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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10904652. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent and application each claim:
Application claim 1:
1. A case for a portable listening device, the case comprising:
a housing having one or more cavities configured to receive the portable listening device (patent claim 1, the receiving opening);
a lid attached to the housing and operable between a closed position where the lid is aligned over the one or more cavities and an open position where the lid is displaced from the one or more cavities (the lid, patent claim 1); and
a wireless power transmitter (charging coil, patent claim 4) arranged to wirelessly transfer power to a wireless receiver (configured to wirelessly receive power, claim 16) of the portable listening device when the portable listening device is positioned in the one or more cavities (the electrical contact assembly, patent claim 1);
a case charging circuit arranged to wirelessly receive power from an electronic device and to provide power to the case (patent claim 4);
an alignment magnet arranged to align the case charging circuit with the inductive power source;
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) 1-6,8-13,15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch et al (US 20170064429 A1), and further in view of Huddart (US 20070149261 A1).
As per claim 1, Hirsch discloses a case for a portable listening device, the case comprising:
a housing (the enclosure of case 102 in fig. 1) having one or more cavities configured to receive the portable listening device (receptacles 104,106, figs. 1 and 2);
a case charging circuit arranged to wirelessly receive power in a first direction from the sun and to provide power to the case (the circuitry supporting and including the solar panels in para. 20, where light from the sun travels in a t least one direction when reaching the solar panel);
a lid attached to the housing and operable between a closed position where the lid is aligned over the one or more cavities and an open position where the lid is displaced from the one or more cavities (para. 22, the hinged, magnetic sleeve or snap on lid that cover the earpieces will also cover the receiving cavities); and
a wireless power transmitter arranged to wirelessly transfer power in a second direction to a wireless receiver of the portable listening device when the portable listening device is positioned in the one or more cavities (the inductive charger para. 23), wherein the first direction is transverse to the second direction (the wireless power is inductive and as such is based on magnetic waves which comprise multiple transverse directions, noting that regardless of the relative placement of the wireless power transmitter, the earbuds within the case, and the case charging circuit, the wireless nature of the charging of each interface (via light waves, reflected light waves, or magnetic waves) comprises power transfer in many directions, including those that are transverse.
However, Hirsch does not specify: the case charging circuit arranged to wirelessly receive power from an electronic device.
Huddart teaches that earbud charging cases (para. 52 storage case for charging) can be arranged to receive power from an electronic device (docking station para. 54).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement a docking station for the purpose of allowing the case battery to be charged by a primary battery (car battery) as per para 54.
However, Huddart does not specify the mechanism by which the docking station transfers the power to the charging case being an inductive power source.
Huddart teaches the use of a charging coil/inductive power source on the case/charger/carrier to provide wireless power to the earbud (para. 53) which allows charging without charging contacts.
It would have been obvious that the docking station to charge the case could comprise a charging coil/inductive power source for the purpose of allowing the case to charge without the need for charging contacts.
As per claim 2, The case of claim 1, wherein the wireless power transmitter includes a coil (inductive charger by definition comprises a coil).
As per claim 3, The case of claim 1, wherein the wireless power transmitter is arranged to wirelessly transfer data to the wireless receiver of the portable listening device (para. 23 the interfaces are also used to synchronize/transfer data).
As per claim 4, the case of claim 1, wherein the portable listening device includes a first earbud arranged to be received by a user's first ear and a second earbud arranged to be received by a user's second ear (as shown in fig. 1).
As per claim 5, the case of claim 4, wherein the first earbud includes a first wireless receiver and the second earbud includes a second wireless receiver (each earbud requires respective wireless receivers in order to perform the charging and data functions cited in the claim 1-4 rejections).
As per claim 6, the case of claim 1, wherein the case includes a case battery that is coupled to a case charging circuit (the battery of the case per para. 7 and 8).
As per claim 7(cancelled), the case of claim 6, wherein the case charging circuit is arranged to receive power from a wireless power source (the battery of claim 6 is a wireless power source because it is used to wirelessly charge the earbuds per para. 7,8, and 23).
As per claim 8, the case of claim 1, further comprising a logic circuit that initiates turning on a wireless radio of the portable listening device by transmitting a signal to the portable listening device, which is required in order to perform the function: (para. 8: According to one aspect, a method for managing wireless earpieces utilizing a smart case includes detecting the wireless earpieces proximate the smart case, lowering power utilized by the wireless earpieces for a low power mode/ in response to detecting the wireless earpieces proximate the smart case, and charging the wireless earpieces utilizing a battery of the smart case in response to determining the wireless earpieces require charging) because the case must communicate with the wireless earbuds to enable the low power mode (para. 8: The detecting may be performed by a near field communication between the smart case and the wireless earpieces).
As per claim 9, the case of claim 8, wherein the signal is transmitted to the portable listening device through the wireless power transmitter (para. 23: The interfaces 108, 110 may also be utilized to synchronize data between the wireless earpieces 142, 144. As previously noted, wireless charging is also contemplated utilizing an inductive charger integrated in the smart case 102 or other charging devices compatible with the wireless earpieces 142, 144), where the inductive charger used for the charging functions as described in the claim 1,7 and 8 rejections, will perform the nearfield communication for detection and enabling the low power mode).
As per claim 10, a portable listening device system comprising: an earbud comprising:
an earbud housing
a battery positioned within the earbud housing (para. 46, onboard battery of the earpiece);
a speaker positioned within
a wireless power receiver arranged to receive power (required in order to receive the charging and data signaling to/from the case via the inductive charger as cited in the above rejections); and
a case for the earbud, the case comprising:
a case housing defining an interior space/cavitied sized and shaped to receive the earbud (per claim1 rejection);
a case battery positioned within the case housing (as shown in fig. 1);
a case charging circuit arranged to wirelessly receive power (in a first direction) from an inductive power source and to provide power to the case (the circuitry required to implement the docking station wirelessly charging the case as per the claim 1 rejection).
a wireless power transmitter arranged to transmit power in a second direction to the wireless power receiver where the first direction is transverse to the second one (the inductive charger per the claim 1 rejection).
As per claim 11, the system of claim 10, wherein the wireless power transmitter includes a coil (per claim 2 rejection).
As per claim 12, the system of claim 10, wherein the wireless power transmitter is arranged to wirelessly transfer data to the wireless power receiver (per claim 3 rejection).
As per claim 13, the system of claim 10, wherein the case includes a case battery that is coupled to a case charging circuit (per claim 6 rejection).
As per claim 14, the system of claim 13, wherein the case charging circuit is arranged to receive power from a wireless power source (per claim 7 rejection).
As per claim 15, The system of claim 10, the earbud further comprises a wireless radio configured to be communicatively coupled to an electronic device via a wireless communications channel (the Bluetooth function cited in Hirsch para 27. Requires wireless radios in the earbuds);
the case further comprises a logic circuit configured to turn on the wireless radio by transmitting a signal to the earbud (per claim 8 rejection).
As per claim 16, the system of claim 15, wherein the signal is transmitted to the earbud through the wireless power transmitter (per the claim 9 rejection).
As per claim 17, a portable listening device system comprising:
a portable listening device comprising:
a device housing (claim 10 rejection);
a battery positioned within the device housing (claim 10 rejection);
a wireless power receiver arranged to receive power (claim 10 rejection);
a speaker positioned within the device housing and configured to generate sound (claim 10 rejection); and
a case for the portable listening device, the case comprising: a case housing defining a cavity for storing the portable listening device (per claim 10 rejection);
a case battery positioned within the case (per claim 10 rejection);
a wireless power transmitter arranged to transmit power to the wireless power receiver (per claim 10 rejection); and
a case charging circuit arranged to wirelessly receive power from an inductive power source and to provide power to the case (per the claim 10 rejection).
As per claim 18, the system of claim 17, wherein the wireless power transmitter is arranged to wirelessly transfer data to the wireless power receiver (per claim 12 rejection).
As per claim 19, The system of claim 17, wherein the earbud further comprises a wireless radio configured to be communicatively coupled to an electronic device via a wireless communications channel;
the case further comprises a processor/logic circuit configured to turn on the wireless radio; and the processor initiates turning on the wireless radio by transmitting a signal to the portable listening device (per the claim 15 rejection).
As per claim 20, the system of claim 19, wherein the signal is transmitted to the portable listening device via the wireless power transmitter (per the claim 16 rejection).
As per claim 21, (CANCELLED) The case of claim 1, wherein: the case charging circuit includes a first magnetic coil to receive power from the inductive power source (wireless power charging via an inductive power source requires a magnetic coil in each of the power source and the case); and
the alignment magnet is arranged to align the first magnetic coil with the inductive power source (per the teachings in the claim 1 rejection).
Response to Arguments
The submitted arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
As per applicant’s argument that the cited prior art does not disclose the wireless radio being turned on because it is not turned off, the examiner notes that while in the low power mode as cited, the full functionality/wireless radio of the wireless interface is disabled/turned off and is turned on during the high power mode.
Further, it is not clear how one would read ‘turned off’ as argued by applicant given that applicant’s specification is silent as to actual power and circuit level details required to define exactly which components have their power removed, or to define the specifics of ‘turned off’.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is allowed over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
The submitted arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN whose telephone number is 571-272-7498, and whose email address is alexander.krzystan@uspto.gov
The examiner can usually be reached on m-f 7:30-4:00 est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Examiner Alexander Krzystan
February 5, 2026