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 .
EXAMINER’S COMMENTS
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdrawal of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/PatentForms. The form may be filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system using the document description Internet Communications Authorized to facilitate processing. If applicant authorizes Internet communications, USPTO employees may respond to email and initiate communications with applicants via email.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Australia on October 29, 2022 and January 03, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2022903217 and 2023900003 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “An ear tip as claimed in claim 1,” and it should be “The ear tip as claimed in claim 1,”.
Claim 2 recites “an acoustic filter disposed over each at least one tip vent” and it should be “an acoustic filter disposed over the at least one tip vent”.
Claim 3 recites “An ear tip as claimed in claim 2,” and it should be “The ear tip as claimed in claim 2,”.
Claim 4 recites “An ear tip as claimed in claim 1,” and it should be “The ear tip as claimed in claim 1,”.
Claim 5 recites “An ear tip as claimed in claim 1,” and it should be “The ear tip as claimed in claim 1,”.
Claim 5 recites “wherein each tip vent has a cross sectional area of about 0.5
m
m
2
to 10
m
m
2
, and/or wherein each tip vent has a depth between about 0.5mm and about 1mm.” and it should be “wherein the at least one tip vent has a cross sectional area of about 0.5
m
m
2
to 10
m
m
2
, and/or wherein the at least one tip vent has a depth between about 0.5mm and about 1mm.”.
Claim 6 recites “An ear tip as claimed in claim 1,” and it should be “The ear tip as claimed in claim 1,”.
Claim 6 recites “the barrier member preventing ear wax in a user’s ear canal from reaching the at least one tip vent and the ear bud body during use.” and it should be “the barrier member preventing ear wax in the user’s ear canal from reaching the at least one tip vent and the ear bud body during use.”.
Claim 7 recites “An ear tip as claimed in claim 6,” and it should be “The ear tip as claimed in claim 6,”.
Claim 8 recites “An ear tip as claimed in claim 6,” and it should be “The ear tip as claimed in claim 6,”.
Claim 9 recites “An ear tip as claimed in claim 1,” and it should be “The ear tip as claimed in claim 1,”.
Claim 10 recites “An ear bud including an ear tip as claimed in claim 1.” and it should be “The ear bud including the ear tip as claimed in claim 1.”.
Claim 12 recites “An ear bud as claimed in claim 11,” and it should be “The ear bud as claimed in claim 11,”.
Claim 13 recites “An ear bud as claimed in claim 12,” and it should be “The ear bud as claimed in claim 12,”.
Claim 14 recites “An ear bud as claimed in claim 13,” and it should be “The ear bud as claimed in claim 13,”.
Claim 15 recites “An ear bud as claimed in claim 11,” and it should be “The ear bud as claimed in claim 11,”.
Claim 15 recites “an input speaker signal travels from the speaker through the speaker chamber to a user’s ear canal during use,” and it should be “an input speaker signal travels from the speaker through the speaker chamber to the user’s ear canal during use,”.
Claim 16 recites “An ear bud as claimed in claim 15,” and it should be “The ear bud as claimed in claim 15,”.
Claim 17 recites “An ear bud as claimed in claim 16,” and it should be “The ear bud as claimed in claim 16,”.
Claim 18 recites “An ear bud as claimed in claim 15,” and it should be “The ear bud as claimed in claim 15,”.
Claim 19 recites “An ear bud as claimed in claim 18,” and it should be “The ear bud as claimed in claim 18,”.
Claim 19 recites “each at least one body vent” and it should be “The at least one body vent”.
Claim 20 recites “An ear bud as claimed in claim 18,” and it should be “The ear bud as claimed in claim 18,”.
Claim 20 recites “wherein at least one body vent” and it should be “wherein the at least one body vent”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 3, 5, 7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the acoustic filter has an acoustic impedance between about 1 to 1000 MKS Rayls” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the upper and lower limits of a range therefore the range is indefinite and consequently the claims are rendered indefinite. The examiner recommend to remove the phrase “about”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein each tip vent has a cross sectional area of about 0.5mm2 to 10mm2, and/or wherein each tip vent has a depth between about 0.5mm and about 1mm” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the upper and lower limits of a range therefore the range is indefinite and consequently the claims are rendered indefinite. The examiner recommend to remove the phrase “about”.
Claim 7 recites the phrase "substantially acoustically transparent " in Lines 1-2 is indefinite. The phrase " substantially acoustically transparent" does not specify how it is determined/measured.
Claim 11 recites the phrase "to substantially cancel defined sounds" in Line 9 is indefinite. The phrase "to substantially cancel defined sounds " does not specify how it is determined/measured.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein the acoustic impedance of the acoustic filter is between about 20 and about 100 MKS Rayls” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the upper and lower limits of a range therefore the range is indefinite and consequently the claims are rendered indefinite. The examiner recommend to remove the phrase “about”.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “wherein the acoustic impedance is between about 20 and about 100 MKS Rayls” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the upper and lower limits of a range therefore the range is indefinite and consequently the claims are rendered indefinite. The examiner recommend to remove the phrase “about”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein each at least one body vent includes a body vent acoustic filter configured to provide defined impedance characteristics for sound passing through the body vent between about 10 to about 200 MKS Rayls” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the upper and lower limits of a range therefore the range is indefinite and consequently the claims are rendered indefinite. The examiner recommend to remove the phrase “about”.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “wherein at least one body vent corresponds to an aperture area between about 2mm2 and about 10mm2” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the upper and lower limits of a range therefore the range is indefinite and consequently the claims are rendered indefinite. The examiner recommend to remove the phrase “about”.
Claims 12-13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected due to their dependence to claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sampei WO 2019146590 (For examination purports English machine translation of Sampei would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 1, Sampei teaches
An ear tip (Figs. 3A, 5 and 6 show an earpiece 10) for connection to an ear bud body (Fig. 6A shows a case 41) of an ear bud (Figs. 3A, 5 and 6A show an earphone 11), the ear tip (i.e. earpiece 10) comprising: an inner part (Figs. 3A and 5 show a central cylindrical portion 13) connectable to the ear bud body (i.e. case 41) as shown in Fig. 6A, and an outer part (Figs. 3A and 5 show a cup portion 14) disposed at least partially over the inner part (i.e. central cylindrical portion 13) as shown in Fig. 3A, the outer part (i.e. cup portion 14) at least partially formed of flexible material and configured to couple the ear tip 16 to a user’s ear canal (Fig. 5 shows an ear canal 32) during use (The central cylindrical portion 13 and the cup portion 14 of the earpiece 10 are integrally formed of, for example, a rubber material having a hardness of A45 degrees to A50 degrees. For example, silicone rubber is used as the rubber material, and when the earpiece 10 is inserted into the ear canal 32 (see FIG. 5)…..Pg. 3, Lines 32-34);
wherein the inner part (i.e. central cylindrical portion 13) includes an inwardly facing wall surface and an outwardly facing wall surface as shown in Fig. 5, the inwardly facing wall surface defining at least part of a primary sound communication path (Figs. 3A and 5 shows a sound-path space 13A/sound-path long hole 15B) during use between the user’s ear canal (i.e. ear canal 32) and the ear bud body (i.e. case 41), and the inner part (i.e. central cylindrical portion 13) includes at least one tip vent (Figs. 3A and 5 show sound path holes 13E) disposed in the inner part (i.e. central cylindrical portion 13) that defines an ambient sound communication path (Figs. 3A and 5 show an internal space 20) during use between the inwardly facing wall surface and the outwardly facing wall surface and thereby the user’s ear canal (i.e. ear canal 32) and ambient as shown in Fig. 5;
the inner part (i.e. central cylindrical portion 13) configured to provide an acoustic impedance (Figs. 3A and 5 show a short path hole 15G) to sound passing through the at least one tip vent and thereby defined sound characteristics in the ambient audio communication path (i.e. internal space 20) (Due to this structure, only a small portion of the sound propagated from a stem part 12 is propagated directly to the eardrum via an opening 15A, but a large portion of the sound propagated from the stem part 12 is propagated directly to the eardrum through an internal space 20…Pg. 1, Abstract, Lines 3-8) as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 4, Sampei teaches
An ear tip as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inner part is configured to provide defined sound characteristics in the ambient audio communication path by forming a plurality of tip vents of selected size in the inner part (Four sound path holes 13E are formed at an interval of 90 degrees in the circumferential direction in the short direction of the central cylindrical portion 13 (left and right direction in the drawing, front and rear direction in the drawing)…..Pg. 5, Para. 8, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Sampei teaches
An ear tip as claimed in claim 1, wherein each tip vent has a cross sectional area of about 0.5mm2 to 10mm2, and/or wherein each tip vent has a depth between about 0.5mm and about 1mm (Each of the four sound path holes 13E communicates with the sound path space 13A, and is formed as, for example, a cylindrical hole having a diameter of 1.0 to 1.5 mm…..Pg. 5, Para. 8, Lines 3-4). The cross-sectional area is calculated using the formula below:
Area =
π
x
d
2
4
Area =
π
x
1
2
4
Area = 0.785
m
m
2
Regarding claim 10, Sampei teaches
An ear bud (Figs. 3A, 5 and 6A show an earphone 11) including an ear tip as claimed in claim 1 as shown in Fig. 6A.
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Darlington US-PG-PUB No. 2013/0343564.
Regarding claim 11, Darlington teaches
An ear bud (Fig. 3 shows an earphone apparatus 40) for reproducing audio (a noise cancelling earphone apparatus 40 comprising a housing 40A and an opening 40B for transmitting sound into a user's ear canal….Para. [0090], Lines 1-3), the ear bud comprising:
an ear bud body (Fig. 3 shows a housing 40A);
a speaker (Fig. 3 shows an electro-acoustic driver/Balanced Armature (BA) receiver 41) disposed in the ear bud body (i.e. housing 40A)and arranged to produce sound in response to an input speaker signal, the ear bud (i.e. earphone apparatus 40) arranged to direct sound from the speaker along a sound communication path (Fig. 3 shows a collar 49) to a user’s ear canal during use (a noise cancelling earphone apparatus 40 comprising a housing 40A and an opening 40B for transmitting sound into a user's ear canal…….BA receiver 41 provides acoustic output from a "spout". For convenience, sound is conducted from this spout to the ear via a tube 51 which terminates at collar 49…. Para. [0090], Lines 1-3 and Para. [0093], Lines 1-3);
at least one internal microphone (Fig. 3 shows a sensing microphone 42) disposed such that the at least one internal microphone is in audio communication with the user’s ear canal during use but not located in the sound communication path (i.e. collar 49) (Microphone 42 includes an acoustic port provided on the same face as the electrical connections, which also serve the mechanical function of physically securing the microphone. Sound is conducted through a waveguide formed in the substrate from the ear to the microphone…..Para. [0092], Lines 4-5) as shown in Fig. 3; and
a noise cancelling component (a signal processor (or Active Noise Reduction (ANR) processor)….Para. [0054], Lines 8-11) arranged, during use, to substantially cancel defined sounds in the user’s ear canal using the at least one internal microphone (the microphone is a sensing microphone comprising a sensing element positioned to sense pressure changes in the auditory canal of the user's ear. In this way, the sensing microphone can provide a feedback signal to a signal processor (or Active Noise Reduction (ANR) processor) to allow for removal of occlusion noise…..Para. [0054], Lines 8-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 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.
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampei in view of Choi et al. (Hereinafter Choi) US-PAT No. 11,381,898.
Regarding claim 2, Sampei teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Sampei does not teach that the inner part includes an acoustic filter 40 disposed over each at least one tip vent, the acoustic filter configured to provide defined sound characteristics in the ambient audio communication path.
Choi teaches in Fig. 2 of a meth 234 disposed over a vent hole 232. The user may adjust a use aspect of the earphone by selectively opening the vent hole using the switch bracket to resolve deafening of the ear or improving a sound pressure of the low frequency range (Col. 3, Lines 24-31).
Sampei and Choi each disclose an ear tip. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the inner part of Sampei to include the mesh disposed over the vent hole as taught by Choi. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner part of Sampei with the mesh disposed over the vent hole as taught by Choi. The motivation is improving a sound pressure of the ear bud by adjusting/controlling the amount of ventilation passing through the ear tip.
14. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampei in view of Choi and further in view of Shetye et al. (Hereinafter Shetye) US-PG-PUB No. 2017/0201823.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Sampei and Choi teach all the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above.
The combination of Sampei and Choi do not teach that the acoustic filter has an acoustic impedance between about 1 to 1000 MKS Rayls.
Shetye teaches a mesh material having an acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls (Para. [0010], Lines 1-10).
The combination of Sampei and Choi and Shetye each disclose an acoustic filter. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the acoustic filter of the combination of Sampei and Choi to include the acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls as taught by Shetye. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acoustic filter of the combination of Sampei and Choi with the acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls as taught by Shetye. The motivation is improving a sound pressure of the ear bud by adjusting/controlling the amount of ventilation passing through the ear tip.
15. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampei in view of Beaudoin et al. (Hereinafter Beaudoin) US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0215595.
Regarding claim 6, Sampei teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Sampei does not teach that a barrier member disposed in the inner part adjacent the at least one tip vent, the barrier member preventing ear wax in a user’s ear canal from reaching the at least one tip vent and the ear bud body during use.
Beaudoin teaches an outer surface including features corresponding to human ear anatomy, a nozzle extension providing a passageway from the interior cavity to space outside the ear tip, a wax guard in the nozzle extension, the wax guard blocking the passageway, and a plurality of holes through the wax guard, the holes sized and arranged to allow sound to pass along the passageway, while inhibiting ear wax from passing along the passageway (Abstract, Lines 1-12).
Sampei and Beaudoin each disclose an ear tip. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the tip vent of Sampei to include the wax guard preventing ear wax in the user’s ear canal from reaching the ear bud body during use as taught by Beaudoin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tip vent of Sampei with the wax guard preventing ear wax in the user’s ear canal from reaching the ear bud body during use as taught by Beaudoin. The motivation is inhibiting ear wax from passing along the passageway to the ear bud body.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Sampei and Beaudoin teach all the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above. Beaudoin teaches that the barrier material is substantially acoustically transparent (a plurality of holes through the wax guard, the holes sized and arranged to allow sound to pass along the passageway…..Abstract, Lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Sampei and Beaudoin teach all the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above. Beaudoin teaches that the barrier member is selected to provide a defined acoustic impedance (a plurality of holes through the wax guard, the holes sized and arranged to allow sound to pass along the passageway…..Abstract, Lines 1-12).
16. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampei in view of Higgins US-PAT No. 10,542,341.
Regarding claim 6, Sampei teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Sampei does not teach that the inner and outer parts are defined by first and second separate parts connected together, the second part being overmolded onto the first part.
Higgins teaches that the body 20, first flange 40, and second flange 60 can be manufactured separately and then connected together using any suitable technique or techniques, adhering, welding, ultrasonic welding, etc. In one or more embodiments, a two-shot or multiple-shot molding process can be utilized such that the body 20 is made from a material that is more stiff than the material of one or both of the first flange 40 and the second flange 60 (Col. 10, Lines 14-18 and Lines 21-31).
Sampei and Higgins each disclose an ear tip. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the ear tip of Sampei to include the inner and outer parts are defined by first and second separate parts connected together, the second part being overmolded onto the first part as taught by Higgins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ear tip of Sampei with the inner and outer parts are defined by first and second separate parts connected together, the second part being overmolded onto the first part as taught by Higgins. The motivation is to manufacture and then connect together the parts using any suitable technique or techniques that can improve the resilient of the ear tip.
17. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darlington in view of Ngia et al. (Hereinafter Ngia) US-PG-PUB No. 2009/0209304.
Regarding claim 12, Darlington teaches all the features with respect to claim 11 as outlined above.
Darlington does not teach that the internal microphone is disposed in sound communication with a microphone sound port; the microphone sound port defines an internal microphone sound path; and the at least one internal microphone is disposed adjacent a first end of the internal microphone sound path relatively remote from the user’s ear canal during use, and an opposite second end of the internal microphone sound path is disposed relatively adjacent and in audio communication with the user’s ear canal during use.
Ngia teaches in Fig. 5 of an internal microphone assembly 5 is disposed in sound communication with a tube 7; the tube 7 defines an internal microphone sound path as shown in Fig. 5; and the at least one internal microphone is disposed adjacent a first end of the internal microphone sound path relatively remote from the user’s ear canal during use, and an opposite second end of the internal microphone sound path is disposed relatively adjacent and in audio communication with the user’s ear canal during use (Para. [0067], Lines 1-9).
Darlington and Ngia each disclose an ear bud. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the ear bud of Darlington to include the internal microphone is disposed in sound communication with the microphone sound port as taught by Ngia. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ear bud of Darlington with the internal microphone is disposed in sound communication with the microphone sound port as taught by Ngia. The motivation is to improve the audio quality by using the microphone sound port as an acoustic waveguide.
18. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darlington in view of Ngia and further in view of Hua et al. (Hereinafter Hua) US-PG-PUB No. US 2024/0080604.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Darlington and Ngia teach all the features with respect to claim 12 as outlined above. Ngia teach that the microphone sound port (i.e. tube 7) includes a microphone sound port aperture disposed at or adjacent the second end of the internal microphone sound path as shown in Fig. 5
The combination of Darlington and Ngia do not teach that the ear bud includes a microphone sound port acoustic filter arranged to provide a defined sound impedance for sound passing through the microphone sound port aperture.
Hua teaches in Fig. 1 of the earbud 100 includes a reactive membrane 126 arranged to provide a defined sound impedance for sound passing through an acoustic pathway 124 (Para. [0024], Lines 13-18).
The combination of Darlington and Ngia and Hua each disclose an ear bud. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the ear bud of the combination of Darlington and Ngia to include the microphone sound port acoustic filter arranged to provide the defined sound impedance for sound passing through the microphone sound port aperture as taught by Hua. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ear bud of the combination of Darlington and Ngia with the internal microphone is disposed in sound communication with the microphone sound port acoustic filter arranged to provide the defined sound impedance for sound passing through the microphone sound port aperture as taught by Hua. The motivation is to reduce the sound pressure level overall or to reduce the levels for a particular frequency range from the microphone.
19. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Darlington, Ngia and Hua and further in view of Shetye et al. (Hereinafter Shetye) US-PG-PUB No. 2017/0201823.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Darlington, Ngia and Hua teach all the features with respect to claim 13 as outlined above.
The combination of Darlington, Ngia and Hua do not teach that the acoustic impedance of the acoustic filter is between about 20 and about 100 MKS Rayls.
Shetye teaches a mesh material having an acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls (Para. [0010], Lines 1-10).
The combination of Darlington, Ngia and Hua and Shetye each disclose an acoustic filter. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the acoustic filter of the combination of Darlington, Ngia and Hua to include the acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls as taught by Shetye. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acoustic filter of the combination of Darlington, Ngia and Hua with the acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls as taught by Shetye. The motivation is improving the sound pressure of the ear bud by adjusting/controlling the amount of sound passing through the microphone.
20. Claims 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darlington in view of Choi et al. (Hereinafter Choi) US-PAT No. 11,381,898.
Regarding claim 15, Darlington teaches all the features with respect to claim 11 as outlined above.
Darlington does not teach that the speaker is disposed in a speaker chamber such that sound produced by the speaker in response to an input speaker signal travels from the speaker through the speaker chamber to a user’s ear canal during use, the speaker chamber is defined by a chamber portion and a speaker sound port, and the speaker sound port includes a speaker sound port aperture at an end of the speaker sound port remote from the chamber portion.
Choi teaches in Fig. 6 of a microspeaker 100b is disposed in a sound guide bracket 500b such that sound produced by the microspeaker 100b in response to an input speaker signal travels from the microspeaker 100b through the sound guide bracket 500b to a user’s ear canal during use (Col. 7, Lines 6-9), the sound guide bracket 500b is defined by a chamber portion and a guide tube 530b, and the guide tube 530b includes a speaker sound port aperture at an end of the guide tube 530b remote from the chamber portion as shown in Fig. 6 (Col. 7, Lines 48-54).
Darlington and Choi each disclose an ear bud. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the ear bud of Darlington to include the speaker is disposed in the speaker chamber such that sound produced by the speaker travels from the speaker through the speaker chamber to the user’s ear canal during use as taught by Choi. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ear bud of Darlington with the speaker is disposed in the speaker chamber such that sound produced by the speaker travels from the speaker through the speaker chamber to the user’s ear canal during use as taught by Choi. The motivation is to improve the audio quality by reducing unwanted reflections, and ensuring balanced audio.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Darlington and Choi teach all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above. Choi teaches of a body chamber (Fig. 6 shows an accommodation space 210b) disposed adjacent the speaker chamber (i.e. sound guide bracket 500b) and isolated from sound in the speaker chamber (i.e. sound guide bracket 500b) such that no unobstructed sound path exists from the speaker chamber (i.e. sound guide bracket 500b) to the body chamber (i.e. accommodation space 210b) as shown in Fig. 6; and at least one body vent (Fig. 6 shows vent holes 222) disposed on the ear bud body such that an audio path is defined for audio to pass from the body chamber (i.e. accommodation space 210b) to ambient (the earphone housing 200b includes vent holes 222b allowing internal and external air to communicate with each other. …..Col. , Lines 27-31) as shown in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Darlington and Choi teach all the features with respect to claim 18 as outlined above.
The combination of Darlington and Choi do not teach that the at least one body vent corresponds to an aperture area between about 2mm2 and about 10mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the aperture area between about 2mm2 and about 10mm2 limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
21. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darlington in view of Choi and further in view of Harvey et al. (Hereinafter Harvey) US-PG-PUB No. 2006/0133636.
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Darlington and Choi teach all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
The combination of Darlington and Choi do not teach that the ear bud includes a speaker sound port acoustic filter arranged to provide defined sound impedance for sound passing through the speaker sound port aperture..
Harvey teaches in Fig. 3 of an earpiece 300 includes a damper 317 arranged to provide defined sound impedance for sound passing through the sound delivery tube 321 (Para. [0032], Lines 9-18).
The combination of Darlington and Choi and Harvey each disclose an ear bud. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the ear bud of the combination of Darlington and Choi to include the damper as taught by Harvey. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ear bud of the combination of Darlington and Choi with the damper as taught by Harvey. The motivation is to reduce the sound pressure level overall or to reduce the levels for a particular frequency range from the speaker.
22. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Darlington, Choi and Harvey and further in view of Shetye et al. (Hereinafter Shetye) US-PG-PUB No. 2017/0201823.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Darlington, Choi and Harvey teach all the features with respect to claim 16 as outlined above.
The combination of Darlington, Choi and Harvey do not teach that the acoustic filter has an acoustic impedance between about 20 and about 100 MKS Rayls.
Shetye teaches a mesh material having an acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls (Para. [0010], Lines 1-10).
The combination of Darlington, Choi and Harvey and Shetye each disclose an acoustic filter. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the acoustic filter of the combination of Darlington, Choi and Harvey to include the acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls as taught by Shetye. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acoustic filter of the combination of Darlington, Choi and Harvey with the acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls as taught by Shetye. The motivation is improving the sound pressure of the ear bud by adjusting/controlling the amount of ventilation passing through the ear bud.
23. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Darlington and Choi and further in view of Shetye et al. (Hereinafter Shetye) US-PG-PUB No. 2017/0201823.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Darlington and Choi teach all the features with respect to claim 18 as outlined above. Choi teaches each at least one body vent (i.e. vent holes 222b) includes a body vent acoustic filter (Fig. 6 shows a mesh 224b….Col. 7, Lines 41-43).
The combination of Darlington and Choi do not teach that impedance characteristics for sound passing through the body vent between about 10 and about 200 MKS Rayls.
Shetye teaches a mesh material having an acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls (Para. [0010], Lines 1-10).
The combination of Darlington and Choi and Shetye each disclose an acoustic filter. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify the acoustic filter of the combination of Darlington and Choi to include the acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls as taught by Shetye. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acoustic filter of the combination of Darlington and Choi with the acoustic impedance that ranges from about 5 MKS Rayls to about 100 MKS Rayls as taught by Shetye. The motivation is improving the sound pressure of the ear bud by adjusting/controlling the amount of ventilation passing through the ear bud.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA M MCKINNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3321. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F. 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at (571)272-7574. 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.
/ANGELICA M MCKINNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694