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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 9/10/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the two hearing protection devices" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (US 11896826) in view of King (US 20200100938).
Black discloses an in ear stimulation system including a cooling assembly (e.g. generally seen in Fig. 6B), an earpiece magnetically attachable to the cooling assembly (e.g. earpiece 230), the cooling assembly comprises a cooling module (e.g. thermoelectric device 236), a heat sink (e.g. heat sink 250), and a fan adapted to reject heat from the cooling module (e.g. Col. 9, line 17-43; Black discloses use of optional fans to provide further heat dissipation), the cooling module comprises a thermoelectric cooler (e.g. Col. 11, line 30 – Col. 12, line 19; Black discloses using a thin film thermoelectric device and peltier coolers/heaters), the earpiece comprises a body (e.g. Fig. 6B generally shows the body of the earpiece), the earpiece comprising a thermally conductive insert (e.g. at least portion(s) 230A define a thermally conductive insert; Col. 10, line 64- Col. 11, line 5).
Black fails to teach a cooler magnet and the ear piece being magnetically attachable to the cooler magnet.
King teaches in a similar field use of a magnet to couple various parts of a ear heat transfer device as set forth in paragraph 155 for providing the predictable result of providing a known means to provide attachment in a medical device in a similar field. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of black with using a cooler magnet and the ear piece being magnetically attachable to the cooler magnet since such a modification would be a known alternative connection means in place of Black forming the ear piece integrally with the ear cups and heat transfer elements since such a modification would provide a known alternative means for coupling the ear piece to the thermoelectric device.
With regard to claim 3, Black discloses a headphone system comprising two cooling assemblies according to claim 2 (as discussed above), configured to be placed over the ears of the user and a headband connecting the two hearing protection devices (e.g. Fig. 1 shows a headphone system with earcups configured to cover each of a user’s ears and a headband portion that joins each ear cup portion).
With regard to claim 4, claim 4 generally recites the same limitation previously set forth in claim 1. Examiner considers these claim limitations to be sufficiently addressed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. O’Leary (US 20200323684) teaches the use of magnetic coupling means for an in ear medical device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A STOKLOSA whose telephone number is (571)272-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930AM-530PM.
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, Jonathan Teixeira-Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights