 away from the connection part 220 may be closely attached to the skin of the user, and at this time, the abutting force between the bone conduction microphone 200 and the skin is smaller than the maximum elastic force of the second spring 420, so that the bone conduction microphone 200 cannot be separated from the slider 310, and when the user speaks, due to the action of the muscle on the face, the abutting force between the bone conduction microphone 200 and the skin may be increased, which may cause discomfort of the user. In order to enhance the wearing comfort of the smart glasses… an adjusting member 320 (as shown in Fig. 2) for adjusting the sliding block 310 to move along the depth direction of the first sliding groove 1221 is inserted into the opening 1224.” Microphone 200 installed in connector 300 of glasses 120. Conducting part 210 contacts head of the user. Connecting part 220 connected via second spring 420 to rear wall of pressing member 400 of connector 300. Bone conducting microphone 200 is elastically connected by second spring 420 which provides an abutting force against the skin that is smaller than the maximum elastic force used to disconnect the microphone 200 from the slider 310.).
Li does not expressly disclose a pressure of the bone conduction microphone on the user's is larger than 0.1 N.
Wong discloses a pressure of the bone conduction microphone on the user's is larger than 0.1 N (Wong, Col. 11 lines 12-19 and Col. 14 lines 11-13, Fig. 2. “In one example, 80 grams of pressure on a contact point of approximately 0.5 cm.sup.2 is sufficient to properly engage the speaker 134 or microphone 136 against the user's head 200.” “The user may be prompted to adjust the eyeglasses after each signal is transmitted to change the location and/or pressure of the microphone and the speaker.” 80 grams is ~0.78N.).
Wong and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to glasses with bone conduction transducers.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use 0.78N of pressure, as taught by Wong. The motivation would have been to make sure pressure is adequate for bone conduction while also being comfortable to the user (Wong, Col. 11 lines 19-22).
As to claim 8, Li in view of Wong discloses wherein the two glasses temple includes a first glasses temple and a second glasses temple, and the at least one bone conduction microphone includes at least one first bone conduction microphone and at least one second bone conduction microphone (Li, Figs. 1 and 4. 1st and 2nd bone conduction microphones 200.);
wherein, the at least one first bone conduction microphone is disposed on the first glasses temple, and the at least one second bone conduction microphone is disposed on the second glasses temple (Li, Fig. 1. 1st and 2nd bone conduction microphones 200 on 1st and 2nd legs 122.).
As to claim 9, Li in view of Wong discloses wherein the at least one first bone conduction microphone and the at least one second bone conduction microphone are both wireless bone conduction microphones (Li, p. 1 ¶02-04. Smart glasses with wireless network access. While wireless microphones are not expressly disclosed, they would be obvious to try as the microphones can only be wired or wireless, both with a reasonable expectation of success.).
As to claim 13, Li in view of Wong discloses wherein the at least one bone conduction microphone is elastically connected to the at least one glasses temple or the glasses frame (Li, Figs. 1-3 and 7-10. Bone conduction 200 elastically connected to glasses temple by spring 420.).
As to claim 14, Li in view of Wong discloses wherein when the user wears the glasses, the at least one bone conduction microphone is in contact with the user's body such that the at least one bone conduction microphone receives the vibration signal of the user's body (Li, p. 5 ¶02, Figs. 1-3. “make bone conduction microphone 200 more laminate in user's skull thereby reach good conduction effect, strengthen the suitability of bone conduction intelligent glasses.”)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (US 10,699,691 B1), hereinafter “Ye.”
As to claim 7, Li in view of Wong as modified by Ye discloses wherein a vibration unit of the bone conduction microphone is a single-axis acceleration sensor or a multi-axis acceleration sensor (Ye, Col. 4 lines 11-13. “The BCM 114 may comprise an accelerometer, gyroscope, vibration sensor, and so forth.” Obvious to try single or multiple-axis as there can only be a single axis or multiples axes, i.e., a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.).
Li, Wong and Ye are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to glasses with bone conduction transducers.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an accelerometer for vibration sensing, as taught by Ye. The motivation would have been the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wong and Ye, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lang (US 2020/0138515 A1).
As to claim 19, Li in view of Wong and Ye does not expressly disclose wherein an input signal of the bone conduction microphone is a weighted sum operation on the vibration signals collected in a plurality of directions by the multi-axis acceleration sensor.
Ye in view of Wong as modified by Ye and Lang discloses wherein an input signal of the bone conduction microphone is a weighted sum operation on the vibration signals collected in a plurality of directions by the multi-axis acceleration sensor (Lang, ¶0026. “Single- and multi-axis models of accelerometer are available to detect magnitude and direction of the acceleration, as a vector quantity, and can be used to sense… vibration...” Vector quantity of magnitude and direction of acceleration/vibration.).
Li, Wong, Ye and Lang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to sensing vibration.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a vector quantity of direction and magnitude, as taught by Lang. The motivation would have been to represent the magnitude and direction of vibration.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei (US 2016/0246076 A1).
As to claim 24, Li in view of Wong discloses the bone conduction microphone is positioned before the user's ear (Li, Figs. 1 and 4. Bone conduction microphone 200 before ear.).
Li in view of Wong does not expressly disclose a bone conduction speaker connected to an end of one glasses temple through a hinge assembly, wherein the bone conduction speaker is configured to attach to a back of the user's ear, and the bone conduction microphone is positioned before the user's ear.
Wei discloses a bone conduction speaker connected to an end of one glasses temple through a hinge assembly, wherein the bone conduction speaker is configured to attach to a back of the user's ear (Wei, ¶0028, Fig. 7. “The glasses legs 2 and the glasses feet 10 are connected by a spring hinge device 15, and the diaphragm 13 is set on the bone conduction speaker 12 within the glasses feet 10.”).
Li, Wong and Wei are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to glasses with bone conduction transducers.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a bone conduction speaker, as taught by Wei. The motivation would have been to provide sound output for the smart glasses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695