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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s filing dated 11/29/2023, claims 1-30 are currently pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-11, 18-19, 25, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIntosh et al. (US 20240348961 A1) Hereinafter McIntosh in view of Hankey et al. (US 20250184647 A1) hereinafter Hankey.
Regarding claim 9, McIntosh teaches A wireless earbud charging case (Case 103 in Fig. 1A), comprising: one or more memories; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (“Case 103 can also include a case computing system 119 and a case communication system 121. Case computing system 119 can be one or more processors, ASICs, FPGAs, microprocessors, and the like for operating case 103.” in ¶[0081]), the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to: receive data for a pair of wireless earbuds to be connected to the wireless earbud charging case (“In some embodiments, case communication system 121 is a Bluetooth component, or any other suitable communication component, that sends and receives data with communication system 108 of housing 105” in ¶[0091]), stored in the wireless earbud charging case, or both (Memory Bank 104 in Fig. 1A); McIntosh does not specifically disclose the device further comprising the data being authentication data for authenticating the wireless earbuds, authenticate the pair of wireless earbuds based at least in part on the authentication data; and provide one or more services of the wireless earbud charging case to the pair of wireless earbuds based on authenticating the pair of wireless earbuds however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Hankey for a device to further comprise the data being authentication data for authenticating the wireless earbuds, authenticate the pair of wireless earbuds based at least in part on the authentication data; and provide one or more services of the wireless earbud charging case to the pair of wireless earbuds based on authenticating the pair of wireless earbuds (“FIG. 69 illustrates docking station 6900, which is electrically coupled to three devices. The three devices are iMac 6902, cellular telephone 6904 and wireless headset 6906. Docking station 6900 enables information and power to be exchanged among the devices. In at least one embodiment, docking station 6900 communicates, identifies and authenticates each device before power is transferred to or from each device” in ¶[0360]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of McIntosh with the teachings of Hankey for the benefit of improving the security of the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McIntosh with Hankey.
Regarding claim 10, McIntosh as modified by Hankey teaches the device of claim 9, McIntosh further teaches wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: establish a connection with a wireless user device associated with a user of the wireless earbud charging case (“Host device 152 can be wirelessly communicatively coupled with case 154 so that host device 152 can receive the charge level data for case 154 and/or the charge level data for wireless listening devices 156” in ¶[0083]), McIntosh does not specifically disclose the device further comprising wherein the authentication data is received from the wireless user device via the connection however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Hankey for a device to further comprise wherein the authentication data is received from the wireless user device via the connection in (“Docking station 6900 enables information and power to be exchanged among the devices. In at least one embodiment, docking station 6900 communicates, identifies and authenticates each device before power is transferred to or from each device” in ¶[0360]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of McIntosh with the teachings of Hankey for the benefit of improving the security of the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McIntosh with Hankey.
Regarding claim 11, McIntosh as modified by Hankey teaches the device of claim 10, McIntosh further teaches wherein the connection with the wireless user device is a wired connection or a wireless connection (“which is a simplified illustration of an exemplary portable electronic listening device system 150 having a host device 152 configured as a smart phone, a case 154, and a pair of wireless listening devices 156 configured as a pair of in-ear hearing devices, according to some embodiments of the present disclosure. Host device 152 can be wirelessly communicatively coupled with case 154 so that host device 152 can receive the charge level data for case 154 and/or the charge level data for wireless listening devices 156” in ¶[0083]).
Regarding claim 18, McIntosh as modified by Hankey teaches the device of claim 9, McIntosh further teaches the device further comprising wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: enter a configurable mode a first time; and receive the authentication data while in the configurable mode (“Communication system 108 can include Bluetooth components for enabling housing 105 to send and receive data/commands from host device 130” in ¶[0079]).
Regarding claim 19, McIntosh as modified by Hankey teaches the device of claim 18, Hankey further teaches the device further comprising wherein: the authentication data is received from a user of the wireless earbud charging case, or the authentication data is received from a wireless user device associated with the user of the wireless earbud charging case (“In at least one embodiment, docking station 6900 communicates, identifies and authenticates each device before power is transferred to or from each device. Docking station 6900 can also be used to facilitate the transfer of additional information among the devices.” in ¶[0360]).
Regarding claim 25, McIntosh as modified by Hankey teaches the device of claim 9, Hankey further teaches the device further comprising wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive an indication of the one or more services (“wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive an indication of the one or more services” in ¶[0383]).
Regarding claim 27, McIntosh as modified by Hankey teaches the device of claim 25, Hankey further teaches the device further comprising wherein: the one or more services are all services provided by the wireless earbud charging case, or the one or more services are a subset of services provided by the wireless earbud charging case (“In at least one embodiment, docking station 6900 communicates, identifies and authenticates each device before power is transferred to or from each device. Docking station 6900 can also be used to facilitate the transfer of additional information among the devices.” in ¶[0360]).
Regarding claim 28, McIntosh as modified by Hankey teaches the device of claim 9, Hankey further teaches the device further comprising wherein the one or more services comprise: a charging service, a fast charging service, a charge level service, a display screen service, a speaker service, a microphone service, a camera service, a fingerprint scanner service, a facial recognition service, or any combination thereof (“In at least one embodiment, docking station 6900 communicates, identifies and authenticates each device before power is transferred to or from each device. Docking station 6900 can also be used to facilitate the transfer of additional information among the devices.” in ¶[0360]).
Regarding claim 1, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the device of rejected claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 2, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the device of rejected claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 5, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the device of rejected claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
Regarding claim 7, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the device of rejected claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above).
Regarding claim 8, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the device of rejected claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above).
Regarding claim 29, claim is rejected for being the device comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the device of rejected claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 30, claim is rejected for being the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a wireless earbud charging case, cause the wireless earbud charging case to comprise at least the same elements and perform at least the same functions performed by the device of rejected claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Claim(s) 3, 6, 12, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIntosh et al. (US 20240348961 A1) Hereinafter McIntosh in view of Hankey et al. (US 20250184647 A1) hereinafter Hankey and further in view of Turner (US 20190064344 A1) hereinafter Turner.
Regarding claim 12, McIntosh as modified by Hankey teaches the device of claim 9, McIntosh as modified by Hankey does not specifically disclose the device further comprising wherein the authentication data is received from a server however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Turner for a device to further comprise wherein the authentication data is received from a server in (“information encoded in communications or transmissions received by the server platform 834 may be compared to data or information in the database server 836 to assist in verifying or authenticating the identity of users, provide location-dependent services to the user or users, develop a detailed profile of the user's surroundings.” in ¶[0116]).
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of McIntosh as modified by Hankey with the teachings of Turner for the benefit of saving storage space at the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McIntosh as modified by Hankey with Turner.
Regarding claim 3, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the device of rejected claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 23, McIntosh as modified by Hankey teaches the device of claim 18, McIntosh as modified by Hankey does not specifically disclose the device further comprising wherein the authentication data comprises: fingerprint data of a user of the wireless earbud charging case, facial data of the user of the wireless earbud charging case, voice data of the user of the wireless earbud charging case, image data captured by the wireless earbud charging case, a personal identification number (PIN), or any combination thereof however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Turner for a device to further comprise wherein the authentication data comprises: fingerprint data of a user of the wireless earbud charging case, facial data of the user of the wireless earbud charging case, voice data of the user of the wireless earbud charging case, image data captured by the wireless earbud charging case, a personal identification number (PIN), or any combination thereof in (“The radar sensors 212 may also be utilized to biometrically identify the user utilizing the structure, reflective properties, or configuration of the user's ear, head, and/or body (like utilization of fingerprints). For example, the radar sensors 212 may perform analysis to determine whether the user is an authorized or verified user” in ¶[0057]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of McIntosh as modified by Hankey with the teachings of Turner for the benefit of improving the security of the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McIntosh as modified by Hankey with Turner.
Regarding claim 24, McIntosh as modified by Hankey teaches the device of claim 9, McIntosh as modified by Hankey does not specifically disclose the device further comprising wherein the authentication data comprises proximity data of a wireless user device associated with a user of the wireless earbud charging case however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Turner for a device to further comprise wherein the authentication data comprises proximity data of a wireless user device associated with a user of the wireless earbud charging case in (“The wireless earpieces 102 may determine their position with respect to each other as well as the wireless device 104 and the personal computer 118. For example, position information for the wireless earpieces 102 and the wireless device 104 may determine proximity of the devices in the communications environment 100” in ¶[0039]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of McIntosh as modified by Hankey with the teachings of Turner for the benefit of improving the security of the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McIntosh as modified by Hankey with Turner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13-17, 20-22, 26 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word "means" (or "step for") are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word "means" (or "step for") are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 29 is directed to a device “charging case”, claim recites “means for receiving”, “means for authenticating”, “means for providing a service” which are all followed by functional language without giving structure to the device, the above “means for” statements are therefore interpreted to refer the hardware described in paragraph [0006] “one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to: receive authentication data for authenticating a pair of wireless earbuds to be connected to the wireless earbud charging case, stored in the wireless earbud charging case, or both; authenticate the pair of wireless earbuds based at least in part on the authentication data; and provide one or more services of the wireless earbud charging case to the pair of wireless earbuds based on authenticating the pair of wireless earbuds.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAR T HAMID whose telephone number is (571)272-1953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, Eastern time.
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.
AMMAR T. HAMID
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/AMMAR T HAMID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695