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 .
Response to Amendment
1. This in response to amendment filed 02/25/2026. No claims have been added. Claims 1, 10, 16 and 18 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claims 3 and 13 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.
None of the prior arts applied teach or suggest “web has a thickness of about 0.05 mm to about 0.4 mm, and wherein the first and second segments each have a thickness of about 1 mm to about 4 mm” for anti-helix retention member. These specific ranges, in combination with the other claimed limitations, define a particular dimensional relationship between the compliant web and the thicker leg segments which appears to achieve a balance between flexibility (to conform and compress under the anti-helix) and structural robustness (i.e., provide stable retention).
3. Claims 16-20 are allowed over prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mainini et al. (US.PUB.: 2016/0112789 A1) in view of Wyzisk et al. (US.PUB.: 2014/0119598 A1) and further in view of Berg (US.PUB.: 2014/0105431 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mainini teaches an in-ear audio output device (reads on “in-the-ear” headsets or headphones, also referred to as ear bud or concha style headsets or headphones are devices for transmitting received sounds to the ear of the user, see [0002]), comprising:
an earbud housing shaped to fit in a concha of an ear of a wearer of the device (reads on an apparatus for delivering sound to an ear canal includes a body dimensioned to fit in a cavum concha (also referred to as the “lower concha”) area of a user ear, and an offset stabilizer member extending from the body arranged to bypass contact with a crus helix and contact a concha area of the user ear, see [0034], [0039] and [0051]);
a body coupled to the earbud housing, the body extending away from an ear canal of the wearer and oriented outside of the ear when the device is worn (in FIGS. 1A-1G, the ear tip 2 of the present invention includes two major sections, a body 4 and an appendage 6 (also referred to herein as a “tail” or “stabilizer member”) extending from the body 4. The flexible tail 6 includes a first end 8 attached to the body 4 and a second end 10 to contact the user ear. In one example, the body 4 is substantially toroidal in shape as shown. Body 4 includes a centered aperture 18 serving as a port from first surface 24 to second surface 26. In one example, the body 4 is arranged to attach to a headset receiver, see [0037]); and
a retention member comprising a base configured to couple to the body (reads on first end 8 of flexible tail 6 is attached to the body 4 at a location offset from the major axis 12. For example, tail 6 is attached offset from major axis 12 a distance d 16 along minor axis 14 towards surface 24 (i.e., towards the headset receiver), see [0039]-0046).
Mainini features already addressed in the above rejection. Mainini does not specifically teach
“a leg extending outwardly from the base, the leg comprising: a first segment; and a second segment”.
However, Wyzisk teaches in FIGS. 2 and 8, the earbud attachment has a shark fin shape made of flexible silicone that is designed to curve and bend with, and fit comfortably within, the ear of a user. The "fin" portion of the earbud attachment includes a top arm 102, a bottom arm 104, and a rounded tip 106. The shark fin design of the earbud attachment applies traction to a portion of a user's ear and outward pressure to other portions, for example, the antihelix and concha, two areas that commonly leave a standalone earbud vulnerable to feeling loose and/or falling out of a user's ear. The shape and design of the earbud attachment makes the attachment comfortable for everyday use and reliable enough for intense activity (see [0018]). Note that the claimed “first segment and second segment” reads on a top arm 102, a bottom arm 104 as discussed in [0018].
Mainini also does not specifically teach “wherein the first and second segments are curved to the shape of an anti-helix of a user’s ear” and “an end opposite the base connecting the first segment to the second segment, the end being configured to fit under the anti-helix”.
However, Berg teaches ear unit 10 comprises a decremental curve 9 of the outer part of the ear unit corresponding to the antihelix 13 with a surface shaped in such a way that the curve falls along the inner part of the antihelix 13 and is partly positioned under antitragus 3 of the ear (see [0027]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mainini’s stabilizer loop tail with Wyzisk’s top/bottom arm fin structure and Berg antihelix curve to achieve a retention member that seats a body in a concha (as in Mainini and Berg), extends stabilizer/fin leg outward from base (as in Mainini and Wyzisk), conforms to the antihelix and fits under it (as in Mainini, Wyzisk and Berg). The combination is to achieve predictable improvements in stability and comfort.
Note that neither Mainini, Wyzisk nor Berg specifically teach “a web disposed in a central segment between the first segment and the second segment”, however, Mainini teaches the flexible tail 6 includes an elliptical loop 22 having an open center. Referring to FIG. 1B, the elliptical shape of tail 6 allows for greater flex along a direction 9 in the plane of the first surface 24 and second surface 26 in comparison to a square or rectangular shaped tail (see [0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add or maintain a thin web (material span) across the loop between the two side segments to tune stiffness or provide additional support, a predictable variation in the flexible silicone/stabilizer structures disclosed in Mainini and Wyzisk. Thus, the web is considered an obvious modification of the stabilizer loop/fin geometry, not conferring patentable weight for claim 1 and within the combination of Mainini, Wyzisk and Berg.
Independent claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons addressed in independent claim 1. Note that the claimed “detachable retention member” as recited in claim 10 reads on the attachment tire or elastic loop 108 that fits snugly around the circumference of an earbud. The attachment tire 108 is designed with a centered hole that can stretch and hold a firm grip on the earbud, allowing it to stay attached through wear and storage. In one embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 1, the centered hole also allows sound to be released from an earbud speaker (see [0019] of Wyzisk). Also, the claimed “segments having a greater thickness than the web” as recited in claims 10 and 16 may reads on loop 22 (tail) and body 4 with portion of different hardness (tail vs. body) and differences in geometry (tail is thin and body thicker) (see [0038]) and "fin" portion of the earbud attachment includes a top arm 102, a bottom arm 104, and a rounded tip 106. The shark fin design of the earbud attachment applies traction to a portion of a user's ear and outward pressure to other portions, for example, the antihelix and concha, two areas that commonly leave a standalone earbud vulnerable to feeling loose and/or falling out of a user's ear, see [0018]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mainini, Wyzisk and Berg teaches wherein the first and second segments have a greater thickness than the web (Mainini teaches an elliptical loop 22 having an open center. Referring to FIG. 1B, the elliptical shape of tail 6 allows for greater flex along a direction 9 in the plane of the first surface 24 and second surface 26 in comparison to a square or rectangular shaped tail. Referring to FIG. 1E, tail 6 also flexes in a direction 25 towards and away from first surface 24 and second surface 26. Advantageously, the flexibility of tail 6 in multiple directions allows for positioning and conforming of the tail 6 to specific user ears, providing enhanced stability of a headset. In one example, the distance from the center point to the tail is approximately 17 mm to 21 mm and the overall length of the eartip is approximately 25 mm-30 mm. In one example, at least a portion of the flexible tail 6 is formed from a material having a different hardness than a body 4 material, see [0038]) and (Wyzisk teaches in FIGS. 2 and 8, the earbud attachment has a shark fin shape made of flexible silicone that is designed to curve and bend with, and fit comfortably within, the ear of a user. The "fin" portion of the earbud attachment includes a top arm 102, a bottom arm 104, and a rounded tip 106. The shark fin design of the earbud attachment applies traction to a portion of a user's ear and outward pressure to other portions, for example, the antihelix and concha, two areas that commonly leave a standalone earbud vulnerable to feeling loose and/or falling out of a user's ear, see [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mainini, Wyzisk and Berg teaches wherein the web, the first and second segments, and the end each comprise a same material (Mainini teaches the body 4 and the flexible tail 6 are composed of a soft, elastic or elastomeric material. In one example, the material selected is non-porous, see [0046]) and (Wyzisk teaches the earbud attachment is an injection-molded product made of liquid silicone rubber, a high purity platinum-cured silicone with a low compression set, great stability and the ability to resist extreme hot and cold temperatures. In the preferred embodiment, the silicone is in a range of 30-50 shore hardness. In one embodiment, due to the thermosetting nature of the material, liquid silicone injection molding may require special treatment, such as intensive distributive mixing, while maintaining the material at a low temperature before it is pushed into a heated cavity and vulcanized, see [0017]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combination of Mainini, Wyzisk and Berg teaches wherein the web is curved or serpentine in shape (Wyzisk teaches in FIGS. 2 and 8, the earbud attachment has a shark fin shape made of flexible silicone that is designed to curve and bend with, and fit comfortably within, the ear of a user. The "fin" portion of the earbud attachment includes a top arm 102, a bottom arm 104, and a rounded tip 106. The shark fin design of the earbud attachment applies traction to a portion of a user's ear and outward pressure to other portions, for example, the antihelix and concha, two areas that commonly leave a standalone earbud vulnerable to feeling loose and/or falling out of a user's ear. The shape and design of the earbud attachment makes the attachment comfortable for everyday use and reliable enough for intense activity, see [0018]) and (Mainini teaches and outer ear, or pinna, is an irregularly concave cartilaginous member comprised of a number of eminences and depressions which give each ear a distinct shape and form. The helix 614 is the curved outer rim of the ear; below the helix 614 is the anti-helix 616, a curved prominence which describes a curve around the concha 602, a deep cavity containing the entry to the ear canal 608. The concha 602 is divided into two parts, the cymba concha 604 and cavum concha 606, by the crus helix 614 which curves around the outside of the ear, and extends inwards at about the vertical midpoint of the ear. The cymba concha 604 lies above the crus helix 614 and below the anti-helix 616; the cavum concha 606 lies below the crus helix 614 and surrounds the entry to the ear canal 608. In front of the cavum concha 606 and projecting backwards from the front of the ear is the tragus 610, a small semicircular prominence. Opposite the tragus 610 and separated from it by the deep curvature of the incisura 620 is the antitragus 618, see [0054]).
Claim 6 recites “wherein the retention member is detachable”. Note that Wyzisk teaches attachment 108 is detachable earbud (see [0019]-[0021]).
Claim 7 and 15 recite “wherein the leg is disposed at an angle of about 0 degrees to about 45 degrees”. Note that Mainini tail 6 is inserted at different angles for fist (see [0041-0043] and [0048]), thus choosing 0-45 degrees is considered an obvious design choice.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the first segment has a greater length than the second segment”. Wyzisk teaches in FIGS. 2 and 8, the earbud attachment has a shark fin shape made of flexible silicone that is designed to curve and bend with, and fit comfortably within, the ear of a user. The "fin" portion of the earbud attachment includes a top arm 102, a bottom arm 104, and a rounded tip 106. The shark fin design of the earbud attachment applies traction to a portion of a user's ear and outward pressure to other portions, for example, the antihelix and concha, two areas that commonly leave a standalone earbud vulnerable to feeling loose and/or falling out of a user's ear. The shape and design of the earbud attachment makes the attachment comfortable for everyday use and reliable enough for intense activity, see [0018].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mainini, Wyzisk and Berg teaches wherein the leg extends outwardly from the base in a direction substantially perpendicular to the earbud housing (Mainini teaches Body 4 is dimensioned to fit in a cavum concha area of a user ear, and flexible tail 6 is arranged to bypass contact with a crus helix and contact a cymba concha area of the user ear. Referring to FIG. 1D, body 4 has a major axis 12 and a minor axis 14, where the length of the major axis 12 is greater than a length of the minor axis 14. The major axis 12 is along a diameter of the body 4 extending through the center of the body 4 and the minor axis 14 along the height of the body 4. In one example, the flexible tail 6 has a curvature 20. Curvature 20 is present to assist tail 6 to avoid contact with the crus helix. In a further example, tail 6 is straight. In certain examples, depending upon user preference and/or the variable size and shape of the user's ear, the positioning of tail 6 within the user ear may vary to achieve an optimal fit for a particular user. For example, tail 6 may be positioned at different locations within the concha, specifically the cavum and cymba area. The tail will be depressed at 10 and tail 6 will distribute the load along the surface of the cavum and/or cymba, depending on positioning. The surface friction combined with the specific pressure (due to durometer of tail) that forces the eartip body 4 towards the ear canal achieve the desired stability while maintaining high comfort, see [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mainini, Wyzisk and Berg teaches wherein the at least one detachable retention member is two or more detachable retention members (Mainini teaches three sizes of ear tips may be utilized to accommodate small, medium, and large cavum ears. These sizes may be determined by testing and evaluating multiple sizes of ear tips on test participants until the proper sizes are determined to provide the optimal fit for the respective ear shapes and sizes. See [0031] and Wyzisk teaches the attachment tire 108 fits around the circular earbud and sits in the ear of the user, securing the earbud in place and creating an improved fit. The fin also sits in the ear of the user, applying pressure to the antihelix and concha to provide a more secure feeling than with standalone earbuds. The presently disclosed earbud attachment may come in many sizes and dimensions to fit into the ears of a variety of users, see [0021]), thus having multiple detachable members of different sized is explicitly contemplated.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mainini, Wyzisk and Berg teaches wherein the leg of each of the two or more detachable retention members are different sizes (Mainini teaches three sizes of ear tips may be utilized to accommodate small, medium, and large cavum ears. These sizes may be determined by testing and evaluating multiple sizes of ear tips on test participants until the proper sizes are determined to provide the optimal fit for the respective ear shapes and sizes. See [0031] and Wyzisk teaches the attachment tire 108 fits around the circular earbud and sits in the ear of the user, securing the earbud in place and creating an improved fit. The fin also sits in the ear of the user, applying pressure to the antihelix and concha to provide a more secure feeling than with standalone earbuds. The presently disclosed earbud attachment may come in many sizes and dimensions to fit into the ears of a variety of users, see [0021]), thus having multiple detachable members of different sized is explicitly contemplated.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claims 1-15.
Applicant argues that Mainini’s loop 22 is intended to remain flexible and that adding a web would allegedly defeat Mainini’s purpose, However, Mainini expressly teaches that the tail/loop is configured to engage the ear and provide retention/stability while also being flexible (see [0038-0039]). Thus, Mainini is not limited to maximum flexibility only; it also concerns maintain the device in position on the ear. Applicant has not shown that the applied structure would render Mainini inoperable or unsatisfactory for its intended retention purpose. The newly added via/web/thickness limitations are persuasive only as recited in independent claim 16. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-15 is maintained, and claims 16-20 are allowable.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth
In 37 CFR 1.136(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 extension fee 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rasha S. AL-Aubaidi whose telephone number is (571) 272-7481. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on (571) 272-7488.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RASHA S AL AUBAIDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights