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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on December 4, 2023 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “a form in which a pair of left and right earphone portions with housings completely separate from each other” on page 2, lines 6-8, “exclusion from medicual insurance coverage” on page 4, line 6, “healing of earphones” on page 4, line 16, “by a certain area or more” on page 7, line 6, and “a TWS earphone assembly of capable of selectively executing a TES treatment function” on page 12, lines 23-24. Applicant is advised to carefully read the entire disclosure to discover all typographical and grammatical errors found therein.
The use of the term Bluetooth, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
the acronyms “TWS” and “TES” should be defined the first time they appear in the claims and the trademark “Bluetooth” should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
In claims 10 and 11, lines 2-3, the phrase “pair or earphones” should read “pair of earphones”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims are replete with indefinite language, and it is respectfully submitted that the following are examples of such language, but may not be an exhaustive list. Applicant is advised to carefully review all claims to ensure that the indefinite issues presented below are remedied for all claims and not just those specifically indicated below.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "as a circuit configuration accommodated in each of housings of a pair of left and right earphones which are electrically separated from each other" in lines 1-4, which is followed by the recitation of various structures. It is unclear from this recitation if it is intended for there to be separate circuit configurations in each of the left and right earphones or if there is a collective circuit configuration for both. It is recommended that Applicant utilize line breaks, colons, and spacing to clearly articulate each of the different aspects of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an electrode provided on an outer surface of the housing of each of the pair of left and right earphones" in lines 15-16. As written, the claim requires a single electrode that is provided on an outer surface of both of the left and right earphones, and, thus, it is unclear if this is the intention or if instead each of the left and right earphones is to include its own electrode.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the housing of the pair of left and right earphones" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is not a single housing for both the left and right earphones, rather each of the left and right earphones has its own housing.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "when the link cable is released from the pair of earphones" in lines 22-23. The claim does not previously recite the link cable being attached to the pair of earphones, rather the claim previous recites the link cable being electrically and selectively connected and disconnected with the pair of female connectors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein, when the link cable is released from the pair of earphones, the pair of earphones play back sound as TWS earphones, or when the link cable electrically connects the pair of earphones, depending on the user's choice, the pair of earphones conduct the generated low-frequency signals between the separated electrodes, thereby executing only the TES treatment function or simultaneously performing the TES treatment function and the sound playback function" in lines 22-30. The way that these recitations are written, it is unclear if the limitations are required by the claim. It is recommended that the claim utilize “configured to” language to describe the functions of the earphones and link cable. Additionally, it is recommended that the claim utilize “and” language in order for both of the link cable connection embodiments to be protected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "depending on the user’s choice" in line 26. It is unclear from the claim what is “depending on the user’s choice”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the separated electrodes" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim fails to recite separated electrodes and the claim fails to recite plural electrodes.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the TES treatment function" in lines 28-29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sound playback function" in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "an TES treatment function activation mode" in lines 2-3. The metes and bounds of this recitation are unclear as it is unknown what is encompassed by such a mode. Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that claim 3 fails to further define the claimed invention because it is merely directed to an intended use or function of the device rather than further limiting the device. It is recommended that Applicant utilize “configured to” language to incorporate the intended use and functional recitations into the claim in a meaningful manner.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "or the earphones are activated by manipulating the user interface as a multi-function switch" in lines 4-5. It is unclear if this recitation is intending that the “activation” of the earphones is the activation of the TES treatment function activation mode previously recited in the claim, or if the activation is merely turning such earphones on.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the user interface" in line 5. It is unclear which user interface is being referenced, as it appears from claim 1 that both the left and right earphones each have a user interface.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the TWS earphone assembly plays back a sound source from a device according to a Bluetooth communication protocol, a sound source file incorporated in a linked application, or a sound source file stored in memory built in the TWS earphone assembly" in lines 1-6. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, as it is unknown where the list begins. The use of a colon would enhance the understanding of the claim. For instance, should the colon be located on line 2 between “plays back” and “a sound source” or should the colon be located on line 3 between “according to” and “a Bluetooth”? Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that claim 4 fails to further define the claimed invention because it is merely directed to an intended use or function of the device rather than further limiting the device. It is recommended that Applicant utilize “configured to” language to incorporate the intended use and functional recitations into the claim in a meaningful manner.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "memory built in the TWS earphone assembly" in lines 5-6. It is unclear what memory is being referenced, whether it is the memory located in the left earphone, the memory located in the right earphone, or an additional memory not previously recited in the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "as a circuit configuration accommodated in each of housings of a pair of left and right earphones which are electrically separated from each other" in lines 1-4, which is followed by the recitation of various structures. It is unclear from this recitation if it is intended for there to be separate circuit configurations in each of the left and right earphones or if there is a collective circuit configuration for both. It is recommended that Applicant utilize line breaks, colons, and spacing to clearly articulate each of the different aspects of the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the housing of the pair of left and right earphones" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is not a single housing for both the left and right earphones, rather each of the left and right earphones has its own housing.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an electrode further provided on an outer surface of the housing of each of the pair of left and right earphones" in lines 14-15. As written, the claim requires a single electrode that is provided on an outer surface of both of the left and right earphones, and, thus, it is unclear if this is the intention or if instead each of the left and right earphones is to include its own electrode.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a housing that accommodates a frequency generator” in line 17. This recitation fails to require the frequency generator as part of the TWS earphone assembly, rather only requiring a housing that is of an appropriate size to house the frequency generator due to the recitation “that accommodates”. As such, the frequency generator is not positively recited. It is unclear from the claim if the specific limitations of the frequency generator and TES signal amplifier are required, as they are merely “accommodated” by the housing. If Applicant intends for such structures to be required by the TWS earphone assembly, it is recommended that Applicant utilize inclusive language such as “a housing provided on the link cable, a frequency generator located within the housing provided on the link cable and configured to generate low-frequency signals for TES treatment, a TES signal amplifier located within the housing provided on the link cable and configured to amplify the generated low-frequency signals”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “and separated from the circuit of one of the pair of left and right earphones” in lines 20-21. It is unclear what is to be “separated from the circuit of one of the pair of left and right earphones” according to the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " wherein the pair of left and right earphones play back sound as TWS earphones when the link cable is released, or when the link cable is connected, depending on the user's choice, the pair of earphones conduct the generated low-frequency signals between the separated electrodes, thereby executing only the TES treatment function or simultaneously performing the TES treatment function and the sound playback function" in lines 23-30. The way that these recitations are written, it is unclear if the limitations are required by the claim. It is recommended that the claim utilize “configured to” language to describe the functions of the earphones and link cable. Additionally, it is recommended that the claim utilize “and” language in order for both of the link cable connection embodiments to be protected.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "depending on the user’s choice" in lines 25-26. It is unclear from the claim what is “depending on the user’s choice”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the separated electrodes" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim fails to recite separated electrodes and the claim fails to recite plural electrodes.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the TES treatment function" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sound playback function" in lines 29-30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "an TES treatment function activation mode" in lines 2-3. The metes and bounds of this recitation are unclear as it is unknown what is encompassed by such a mode. Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that claim 3 fails to further define the claimed invention because it is merely directed to an intended use or function of the device rather than further limiting the device. It is recommended that Applicant utilize “configured to” language to incorporate the intended use and functional recitations into the claim in a meaningful manner.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "or the earphones are activated by manipulating the user interface as a multi-function switch" in lines 4-5. It is unclear if this recitation is intending that the “activation” of the earphones is the activation of the TES treatment function activation mode previously recited in the claim, or if the activation is merely turning such earphones on.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the user interface" in line 5. It is unclear which user interface is being referenced, as it appears from claim 5 that both the left and right earphones each have a user interface.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the TWS earphone assembly plays back a sound source from a device according to a Bluetooth communication protocol, a sound source file incorporated in a linked application, or a sound source file stored in memory built in the TWS earphone assembly" in lines 1-6. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, as it is unknown where the list begins. The use of a colon would enhance the understanding of the claim. For instance, should the colon be located on line 2 between “plays back” and “a sound source” or should the colon be located on line 3 between “according to” and “a Bluetooth”? Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that claim 8 fails to further define the claimed invention because it is merely directed to an intended use or function of the device rather than further limiting the device. It is recommended that Applicant utilize “configured to” language to incorporate the intended use and functional recitations into the claim in a meaningful manner.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "memory built in the TWS earphone assembly" in lines 5-6. It is unclear what memory is being referenced, whether it is the memory located in the left earphone, the memory located in the right earphone, or an additional memory not previously recited in the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a TES signal amplifier" in lines 5-6. It is unclear if this is the same or a different TES signal amplifiers as that recited in claim 5.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the circuit built in the pair or earphones" in lines 2-3. It is unclear which circuit is being referenced, as claim 5 requires each of the left and right earphones to have a circuit.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the frequency generator for TES treatment of one of the pair of left and right earphones" in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is intended to be required by such a recitation, as the earphones are not treated, but rather it is intended that a user or patient is treated.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a TES signal amplifier" in lines 4-5. It is unclear if this is the same or a different TES signal amplifier as that previously recited in claim 5.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the link cable electrically connects each of the pair of earphones to be used to charge the battery that drives the pair of earphones" in lines 8-10. The metes and bounds of this recitation are unclear as it appears to require that the earphones charge the battery, but also the battery drives the earphones. It is unknown what is needed to satisfy the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the circuit built in the pair or earphones" in lines 2-3. It is unclear which circuit is being referenced, as claim 5 requires each of the left and right earphones to have a circuit.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the frequency generator for TES treatment of one of the pair of left and right earphones" in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is intended to be required by such a recitation, as the earphones are not treated, but rather it is intended that a user or patient is treated.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a TES signal amplifier" in lines 4-5. It is unclear if this is the same or a different TES signal amplifier as that previously recited in claim 5.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the link cable electrically connects each of the pair of earphones to be used to charge the battery that drives the pair of earphones" in lines 8-10. The metes and bounds of this recitation are unclear as it appears to require that the earphones charge the battery, but also the battery drives the earphones. It is unknown what is needed to satisfy the claim.
Examiner notes that no art has been applied to claims 1-11; however, the claims as currently presented are not deemed allowable and Applicant is required to clarify in compliance with 35 USC 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and the protection sought.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMIE K MARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8 am until 4 pm.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796