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 (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: Weiss does not disclose or suggest, activating an indicator in response to detecting that the momentary pressure differential has reached or exceeded a predetermined pressure differential associated with the ear cup being correctly situated, as generally required by amended claims 1 and 17. Applicant is directed to ¶ [0022]: a “pair of ear muffs, a photosensitive device such as a photodiode is used inside the ear muff, and any light leaking into the ear muff is detected by the photodiode and is a direct indicator of the effectiveness of the fit of the ear muffs”.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Weiss does not disclose or suggest a pressure differential detector configured to detect a momentary pressure differential, applicant is directed to ¶ [0024] of Weiss provides a detector system that determines a pressure differential between the inside of the ear muff and the outside and ¶ [0091]: “Any loss of tight fit will result in a pressure drop, or if a feed-back loop is used to keep the pressure constant” implying a continuous measurement of the pressure differential, which includes a “momentary” pressure differential, that is generally defined by the sensitivity or resolution or sampling rate of the device, none of these parameters are provided in instant application.
In regard to applicant arguing that Teipen fail to disclose a differential pressure sensors for measuring pressure, applicant is referred to ¶ [0003]: “differential
pressure sensors” and Fig. 3, items 5, 7, p1 and p2; ¶ [0092].
In regard to Bacon discloses audio headphone performance optimization, and describes detecting pressure at the interface between the earpad and the user and comparing the detected pressure to a pressure range or threshold to determine whether the earpad is in a circum-aural or supra-aural position on the user's head. As such, Bacon does not disclose or suggest the claims as amended. He is teaching to provide power (battery) to the device according to claim 10.
In response to Powers not disclosing or suggesting a switch to activate the indicator when the diaphragm is in its deformed configuration, applicant is directed to ¶ [0034-0034]: “detect the presence of a pressure differential… The pressure sensitive device includes … pressure differential to provide a pressure switch”.
In response to Sapiejewski not disclosing or suggesting a seal verification module is integral to, recessed into or mounted in/on the rigid shell, applicant is directed to ¶ [0026]: “detecting changes in the steady-state pressure (verification module) inside the earcup”.
Therefore, it is believed that Weiss teaches the claim limitations and the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-13, 15-17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiss (EP 3741334 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weiss discloses a seal verification module (Weiss, Fig. 1, item 10) for a headset ear cup (Weis, Fig. 1, item 20; ¶ [0001], ¶ [0004-0009]), the module comprising:
an indicator (Weiss, Fig. 3, item 450, ¶ [0083]: “The output unit is configured to output an indication that the ear plug fit”) configured to provide an indication in response to being activated (Weiss, ¶ [0023-0024]: “ a slight positive or negative pressure
differential between the inside of the ear muff and the outside can be used to provide a direct indicator of the effectiveness of the fit of the ear muffs”); and
a pressure differential detector configured to detect a pressure differential between an internal side of the seal verification module (Weiss, ¶ [0024]: “slight
positive or negative pressure differential between the inside of the ear muff and the outside can be used to provide a direct indicator of the effectiveness of the fit of the ear muffs”) and an external side of the seal verification module, and configured to activate the indicator (Weiss, ¶ [0024], e.g. by providing the “difference in pressures between the inside and the outside of the ear muff”, or increase air supply) in response to the detected pressure differential reaching or exceeding a predetermined pressure differential (Weiss, ¶ [0024], the “slight positive or negative pressure difference”) associated with verifying the headset ear cup being correctly situated to form an acoustic seal against a surface (Weiss, ¶ [0024], “effectiveness of the fit of the ear muffs”).
Regarding claim 2, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The seal verification module, wherein the predetermined pressure differential corresponds to the pressure on the internal (inside) side of the seal verification module increasing by a predetermined amount (Weiss, ¶ [0024]: “ a slight positive (increase) pressure differential between the inside of the ear muff ”. There is a correspondence between the pressure differential and the amount of leakage).
Regarding claim 11, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Weiss further discloses a seal verification, wherein the indicator comprises a light indicator and/or a sound indicator (Weiss, ¶ [0024]: “a photosensitive device such as a photodiode is used inside the ear muff, and any light leaking into the ear muff is detected by the photodiode and is a direct indicator of the effectiveness of the fit of the ear muffs”, Fig. 3, item 450, ¶ [0083]: “The output unit is configured to output an indication that the ear plug fit is required to be adapted on the basis of the determined effectiveness of fit of the pair of ear plugs.” the indicator could be an acoustic signal or light (LED for example)).
Regarding claim 12, Weiss discloses a headset (Weiss, Fig. 5 and 7) comprising:
a headband configured to situate the headset on a user's head (Weiss, Fig. 5 and 7);
an ear cup, each ear cup mounted on the headband (Weiss, Fig. 7), for example on an end of the headband, and comprising an acoustic sealing element configured to form an acoustic seal around the user's ear (Weiss, Fig 5, ear muff seal); wherein
the ear cup is provided with a seal verification module of any preceding claim configured to selectively verify the acoustic sealing element correctly situated around the user's ear to form an acoustic sea (Weiss, see claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Weiss discloses all the limitation of claim 12.
Weiss further discloses headset, wherein the head band is adjustable (Weiss, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 15, Weiss discloses all the limitation of claim 12.
Weiss further discloses, wherein each ear cup comprises an acoustic damping element (Weiss, ¶ [0122]: “seal of the ear muffs”).
Regarding claim 16, Weiss discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Weiss further discloses a seal verification module to a headset comprising an ear cup, the method comprising:
mounting the seal verification module to the ear cup (Weiss, ¶ [0023-0024]: “pressure differential between the inside of the ear muff and the outside can be used to provide a direct indicator (verification) of the effectiveness of the fit of the ear muffs”).
Regarding claim 17, Weiss discloses a method of verifying that a headset comprising an ear cup Weiss, Figs. 1, 5, 7). is correctly situated on a surface (Weiss, ¶ [0005]: “ adjust the fit of the pair of ear muffs around the ears of the patient”) such that the ear cup forms an acoustic seal against the surface, the method comprising:
pressing the ear cup against the surface (Weiss, Fig. 7, ¶ [0005]: “fit of the pair of ear muffs around the ears ”);
detecting a pressure differential between an internal side of the ear cup and an external side of the ear cup when the ear cup is pressed against the surface (Weiss, ¶ [0023-0024]: “a slight positive or negative pressure differential between the inside of the ear muff and the outside can be used to provide a direct indicator of the effectiveness of the fit of the ear muffs”); and
activating an indicator (Weiss, ¶ [0118]: “Any loss of tight fit will result in a pressure drop, or if a feedback loop is used to keep the pressure constant ( a controller), into an increase of air supply to keep the pressure at preset level.”) in response to the detected pressure differential (Weiss, ¶ [0024]: “slight positive or
negative pressure differential ”) reaching or exceeding a predetermined pressure differential (Weiss, ¶ [0024]: “ adjust the compression of ear protectors until the required level of attenuation is provided”) associated with the ear cup being correctly situated (Weiss, ¶ [0024], “effectiveness of the fit of the ear muffs”).
Regarding claim 24, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
Weiss further discloses, wherein momentarily pressing the ear cup comprises applying pressure to the ear cup for approximately one second (Weiss, Weiss provides a detector system that determines a pressure differential ¶ [0091]: “Any loss of tight fit will result in a pressure drop”, which implies a momentarily pressure change).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (EP 3741334 A1), and further in view of Teipen (US 20170315008 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Weiss fails to discloses a seal verification module, wherein the pressure differential detector comprises a diaphragm having one side exposed to the internal side of the seal verification module and another side exposed to the external side of the seal verification module such that a pressure differential across the diaphragm is the pressure differential between the internal side of the seal verification module and the external side of the seal verification module .
In an analogous field of endeavor, Teipen (US 20170315008 A1) discloses wherein the pressure differential detector (Teipen, Fig. 1-9) comprises a diaphragm (Teipen, Fig. 1-9, item 5) having one side exposed to the internal side of the seal verification module and another side exposed to the external side of the seal verification module such that a pressure differential across the diaphragm is the pressure differential between the internal side of the seal verification module and the external side of the seal verification module (Teipen, Fig. 3 and 5, ¶ [0092], difference between P1 and P2 is delta P).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a seal verification module, wherein the pressure differential detector comprises a diaphragm having one side exposed to the internal side of the seal verification module and another side exposed to the external side of the seal verification module such that a pressure differential across the diaphragm is the pressure differential between the internal side of the seal verification module and the external side of the seal verification module as taught by Teipen in Weiss invention. The motivation is to provide an electrically conductive measurement membrane arranged on the first base body with inclusion of a pressure chamber, which measurement membrane can be charged with a pressure to be measured, and an electrode provided in the membrane-facing layer and spaced apart from the measurement membrane, which electrode together with the measurement membrane forms a capacitor having a capacitance that varies according to the pressure acting upon the measurement membrane.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Weiss and Teipen discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Teipen further discloses, wherein the diaphragm has a deformed configuration in which the indicator is activated and an undeformed configuration in which the indicator is not activated, wherein the diaphragm is configured to assume the deformed configuration in response to the pressure differential across the diaphragm reaching or exceeding the predetermined pressure differential (Teipen, ¶ [0004]: “Capacitive
pressure sensors comprise at least one capacitive, electromechanical transducer that detects a deflection (deformation) of the measurement membrane dependent upon the pressure acting upon said measurement membrane, and that transduces said deflection into an electrical signal reflecting the pressure to be measured” and ¶ [0005]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (EP 3741334 A1), and further in view of Bacon (US 9756412 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Weiss fails to include a battery.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Bacon (US 9756412 B1) discloses a headphone including one or more batteries (Bacon, col. 12, lines 54-56)’
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings to include a battery as taught by Bacon in Weiss invention. The motivation is to provide power to a headphone.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (EP 3741334 A1), in view of Teipen ((US 20170315008 A1)) and further in view of Powers (US 20150068523 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Weiss and Teipen discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
However, the combination of Weiss and Teipen fails to disclose wherein the pressure differential detector further comprises an activation element, and wherein the activation element and the diaphragm are configured to collectively act as a switch to activate the indicator when the diaphragm is in its deformed configuration.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Powers (US 20150068523 A1) discloses a pressure differential detector further comprises an activation element, and wherein the activation element and the diaphragm are configured to collectively act as a switch to activate the indicator when the diaphragm is in its deformed configuration (Powel, Fig. 2, items 14 and 16, ¶ [0022]: “detect the presence of a pressure differential created due to fluid flow. The pressure sensitive device includes components configured to react to a particular pressure differential to provide a pressure switch” and ¶ [0034]: “ The membrane 14 and perforated membrane 16 have a thickness and are spaced apart to permit contact between the membrane 14 and the perforated membrane 16 when a threshold pressure drop has been reached.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the pressure differential detector further comprises an activation element, and wherein the activation element and the diaphragm are configured to collectively act as a switch to activate the indicator when the diaphragm is in its deformed configuration as taught by Powel in Teipen and Weiss invention to make a binary determination about headset fit.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Weiss, Teipen and Powel discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Power further discloses wherein one of the diaphragm and the activation element comprises two or more primary conducting elements, wherein the other of the diaphragm and the activation element comprises a secondary conducting element, and wherein when the diaphragm is in its deformed configuration the secondary conducting element provides a conductive path between the primary conducting elements to activate the indicator (Power, Fig. 2, items 14 and 16).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Weiss, Teipen and Powel discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Power further discloses wherein the pressure differential detector further comprises a chamber formed between the diaphragm and the activation element, and wherein the chamber comprises a vent port (Powel, Fig. 2, item 14, 16, 18, 34; ¶ [0033]).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (EP 3741334 A1), and further in view of Sapiejewski (US 20130129106 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
However, Weiss fails to disclose a headset wherein each ear cup comprises a rigid shell and wherein the respective seal verification module is integral to, recessed into or mounted in/on the rigid shell.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Sapiejewski (US 20130129106 A1) discloses a headset wherein each ear cup comprises a rigid shell and wherein the respective seal verification module is integral to, recessed into or mounted in/on the rigid shell (Sapiejewski, ¶ [0026]: “detecting changes in the steady-state pressure inside the earcup”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective failing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a headset wherein each ear cup comprises a rigid shell and wherein the respective seal verification module is integral to, recessed into or mounted in/on the rigid shell as taught by Sapiejewski in Weiss invention. The motivation is to detect the physical configuration of the headset, including mechanical position sensors, strain gauges, or pressure
sensors.
Regarding claim 15, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
However, Weiss fails to disclose a headset wherein each ear cup comprises an acoustic damping element.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Sapiejewski discloses a headset wherein each ear cup comprises an acoustic damping element (Sapiejewski, ¶ [0025]: “passive
Attenuation may also be controlled by opening or closing leaks in the earcup, which again may be manual or automated.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective failing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a headset wherein each ear cup comprises an acoustic damping element as taught by Sapiejewski in Weiss invention, to detect the physical configuration of the headset, including mechanical position sensors, strain gauges, or pressure sensors.
Regarding claim 19, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
However, Weiss fails to disclose wherein pressing the ear cup against the surface comprises increasing the pressure within the ear cup when the ear cup is correctly situated, and wherein the predetermined pressure differential corresponds to the pressure within the ear cup increasing by a predetermined amount.
In an analogous endeavor, Sapiejewski discloses pressing the ear cup against the surface comprises increasing the pressure within the ear cup when the ear cup is correctly situated, and wherein the predetermined pressure differential corresponds to the pressure within the ear cup increasing by a predetermined amount (Sapiejewski, Fig. 2; ¶ [0015], ¶ [0018]).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (EP 3741334 A1), and further in view of Powel (US 20150068523 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 1
However, Weiss fails to disclose a seal comprising a substrate supporting the indicator and the ultra-low pressure differential detector.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Powel discloses a seal comprising a substrate (Powel, ¶ [0026]: “in an air-flow tube; however, other architectures, structures, materials and process features and steps may be varied”) supporting the indicator and the ultra-low pressure differential detector (Powel, Fig. 1, item 10, is the pressure differential detector, the range of the sensor is open, therefore the sensitivity may include the ranges above 700 Pa and 10,000 Pa.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a seal comprising a substrate supporting the indicator and the ultra-low pressure differential detector according to Powel in the Weiss invention to provide a pressure sensitive device that deforms to change an electrical property in the presence of a pressure differential.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Weiss and Powel discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Powel further discloses a pressure differential detector further comprises a flange, wherein the flange sealingly mounts the pressure differential detector on the substrate (Fig. 1, item 10; ¶ [0031]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (EP 3741334 A1), and further in view of Leong (EP 2068793 B1).
Regarding claim 22, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
However, Weiss fails to disclose wherein applying pressure to the ear cup comprises applying a pressure of approximately 3450 Pa (0.5 psi) to the ear cup.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Leong (EP 2068793 B1) discloses applying pressure to the ear cup comprises applying a pressure of approximately 3450 Pa (0.5 psi) to the ear cup (Leong, ¶ [0062]: “The compression force deflection at 25 percent is desirably between about 0.3 psi [0.02Kg/cm2] to about 10.0 psi [0.73Kg/cm2], and more desirably between about 0.3 psi [0.02Kg/cm2] and about 4.0 psi [0.29Kg/cm2]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of applying pressure to the ear cup comprises applying a pressure of approximately 3450 Pa (0.5 psi) to the ear cup as taught by Leong in Weiss invention to protect the ear from heavy sounds and pressure.
Claim(s) 20-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (EP 3741334 A1).
Regarding claims 20, 21 and 23, Weiss discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and 17 respectively.
Weiss discloses a seal verification, wherein the indicator comprises a light-emitting diode (LED) and/or a buzzer (Weiss, ¶ [0023-0024]: “pressure
differential between the inside of the ear muff and the outside can be used to provide a direct indicator of the effectiveness of the fit of the ear muffs” which might include among others a light-emitting diode (LED) and/or a buzzer in the outside of the cups). Other applications reveal a variety of devices can be used as a seal verification, take for example, Asada (US 20080152169 A1) ¶ [0120]: “a sound
leakage alarm to the listener with a buzzer alarm sound generated by a buzzer”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of an indicator comprising a light-emitting diode (LED) and/or a buzzer by Weiss or Asada as an external verification of perfect fit without any leakage.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRIEDRICH FAHNERT whose telephone number is (571)270-7797. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am-4:00 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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/FRIEDRICH FAHNERT/
Examiner
Art Unit 2692