Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/405,226

EARBUDS CRADLE AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING SIZE OF EAR TIP OF EARBUD USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 05, 2024
Priority
Nov 24, 2022 — RE 10-2022-0159788 +1 more
Examiner
KURR, JASON R
Art Unit
2695
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
548 granted / 725 resolved
+13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
736
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.1%
+5.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 725 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 9, 2026 has been entered. 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan et al (US 20210127221 A1) in view of Iseberg (US 20220360919). With respect to claim 1, Kannan discloses an earbuds cradle (fig.2 #200) comprising: a body (fig.2 #202); a pair of earbud accommodating grooves (fig.2 #222) provided on a upper surface of the body and configured to accommodate a pair of earbuds, each of the pair of earbud accommodating grooves comprising a respective bottom surface, wherein the respective bottom surfaces are separate from each other such that the pair of earbud accommodating grooves do not share a common bottom cavity or bottom passage connecting the pair of earbud accommodating grooves (Par.[0027] housing #202 comprises a pair of grooves or cavities #222 for accommodating earbuds #212,214, wherein each groove comprises a bottom surface, shown below microphones #208,210 in figure 2); a sound reflection deformation portion provided at the bottom surface of each of the pair of earbud accommodating grooves (Par.[0027] cavities #264,248 comprise a bottom wall “sound reflection deformation portion” at the bottom surface of each groove #222)(Examiner's Note: the term "sound reflection deformation portion" is a relative term has no well-recognized meaning in the art. Due to the breadth of the term the Examiner has interpreted the "sound reflection deformation portion" as any portion of the earbud cradle, such as a wall, provided at the bottom surface of each accommodating groove, as defined by the claim); and a lid (fig.2 #204) disposed on the body and configured to cover the pair of earbuds (Par.[0026]), wherein each of the pair of earbuds comprises: a distal end including a passage (fig.1 #110) configured to emit sound (Par.[0024]); and an ear tip (#108) coupled to the distal end (Par.[0024]), and wherein the sound reflection deformation portion is provided to face the ear tip (As shown in figure 2, the bottom wall of cavities #264,248 face the eartip portion of earbuds #212,214 when placed in grooves #222). Kannan does not disclose expressly wherein the eartip is detachable from the distal end, and wherein the ear tip includes any one of a large ear tip, a medium ear tip, and a small ear tip. Iseberg discloses an eartip that is detachable from a distal end of and earphone via an earphone insertion end (figs.1-9 #104; Par.[0038]) and wherein the ear tip includes any one of a large ear tip, a medium ear tip, and a small ear tip (Par.[0048]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the detachable eartip of Iseberg as the eartip of Kannan. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a user with multiple different exchangeable sizes of eartips for matching the size of an ear canal of the user, thereby providing a better fitting earbud. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-5 and 7-8 are 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R KURR whose telephone number is (571)270-5981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5. 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 (571-272-7848. 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. JASON R. KURR Primary Examiner Art Unit 2695 /JASON R KURR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Feb 09, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 19, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 19, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 28, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 09, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jun 09, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12749474
ACTIVE NOISE REDUCTION SYSTEM
2y 1m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745042
SMART DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR, COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12739585
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING TERMINAL, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12739548
AUDIO SIGNAL PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PREVENTING SIGNAL DISTORTION
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12720268
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SOUND-ENHANCED MEETING PLATFORMS
3y 3m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+20.5%)
2y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 725 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month