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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior arts Cao et al. (2021/0266653) in view of Ando (CN 104116633 A).
As to claim 1, Cao teaches an eartip (eartip 4) for hearing device (Fig. 1, in-ear earphone), the eartip comprising a core and a skirt formed around the core (Fig. 8, 43 and 4 formed around core 43), the core forming an inner channel with a top opening and a bottom opening for detachably attaching the eartip ([0047] - The inner wall of the small-diameter section 43 of the ear tip 4 has a convex portion 44, which can be clamped between the first clamping portion 321 and the second clamping portion 322, so as to achieve a fixed connection between the ear tip 4 and the sound emitting tube 3) to the hearing device (Fig. 8), the eartip defining an eartip bottom end (Fig. 8, second end 42) and an eartip top end (Fig. 8, first end 41), a bottom planed of the bottom end and a top plane of the top end being configured to intersect in space (Fig. 8), and wherein the perimeter of the skirt is configured to change from the bottom plane towards the top plane (Figs. 8 and 9), the bottom opening forming a unidirectional interface (Figs. 2-4 and 8 – where the eartip cannot be arranged on the hearing device in a random way, but rather in only one predetermined way which consistent with Applicant’s specification discloses “The unidirectional interface has at least one axis of asymmetry. This axis of asymmetry defines that the eartip cannot be arranged on the hearing device in a random way, but rather in only one predetermined way”). Cao does not explicitly discuss the unidirectional interface has a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape.
Ando teaches the first region in the first embodiment is that more and the area 70 mm or less from the auricle 110 of the upper part of the ear-tip 111 peripheral to the auricle 110 of the earlobe 112 between 50 mm; contact is one example 102 of the configuration of the first unit 161 and second unit 162 are respectively installed at the four contacts on the four vertexes of an isosceles trapezoid (trapezoid dotted line with reference to FIG. 1A) of 102; one example bottom of said isosceles trapezoid angle theta is 15 degree is less than theta less than 30 degrees ([0091]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ando into the teachings of Cao for the purpose of configurating of the first unit 161 and second unit 162 are respectively installed at the four contacts on the four vertexes of an isosceles having other shapes or structures respectively formed and assembled together, for example, trapezoid.
As to claim 2, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein the unidirectional interface has a cross-section that matches a cross-section of a speaker tower of the hearing device ([0048] and Fig. 2, speaker assembly 2 includes a first moving coil 21 and a first balanced armature 22; [0038] and Fig, 8, interface eartip and sound emitting tube 3).
As to claim 3, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein the unidirectional interface defines a fitment inside the inner channel of the core (Fig. 8, convex portion 44).
As to claim 5, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein the unidirectional interface comprise straight lines (Fig. 8) and curved lines (Fig. 3, curve lines 43).
As to claim 7, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein the eartip is symmetrical around a first vertical central plane such that the eartip is configured to be used for both the left and the right ear of a user (Fig. 3).
As to claim 8, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein the eartip is asymmetrical around a second vertical central plane, such that the skirt defines a first height forward of the second vertical central plane and a second height backward of the second vertical central plane, the first height being shorter than the second height (Fig. 8).
As to claim 9, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein a center of the bottom end (Fig. 8, second end 42) of the eartip is off-set with respect to a center of the top end (Fig. 8, first end 41) of eartip such that the eartip is tilted with respect to a second vertical central plane (Fig. 8).
As to claim 10, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein the eartip defines a bend between the bottom end (Fig. 8, second end 42) and the top end (Fig. 8, first end 41), the bend comprising an interior curve and an opposite curve that are sized and shaped to facilitate insertion of the eartip at or near a first bend of the ear canal and wherein the core is configured to bend at or near the first bend of the ear canal (Fig. 8).
As to claim 12, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein the core comprises a section that is tilted with respect to a speaker tower of the hearing device, when the eartip is arranged at the hearing device (Fig. 8 – the core of eartip 4 is tilted with respect to the sound emitting tube 3).
As to claim 13, Cao teaches the eartip according to claim 1, wherein the core (Fig. 8, 43) and the skirt (Fig. 8, 4) are integrally connected thereby forming the top end of the eartip (Fig. 8).
As to claim 15, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein the horizontal cross-section of the eartip is substantially oval, wherein the oval unidirectional cross-section comprises a groove (Fig. 3).
As to claim 16, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein the perimeter of the skirt is configured to decrease from the bottom plane towards the top plane (Fig. 8).
As to claim 17, Cao teaches the eartip according claim 1, wherein the perimeter of the skirt is configured to increase from the bottom plane up to a mid-plane between the bottom plane and the top plane, and wherein the circumference of the skirt is configured to decrease from the mid-plane up to the top plane (Fig. 8).
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior arts Cao and Ando in view of Jiao et al. (CN 114299241 A).
As to claim 4, Cao and Ando do not explicitly discuss the eartip according claim 1, wherein the unidirectional interface forms a polygon.
Jiao teaches a polygon composed of at least four vertexes has at least two ear tips which do not overlap; aiming at the polygon composed of i vertices, finding an ear tip, removing the vertex corresponding to the ear tip, then the remaining vertices of the polygon form a polygon of i-1 vertices; the polygon of the i-1 vertex, finding one ear tip, removing the vertex corresponding to the ear tip, the remaining vertex of the polygon forms a polygon of i-2 vertices. repeatedly removing the ear tip operation, until generating the remaining 3 vertices of the polygon (under specific implementation examples, paragraphs 19-20).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jiao into the teachings of Cao and Ando for the purpose of conveniently fast removing the tip.
4. Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior arts Cao and Ando in view of Dominijanni et al. (2022/0303700).
As to claim 11, Cao and Ando do not explicitly discuss the eartip according claim 1, wherein the skirt has a first hardness value, and wherein the core has a second hardness value, and wherein the first hardness value is lower than the second hardness value.
Dominijanni teaches the inner portion is formed of a first compliant material having a first durometer, and the dome-shaped portions is formed of a second compliant material have a second durometer that is less than the first durometer ([0016]). Durometer is a gauge used to measure the hardness and durometer provides a numerical value that allows for a relative comparison of hardness between different materials measured using the same scale. Thus, while hardness is a general property of materials, durometer is the specific tool or scale used to quantify that property. Hence, a slight constructional change in the eartip of claim 1 is suggested which comes within the scope of the customary practice followed by person skilled in the art, especially as the advantages thus achieved can be readily contemplated in advance as suggested by Dominijanni.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dominijanni into the teachings of Cao and Ando for the purpose of the advantages which comes within the scope of the customary practice achieved can be readily contemplated in advance.
As to claim 14, Cao and Ando do not explicitly discuss the eartip according claim 1, wherein inner channel of the core comprises a grid arranged within the channel. Grids or meshes for preventing ear wax or dust from entering are well known in the art and Dominijanni teaches wax guard 108 (at least [0051] and throughout the patent publication).
5. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior arts Cao, Ando and Jiao in view of JP 4547067 B2.
As to claim 18, Cao, Ando and Jiao do not explicitly discuss the eartip according to claim 4, wherein the triangular unidirectional cross-section forms an isosceles triangle or a scalene triangle.
JP 4547067 teaches a partition portion having an isosceles triangle in cross-section perpendicular to the length direction is used ([0025]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of JP 4547067 into the teachings of Cao, Ando and Jiao for the purpose of the triangular interface having at least one side different from the other two sides by having the triangular interface forming an isosceles triangle or a scalene triangle.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights