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. Drawings The drawings are objected to because The following elements lack clear symbols/legends/text to clearly identify them: All of Figs. 1 except 100, 320, & 121 (currently not clear from the drawing alone the difference between 1 and 100) All of Fig. 2 except 100, 150, 160-163, & 170-173 All elements of Fig. 3 except 100 All elements of Figs. 4-13 (note, a legend/text demonstration in an earlier figure will resolve the issues of later figures) with the exception of element 100 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim s 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 L 7 and Claim 1 L16 : emend “they” to “at least one of the wireless transmitter and the wireless receiver” to clarify the record. Claim 2 L3: emend “it” to either “the mobile wireless transmitter” or “the at least one mobile wireless transmitter” . Claim 3 L3: emend “it” to “the mobile wireless receiver” . Claim 13 L10 & L-penultimate: emend “it” to “the wireless transmitter ”. Claim 1 L12: emend “a wireless receiver and” to “[[a ]] the mobile wireless receiver , and” Claim 12 L3 emend “a wireless receiver and” to “a wireless receiver , and”. The following have antecedent basis issues : Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11, and 14: Replace “the at least one transmitter”, “the transmitter”, and “the wireless transmitter” with either “the mobile wireless transmitter” or “the at least one mobile wireless transmitter”. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10: Replace “the receiver ”, and “the wireless receiv er” with “the mobile wireless receiv er” . Claim 8: emend “a microphone and/or an audio input” to “ the [[a]] microphone and/or the [[an]] audio input” Claim 11: emend the 2 nd instance of “an audio signal” to “ the [[an]] audio signal”. Claim 12: emend “ the transmitter rechargeable battery unit and/or the receiver rechargeable battery unit ” to “ [[ the ]] a transmitter rechargeable battery unit and/or [[ the ]] a receiver rechargeable battery unit ” Claim 13 L5: emend “a wireless transmitter” to “ the [[a]] wireless transmitter”. Claim 14 L1: emend “A mobile wireless transmission system” to “ The [[A]] mobile wireless transmission system” Claim 14 L11: emend “ the transmitter/receiving compartment ” to “ the transmitter [ [ / ]] _ receiving compartment ” (note, add a space, remove the slash “ / ” ). Appropriate correction is required. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words, emend down to 150 words or below. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 , 4, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Engelen et al (USPGPN 20060166715; hereinafter Engel) . Independent Claim 1 , Engel discloses a mobile wireless audio transmission system (Figs. [1-9 & 11, esp. 1 -3 & 11 ]) , comprising: at least one mobile wireless transmitter for the wireless transmission of audio signals which have been recorded via a microphone in the wireless transmitter or which have been transmitted via an audio input to the wireless transmitter, wherein the wireless transmitter comprises a transmitter rechargeable battery unit (microphone unit 14 including transceiver, i.e. transmitter/receiver, 15, see ¶’s [24-28, esp. 24, 28]) , a mobile wireless receiver for the wireless reception of audio signals transmitted wirelessly by the at least one wireless transmitter, wherein the wireless receiver comprises a receiver rechargeable battery unit (earpiece 12 including transceiver 13 [Figs. 2 & 4], see ¶’s [24-28, esp. 24, 2 7 ] ) and a mobile charging/transport dock which comprises at least one transmitter receiving compartment for receiving a wireless transmitter (Fig. 1, 162) , a receiver receiving compartment for receiving a wireless receiver (164) and a rechargeable battery unit as power supply ( ¶[ 26, main device battery ” ] ) , wherein the mobile charging/transport dock is configured to charge the transmitter rechargeable battery unit and/or the receiver rechargeable battery unit with energy from the rechargeable battery unit when they are placed in the corresponding receiving compartments (¶’s [26, 27, 41, 63, 78, 79, 81-83, esp. 26, 27]) Independent Claim 1 2 , Engel discloses a mobile charging/transport dock (16, Figs. [1-9 & 11, esp. 1-3 & 11 ] ) comprising: at least one transmitter receiving compartment for receiving a wireless transmitter (162) , a receiver receiving compartment for receiving a wireless receiver (164) and a rechargeable battery unit as power supply ( ¶[ 26, main device battery ” ] ) , wherein the charging/transport dock is configured to charge the transmitter rechargeable battery unit and/or the receiver rechargeable battery unit with energy from the rechargeable battery unit when they are placed in the corresponding receiving compartments (¶’s [26, 27, 41, 63, 78, 79, 81-83, esp. 26, 27]). Independent Claim 1 3 , Engel discloses a hand microphone ( Figs. [1-9 & 11, esp. 1-3 , 5 -7 , & 11 ]) comprising: a microphone handle (16) in the form of a charging/transport dock having a transmitter receiving compartment (16) for receiving a wireless transmitter and a rechargeable battery unit as power supply ( ¶[ 26, main device battery ” ] ) , and a wireless transmitter for the wireless transmission of audio signals which have been recorded via a microphone in the transmitter or which have been transmitted via an audio input to the transmitter (microphone unit 14 including transceiver, i.e. transmitter/receiver, 15, see ¶’s [24-28, esp. 24, 28]) , wherein the wireless transmitter has a transmitter rechargeable battery unit as power supply and can be placed in the transmitter receiving compartment (Fig. 1, cited above ¶[ 24]) , wherein the wireless transmitter can transmit the audio signals wirelessly when it is located in the transmitter receiving compartment and when it is not located in the transmitter receiving compartment ( ¶[24] notes that wireless communication is performed between 14 with receiver 12 and base unit 16, and only notes as an alternative/embodiment[ may ] that the communication can be performed wired, which means in the embodiment where wired communication is not performed over the charging receptacle, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the communication aspects further explained in ¶’s [26, 28, 32, 36, 49, 64] would mean that the communication can be performed both while connected and not, while Fig. 11, which appears to be very similar to Fig. 1, explicitly defines this limitation as contemplated by Engel ¶[ 77: “ when detachable earpiece 156 and/or detachable microphone 154 are physically coupled to host device 152 , they may communicate via a physical or wireless link ”], where 154 substantially corresponds to 14 of Fig. 1 ) . Dependent Claim 4 , Engel discloses the receiver can receive two audio channels from two transmitters (Fig. 2 demonstrates that each of 14 and 12 can receive signals from the other of 14 and 12 and also with 16, i.e. at least two audio channels, ¶ ’s [28 , 39, 49 ] , where communication of audio sensed from microphone 14 in ¶[28] passes into receiver 12 [transmitter a], furthermore, ¶’s [56, 58] describes where base unit sends audio signals to 12 [transmitter b], with ¶’s [39, 49] describing multiple channels ) . Dependent Claim 7 , Engel discloses the transmitter has a transmitter memory ( ¶[ 61]) for storing recorded audio signals (noted an intended use, ¶[67] describes microphone recording [i.e. storing] voice/audio signals, further one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the act of sending the recorded audio signals would involve at least a temporary storage) . Dependent Claim 8 , Engel discloses the wireless transmitter has a microphone and/or an audio input and a clip by means of which the wireless transmitter can be fastened to an item of clothing of a user (noted that the “and/or” limitation placement only requires “ the wireless transmitter has a microphone ”, where better punctuation and/or indenting can improve clarity of the record, where this limitation was already addressed in Claim 1; further , ¶[ 25] describes wearing the device, i.e. on a clothing on a user, via clips) . Dependent Claim 9 , Engel discloses the at least one wireless transmitter can transmit an audio signal wirelessly to the receiver and/or an external smart device (see at least Fig. 2, in light of the cited sections above on transmission of the recorded audio signals) . Dependent Claim 10 , Engel discloses the wireless receiver has a data connection by means of which the wireless receiver can be coupled to an external video camera or an external smart device or another electronic device for transmission of audio signals (noted that the placement of “ for transmission of audio signals ” after the “or” statement means only the last choice “another electronic device” needs to be addressed for the intended use; external smart device and another electronic device cover the limitation of the base unit 16 and the transmitter 14, thus see cited sections above, see further: ¶’s [36, 39] and Fig. 2 demonstrates that each of 14 and 12 can receive signals from the other of 14 and 12 and also with 16, i.e. at least two audio channels, ¶’s [28, 39, 49], where communication of audio sensed from microphone 14 in ¶[ 28] passes into receiver 12 [transmitter a], furthermore, ¶’s [56, 58] describes where base unit sends audio signals to 12 [transmitter b], with ¶’s [39, 49] describing multiple channels ) . Dependent Claim 1 1 , Engel discloses the charging/transport dock has a data connection by means of which an audio signal can be output from the wireless transmitter in the transmitter receiving compartment or an audio signal stored in a memory of the charging/transport dock can be output (¶’s [24, 77] for the audio signal output) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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. 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. Claim s 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Engelen et al (USPGPN 20060166715; hereinafter Engel) . Dependent Claim 2 , Engel discloses the at least one transmitter is ready to transmit when it is placed in the transmitter receiving compartment (¶[24] notes that wireless communication is performed between 14 with receiver 12 and base unit 16, and only notes as an alternative/embodiment[ may ] that the communication can be performed wired, which means in the embodiment where wired communication is not performed over the charging receptacle, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the communication aspects further explained in ¶’s [26, 28, 32, 36, 49, 64] would mean that the communication can be performed both while connected and not, while Fig. 11, which appears to be very similar to Fig. 1, explicitly defines this limitation as contemplated by Engel ¶[ 77: “ when detachable earpiece 156 and/or detachable microphone 154 are physically coupled to host device 152 , they may communicate via a physical or wireless link ”], where 154 substantially corresponds to 14 of Fig. 1), wherein the microphone of the mobile wireless transmitter can freely record audio signals from outside in the inserted state of the transmitter (as the wireless microphone is noted to still communicate when connected, and its functions are described to be [in embodiments excluding the display being placed there or as a routing station between 16 and 12] the sensing and transferring of audio signals, see ¶’s [49, 60, 61, 77, 78] , where it is noted that no microphone is described to be part of separated base unit 16, and this base unit when combined is described as a phone (¶’s [26, 51, 77], where a phone inherently includes a microphone), see further incorporation by reference of ¶[ 01] . Or in the alternative, if the applicant believes it is not inherent that it can freely act as a microphone to record audio signals from the outside when connected, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not include a separate microphone on the base unit of the phone due to extra costs and added complexity (e.g. having to turn off the microphone 14/154 when connected would increase the complexity of the circuit/control-system, since control would have to turn it off when coupled ; official notice take if the applicant needs evidence to support the extra costs required for redundant parts ). 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. 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelen et al (USPGPN 20060166715; hereinafter Engel) in view of Bodley et al (USPGPN 20060217162) Dependent Claim 3 , Engel teaches the receiver is ready to receive when it is placed in the receiver receiving compartment (as cited above, it communicates when connected or not connect, e.g. ¶’s [ 63, 77, 24 ]) the wireless receiver has a display (22, Fig. 6, ¶[ 54]) Engel is silent to the wireless receiver has a display which can be seen from outside in the inserted state of the receiver. Bodley teaches the wireless receiver has a display which can be seen from outside in the inserted state of the receiver (16, see Figs. [1A-1C, 3A] where ¶[ 31] describes the display can indicate charging status/radio link to user, i.e. improving convenience to a user as they can know if the detachable device would be ready to operate outside of the charging base unit) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Engel with Bodley to provide improved convenience. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelen et al (USPGPN 20060166715; hereinafter Engel) in view of Shaffer (USPGPN 20150245125) Dependent Claim 5 , Engel discloses the charging/transport dock has two transmitter receiving compartments (it is noted that ¶’s [42, 54] supports that 12 can also be a microphone, where cited sections above have that it has a transceiver component, while Fig. 4 and ¶’s [48-50] describes that there can be two earpieces ) . Engel however, is silent to the housing of the charging/transport dock explicitly having two transmitter receiving compartments (in addition to the receiver dock; not shown explicitly). Shaffer teaches in Figs. [1A-4 & 6] the use of multiple ear pieces [28, 30] correspond to the transceiver 12 of Engel, 20 is also included in the dock 11). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that providing housing for more than only the two devices provides the convenience to the user of being able to conveniently carry earpieces for both ears (Fig. 4 of Engel) instead of only one, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands can improve the fidelity of the sound received over only the use of one earpiece (Figs. 1-3 of Engel) and helps to ensure the second device is not lost (official notice taken) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Engel with Shaffer to provide improved convenience. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelen et al (USPGPN 20060166715; hereinafter Engel) in view of Silva et al (USPGPN 20220224156) Dependent Claim 6 , Engel is silent to the charging/transport dock has adapter receiving compartments for receiving various adapters. Silva teaches the charging/transport dock (Figs. [1, 2, 21-25, esp. 23-25]) has adapter receiving compartments for receiving various adapters (adaptors of Figs. [23-25], where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having them all in one place, it improvs convenience for a user as they do not have to carry a separate plug for different devices, official notice taken) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Engel with Silva to provide improved convenience Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelen et al (USPGPN 20060166715; hereinafter Engel), as evidenced by Monson et al (USPGPN 20230040626) , Blanco et al (USPGPN 20030016834), and Bodly et al (USPGPN 20070147644) . Dependent Claim 14 , Engel discloses the mobile charging/transport dock comprises a first front side and a second front side (see Figs. 1 and 11) , wherein a length of the mobile charging/transport dock between the first and second front side is between 10 cm to 20 cm (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that these dimensions are a simple design choice, which is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, see for example of evidence of a design choice, the length 68 of Monson in ¶[26] in e.g. Fig. 2 which is similarly a charger [abstract]) , wherein the first and second front side comprises side lengths between 3 cm and 7 cm, such that the charging/transport dock has a longitudinal shape (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that these dimensions are a simple design choice, which is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, see for example of evidence of a design choice, the length 68 of Monson in ¶[ 26] in e.g. Fig. 2 ; longitudinal shape substantially shown by Engel in Figs. [1, 11] ), and wherein the at least one transmitter receiving compartment is arranged at the first front face such that the charging/transport dock can be used as grip of a handheld microphone, when the wireless transmitter is placed into the transmitter receiving compartment (shown to connect at one end, which can be where one of ordinary skill in the art can hold it in Figs. [1, 11]) and wherein the transmitter/receiving compartment comprises charging contacts (112, see ¶[ 63], where on of ordinary skill in the art understands that physical contacts for charge transfer would include at least two contacts for positive and negative power in light of the power charging described above) , wherein the wireless transmitter comprises a first end and a second end opposite to the first end, and wherein the wireless transmitter comprises transmitter charging contacts (112, see ¶[ 63], where on of ordinary skill in the art understands that physical contacts for charge transfer would include at least two contacts for positive and negative power) , wherein the microphone is arranged at the first end of the wireless transmitter and the transmitter charging contacts are arranged at the second end of the wireless transmitter (see Fig. 7, noted the applicant did not claim opposite end, where Blanco [Fig. 4 microphone port 229, charger contacts 205] and Bodley [Figs. {1A-1C & 3A} and ¶36 has microphone 18 on opposite end from charging contacts 20] provide evidence that opposite ends are simple design choice well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide) , such that an input of the microphone is pointing in the same direction as the first front side of the charging/transport dock, when the wireless transmitter is placed into the transmitter receiving compartment (while Engel is silent to this style of design, as evidenced by Blanco and Bodley, this placement is a simple design choice, where it would be well within the skill of ordinary skill in the art to provide this structure) . It is noted that the design choices above are in light of the absence in the applicant’s disclosure that they solve any stated problem and it appears the invention of Engel would perform equally well with the design choices. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0651 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Drew Dunn can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712722312 . 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. /JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859