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.
Claim Objections
Claims 31 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 31 recites “a shell of the head protective gear” and it should be “the outer shell of the head protective gear”.
Claim 33 recites “a shell of the head protective gear” and it should be “the outer shell of the head protective gear”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 12, 19, 26-27 and 33 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the flexible element substantially extends over an entirety of the circumference of the ear pad”. The meaning of the claim limitations that include the phrase “substantially extends” is unclear because no guidance or boundaries are provided to determine how is “substantially extends” measured.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a bowl of substantially uniform height”. The meaning of the claim limitations that include the phrase “substantially uniform height” is unclear because no guidance or boundaries are provided to determine how is “substantially uniform height” measured.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase “Bowden-like cable” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the phrase “Bowden-like cable” does not actually disclosed a specific element, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. The examiner suggests the following amendment: “Bowden cable”.
Regarding claim 33, the phrase “Bowden-like cable” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the phrase “Bowden-like cable” does not actually disclosed a specific element, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. The examiner suggests the following amendment: “Bowden cable”.
Claim 27 is rejected based on their dependency to claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 9-10, 12, 19-22, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aileo US-PAT No. 3,178,723.
Regarding claim 1, Aileo teaches
An earmuff unit (Figs. 1 and 4-5 show a sound attenuating device 9) for use within a head protective gear (Figs. 1-2 show a helmet 1), wherein the head protective gear (i.e. helmet 1) is separate from the earmuff unit (i.e. sound attenuating device 9), the earmuff unit (i.e. show a sound attenuating device 9) comprising: an ear pad (Figs. 1-5 show a resilient pad 13); and
a flexible element (Figs. 4-5 show a flexible covering 101) arranged in at least a lower portion of a circumference of the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) to allow the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) to move as shown in Fig. 4, in at least a part of the lower portion of the circumference as shown in Fig. 4, towards and away from a shell (Figs. 1 and 4-5 show a shell 3) of the head protective gear (i.e. helmet 1) as shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 2, Aileo teaches
The earmuff unit of claim 1, wherein the flexible element comprises (i.e. flexible covering 101) is a compressible element (Figs. 4-5 show a helical compression spring 41) integrated in the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) as shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 3, Aileo teaches
The earmuff unit of claim 2, wherein the compressible element (i.e. helical compression spring 41) is elastically compressible (the spring 41 serves to extend the folds to the conical form of the covering as in FIG. 4…..Col. 4, Lines 55-56) as shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 9, Aileo teaches
The earmuff unit of claim 1, wherein the earmuff unit (i.e. sound attenuating device 9) comprises a housing (Figs. 4-5 show a body or frame 11).
Regarding claim 10, Aileo teaches
The earmuff unit of claim 9, wherein the housing (i.e. body or frame 11) has comprises a wedge-shaped design tapering towards a lower part of the housing as shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 12, Aileo teaches
The earmuff unit of claim 1, wherein the flexible element (i.e. sound attenuating device 9) substantially extends over an entirety of the circumference of the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) as shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 19, Aileo teaches
The earmuff unit of claim 9, wherein, in an expanded state of the flexible element (i.e. flexible covering 101), the housing (i.e. body or frame 11) and the flexible element (i.e. flexible covering 101) together form a bowl of substantially uniform height over an entirety of the entire circumference of the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) as shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 20, Aileo teaches
The earmuff unit of claim 19, wherein a stabilizing ring element (Fig. 4 shows an annular member or ring 33) is mounted between the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) and the flexible element (i.e. flexible covering 101).
Regarding claim 21, Aileo teaches
The earmuff unit of claim 20, wherein one or more of the housing and the stabilizing ring element is made from a rigid material (The flanged ring 33 may be made of rigid material….Col. 3, Lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 22, Aileo teaches
The earmuff unit of claim 20, wherein one or more of the housing (i.e. body or frame 11) and the stabilizing ring element (i.e. annular member or ring 33) has a circumferential groove intended to cooperate with a mating circumferential lip of the flexible element (i.e. flexible covering 101) as shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 31, Aileo teaches
A head protective gear (Figs. 1-2 show a helmet 1) comprising:
an outer shell (Figs. 1 and 4-5 show a shell 3);
an inner padding (Figs. 1-5 show a side portions 5); and
at least one earmuff unit (Figs. 1 and 4-5 show a sound attenuating device 9) mounted in an allocated recess (Figs. 1-5 show a recess of the side portions 5) of the inner padding (i.e. side portions 5) as shown in Fig. 4, the at least one earmuff unit (i.e. sound attenuating device 9) comprising:
an ear pad (Figs. 1-5 show a resilient pad 13), and a flexible element (Figs. 4-5 show a flexible covering 101) arranged in at least a lower portion of a circumference of the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) to allow the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) to move as shown in Fig. 4, in at least a part of the lower portion of the circumference, towards and away from a shell (i.e. shell 3) of the head protective gear (i.e. helmet 1) as shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 33, Aileo teaches
A head protective gear (Figs. 1-2 show a helmet 1) comprising:
an outer shell (Figs. 1 and 4-5 show a shell 3); and
an inner padding (Figs. 1-5 show a side portions 5); and
at least one earmuff unit (Figs. 1 and 4-5 show a sound attenuating device 9) mounted in an allocated recess (Figs. 1-5 show a recess of the side portions 5) of the inner padding (i.e. side portions 5) as shown in Fig. 4, the at least one earmuff unit (i.e. sound attenuating device 9) comprising:
an ear pad (Figs. 1-5 show a resilient pad 13),
a flexible element (Figs. 4-5 show a flexible covering 101) arranged in at least a lower portion of a circumference of the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) to allow the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) to move as shown in Fig. 4, in at least a part of the lower portion of the circumference, towards and away from a shell (i.e. shell 3) of the head protective gear (i.e. helmet 1) as shown in Fig. 5, and one or more of: a spring element (Figs. 4-5 show a helical compression spring 41) for biasing the at least one earmuff unit (i.e. sound attenuating device 9) away from said outer shell (i.e. shell 3) as shown in Fig. 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aileo in view of Rensink et al. (Hereinafter Rensink) WO 2011068407 (For examination purports English machine translation of Rensink would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 5, Aileo teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Aileo does not explicitly teach that one longitudinal end of an elongate connection element is connected to a lower end of the ear pad, wherein a respective other longitudinal end of the elongate connection element is being adapted to be connected to a chin strap of the head protective gear.
Rensink teaches in Fig. 1 of one longitudinal end of an elongate connection element is connected to a lower end of an ear muff housing 5, wherein a respective other longitudinal end of the elongate connection element is being adapted to be connected to a chin strap 4 of a helmet.
Aileo and Rensink each disclose an earmuff unit for use with the head protective gear. One of ordinary skill in the art could have include the elongate connection element connected to the chin strap of the head protective gear of Rensink with the earmuff unit for use with the head protective gear of Aileo. 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 earmuff unit for use with the head protective gear of Aileo with the elongate connection element connected to the chin strap of the head protective gear as taught by Rensink. The motivation is to use the elongate connection element connected to the chin strap of the head protective gear to secure to keep the earmuffs and the head protective gear in place during use.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Aileo and Rensink teach all the features with respect to claim 5 as outlined above. Rensink teaches that the elongate connection element is connected to a laterally inner side of the ear pad as shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Aileo and Rensink teach all the features with respect to claim 5 as outlined above. The combination of Aileo and Rensink discloses the claimed invention except for the elongate connection element is elastically stretchable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elongate connection element, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Aileo and Rensink teach all the features with respect to claim 5 as outlined above. Rensink teaches that the elongate connection element comprises is a strip element as shown in Fig. 1.
12. Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aileo in view of Schrader et al. (Hereinafter Schrader) US-PAT No. 10,104,929.
Regarding claim 11, Aileo teaches all the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above.
Aileo does not explicitly teach that the housing comprises includes at least one loudspeaker.
Schrader teaches of an ear cups 112 include a speaker (Col. 5, Lines 15-16).
Aileo and Schrader each disclose an earmuff unit for use with the head protective gear. One of ordinary skill in the art could have include the speaker of Schrader with the earmuff unit for use with the head protective gear of Aileo. 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 earmuff unit for use with the head protective gear of Aileo with the speaker as taught by Schrader. The motivation is to use the speaker to provide audio.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Aileo and Schrader teach all the features with respect to claim 11 as outlined above. Schrader teaches at least one microphone (Col. 5, Lines 18-19).
13. Claims 13, 18, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aileo in view of Khonsaripour et al. (Hereinafter Khonsaripour) US-PG-PUB No. 2023/0292035.
Regarding claim 13, Aileo teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Aileo does not explicitly teach that an inflation unit configured intended to inflate the flexible element of the ear pad.
Khonsaripour teaches of an inflatable pouch 110 couple to an ear pad 108 as shown in Fig. 4.
Aileo and Khonsaripour each disclose an earmuff unit. One of ordinary skill in the art could have include the inflation unit of Khonsaripour with the earmuff unit of Aileo. 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 earmuff unit of Aileo with the inflation unit as taught by Khonsaripour. The motivation is to use the inflation unit to provide an adjustable fit to the user's head and ears to improve the consistency of the effectiveness of the ear pad seal.
Regarding claim 18, Aileo teaches all the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above.
Aileo does not explicitly teach that the flexible element is arranged between the ear pad and the housing, so as to allow the ear pad in at least the part of the lower portion of the circumference of the ear pad to move towards and away from the housing.
Khonsaripour teaches of an inflatable pouch 110 arranged between an ear pad 108 and a housing 112 as shown in Fig. 4.
Aileo and Khonsaripour each disclose an earmuff unit. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the inflation unit of Khonsaripour with the earmuff unit of Aileo. 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 earmuff unit of Aileo with the flexible element is arranged between the ear pad and the housing as taught by Khonsaripour, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Aileo and Khonsaripour teach all the features with respect to claim 18 as outlined above. Aileo teaches a Bowden-like cable (Figs. 4-5 show a flexible metal cord 73) is provided for one or more of at least one of moving the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) towards the shell (i.e. shell 3) as shown in Fig. 4 or moving the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) away from the shell (i.e. shell 3) as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Aileo and Khonsaripour teach all the features with respect to claim 18 as outlined above. Aileo teaches a spring element (Figs. 4-5 show a helical compression spring 41) is provided for one or more of at least one of biasing the ear pad (i.e. resilient pad 13) away from the shell (i.e. shell 3) as shown in Fig. 4.
14. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aileo in view of You CN 112261537 (For examination purports English machine translation of You would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 14, Aileo teaches all the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above.
Aileo does not explicitly teach that an acoustic mesh is arranged between the housing and the ear pad.
You teaches of a dust-proof net 9 is arranged between an ear muff body 7 and a silica gel ring 1301 as shown in Fig. 3.
Aileo and You each disclose an earmuff unit. One of ordinary skill in the art could have include the acoustic mesh of You with the earmuff unit of Aileo. 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 earmuff unit of Aileo with the acoustic mesh as taught by You. The motivation is to use the acoustic mesh to protected the components of the earmuff unit from dust and moisture.
15. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aileo in view of Schrader and further in view of Hua et al. (Hereinafter Hua) US-PG-PUB No. 2018/0242082.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Aileo and Schrader teach all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
The combination of Aileo and Schrader do not explicitly teach that the at least one microphone is located in front of the at least one loudspeaker.
Hua teaches of a microphone is located in front of a loudspeaker as shown in Fig. 7.
The combination of Aileo and Schrader and Hua each disclose an earmuff unit. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the microphone of the combination of Aileo and Schrader with the microphone located in front of the loudspeaker 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 microphone of the combination of Aileo and Schrader with the microphone located in front of the loudspeaker as taught by Hua. The motivation is to use the microphone located in front of the loudspeaker to create a conventional circum-aural feedback active noise reduction earmuff.
16. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Aileo, Schrader and Hua and further in view of Satongar et al. (Hereinafter Satongar) US-PAT No. 12,010,494.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Aileo, Schrader and Hua teach all the features with respect to claim 16 as outlined above.
The combination of Aileo, Schrader and Hua do not explicitly teach that an additional microphone is located behind or below the at least one loudspeaker.
Satongar teaches of an additional microphone 106 is located below a speaker 228 as shown in Fig. 4.
The combination of Aileo, Schrader and Hua and Satongar each disclose an earmuff unit. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the earmuff unit of the combination of Aileo, Schrader and Hua with the additional microphone located below the speaker as taught by Satongar. 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 earmuff unit of the combination of Aileo, Schrader and Hua with the additional microphone located below the speaker as taught by Satongar. The motivation is to use the additional microphone located below the speaker detected the reflected sound.
17. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aileo in view of Lazzaroni et al. (Hereinafter Lazzaroni) US RE34525.
Regarding claim 32, Aileo teaches all the features with respect to claim 31 as outlined above.
Aileo does not explicitly teach that at least one microphone located outside the head protective gear.
Lazzaroni teaches of a microphone boom 70 located outside a helmet 72 as shown in Fig. 13.
Aileo and Lazzaroni each disclose a head protective gear. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the head protective gear of Aileo with the microphone located outside the head protective gear as taught by Lazzaroni. 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 head protective gear of Aileo with the microphone located outside the head protective gear as taught by Lazzaroni. The motivation is to use the microphone located outside the head protective gear to capture voice and reducing background noise.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Regarding claims 4, 23-25, 27-28 and 30 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.
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