DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites “wherein when the upper housing assembly is in the closed state, the distance between the upper housing magnet and the magnetic guide member in the thickness direction is adjusted by disposing a relative position between the magnetic guide member and the upper housing magnet mounted within the charging case”. It is unclear what is meant by “disposing a relative position between the magnetic guide member and the upper housing magnet mounted within the charging case”.
Claim 16 recites “along a thickness direction of the charging case, a projection of the profiling recess is staggered from a projection of the Hall sensor and a projection of the upper housing magnet”. It is unclear what is meant by “staggered”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. US PGPUB 2020/0233046.
Regarding claim 1, Ding discloses a charging case for an earphone [fig. 1A; 100 for 190; pars. 44-46], comprising a lower housing assembly [fig. 1A, 110], an upper housing assembly [fig. 1A, 120], a main control circuit board [fig. 1B; 164; par. 52], a magnetic suction structure disposed within the lower housing assembly [fig. 1B, 150; par. 49], an upper housing magnet disposed within the upper housing assembly [fig. 1B, 140], and a Hall sensor disposed within the lower housing assembly [fig. 2A, 210; par. 58], wherein
the Hall sensor is electrically connected to the main control circuit board [par. 61; figs. 3a-3b],
the magnetic suction structure is configured to place an earphone in a magnetic suction manner [par. 49],
when the upper housing assembly is in an open state with respect to the lower housing assembly, the Hall sensor is in a first state under an action of a magnetic field of the magnetic suction structure [par. 39-41; first set of values or second set of values based on the case being open (second magnet 230 far from 220) or closed (second magnet 230 close to 220)], and
when the upper housing assembly is in a closed state with respect to the lower housing assembly, the upper housing magnet causes the Hall sensor to switch to a second state different from the first state [par. 39-41; first set of values or second set of values based on the case being open (second magnet 230 far from 220) or closed (second magnet 230 close to 220)].
Regarding claim 2, Ding discloses wherein a first magnetic suction member cooperating with the magnetic suction structure is disposed on the earphone [par. 49],
the first magnetic suction member is set so that the Hall sensor is in the first state when the earphone is placed in the charging case and the upper housing assembly is in the open state, and the first magnetic suction member is set so that the Hall sensor is in the second state when the earphone is placed in the charging case and the upper housing assembly is in the closed state [par. 39-41; first set of values or second set of values based on the case being open (second magnet 230 far from 220) or closed (second magnet 230 close to 220); the first magnetic suction member does not interfere thus it is “set”].
Regarding claim 3, Ding discloses wherein the first magnetic suction member is disposed to have an effect only on a magnitude of the magnetic field perpendicular to the inductive surface at the Hall sensor, and not on a direction of the magnetic field [fig. 1B; the earbuds are held in place by magnets 150 which are on the side of the earbuds perpendicular to the sensor 210; pars. 57-59].
Regarding claim 7, Ding discloses wherein when the upper housing assembly is in the closed state with respect to the lower housing assembly, a magnetic pole of the magnetic suction structure facing the upper housing assembly and a magnetic pole of the magnetic suction structure facing the lower housing assembly are opposite in polarity [fig. 1B; pars. 49 & 51; magnets 150 are in the same position regardless of the open or closed state].
Regarding claim 8, Ding discloses wherein a magnetic guide member is disposed in the lower housing assembly [fig. 1B; 130; par. 48], and
when the upper housing assembly is in the closed state, a magnetic field of the upper housing magnet magnetizes the magnetic guide member [par. 48; 130 and 140 magnetize each other].
Regarding claim 9, Ding discloses wherein during a process of switching the charging case between the open state and the closed state, the upper housing magnet magnetizes the magnetic guide member to different degrees, and the Hall sensor senses the magnetic field of the magnetic guide member to detect the open state or the closed state [pars. 39-41 & 48-51; fig. 1B; the Hall effect sensor has first set of values or second set of values based on the case being open (second magnet 230 far from 220) or closed (second magnet 230 close to 220)].
Regarding claim 10, Ding discloses wherein a distance from the Hall sensor to the magnetic guide member is smaller than a distance from the Hall sensor to the magnetic suction structure [fig. 1B & 2A; the Hall sensor 210 is closer to 220 than to 150; pars. 45-47 & 49-51].
Regarding claim 11, Ding discloses wherein projections of the upper housing magnet and the magnetic guide member along a thickness direction of the charging case at least partially overlap when the upper housing assembly is in the closed state [fig. 1B; 140/130].
Regarding claim 12, Ding discloses wherein when the upper housing assembly is in the closed state, centroids of the projections of the upper housing magnet and the magnetic guide member along the thickness direction are disposed to coincide [fig. 1B; 140/130].
Regarding claim 13, Ding discloses wherein when the upper housing assembly is in the closed state, the distance between the upper housing magnet and the magnetic guide member in the thickness direction is adjusted by disposing a relative position between the magnetic guide member and the upper housing magnet mounted within the charging case [fig. 1B; adjusting the position of the member and magnet adjusts the distance].
Regarding claim 14, Ding discloses wherein when the upper housing assembly is in the closed state, a distance between surfaces of the upper housing magnet and the magnetic guide member that are close to each other is smaller than or equal to 5 mm [fig. 2B; pars. 48-49].
Regarding claim 15, Ding discloses wherein when the upper housing assembly is in the closed state, an end of the magnetic guide member away from the Hall sensor is disposed to directly abut against a bottom surface of the upper housing magnet [fig. 2B].
Regarding claim 16, Ding discloses wherein the lower housing assembly is provided with a profiling recess for accommodating the earphone [fig. 1A, grooves 116; par. 46], and along a thickness direction of the charging case, a projection of the profiling recess is staggered from a projection of the Hall sensor and a projection of the upper housing magnet [figs. 1a-2b].
Regarding claim 17, Ding discloses wherein the lower housing assembly is further provided with an auxiliary magnet [fig. 1B, 130], the auxiliary magnet being set so that the Hall sensor is in the first state when the upper housing assembly is in the open state and the Hall sensor is in the second state when the upper housing assembly is in the closed state [par. 39-41; first set of values or second set of values based on the case being open (second magnet 230 far from 220) or closed (second magnet 230 close to 220)].
Regarding claim 18, Ding discloses wherein the auxiliary magnet is a magnet that assists the magnetic cooperation between the upper housing assembly and the lower housing assembly [par. 48] or a magnet that assists the cooperation between the earphone and a profiling groove for accommodating the earphone.
Regarding claim 19, Ding discloses wherein the first state refers to one of states in which the Hall sensor outputs a high level or the Hall sensor outputs a low level, and the second state refers to the other one of the states [pars. 39-41].
Regarding claim 20, Ding discloses wherein a magnetic field distribution of the upper housing magnet at the Hall sensor is adjusted to cooperate with a magnetic field distribution of the magnetic suction structure at the Hall sensor, so that a direction of the magnetic field acting on the Hall sensor is changed when the upper housing magnet is close to the Hall sensor [par. 39-41; first set of values or second set of values based on the case being open (second magnet 230 far from 220) or closed (second magnet 230 close to 220), despite the magnetic suction structure 150, thus they “cooperate”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. US PGPUB 2020/0233046 in view of Aralaguppe et al. US PGPUB 2017/0094399.
Regarding claim 4, Ding discloses wherein the magnetic suction structure comprises a first magnetic suction structure that magnetically cooperates with the first magnetic suction member [par. 49].
Ding does not explicitly disclose the earphone further includes a second magnetic suction member independent of the first magnetic suction member, the magnetic suction structure comprises a second magnetic suction structure magnetically cooperating with the second magnetic suction member, volumes of the second magnetic suction member and the second magnetic suction structure are smaller than volumes of the first magnetic suction member and the first magnetic suction structure, and a distance from the Hall sensor to the first magnetic suction structure is smaller than a distance from the Hall sensor to the second magnetic suction structure.
However, Aralaguppe, like Ding, discloses an earbuds case with magnetic attraction [fig. 1; abs; par. 119] wherein the earphone further includes a second magnetic suction member independent of the first magnetic suction member [fig. 3; magnet 325 interacts with 130; par. 141], the magnetic suction structure comprises a second magnetic suction structure magnetically cooperating with the second magnetic suction member [fig. 3, magnet 330 interacts with 130; par. 141], and a distance from the Hall sensor to the first magnetic suction structure is smaller than a distance from the Hall sensor to the second magnetic suction structure [fig. 3; one of the magnets for the left earbud is further from 210 (which has the hall sensor) than the other one].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ding to further include wherein a second magnetic suction member independent of the first magnetic suction member, the magnetic suction structure comprises a second magnetic suction structure magnetically cooperating with the second magnetic suction member, volumes of the second magnetic suction member and the second magnetic suction structure are smaller than volumes of the first magnetic suction member and the first magnetic suction structure, and a distance from the Hall sensor to the first magnetic suction structure is smaller than a distance from the Hall sensor to the second magnetic suction structure for the purpose of additional magnetic attraction, as taught by Ding (par. 141).
The combination of Aralaguppe and Ding does not explicitly disclose the volumes of the second magnetic suction member and the second magnetic suction structure are smaller than volumes of the first magnetic suction member and the first magnetic suction structure.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the portable case arts to size magnetic suction members differently to fit different shapes and designs of cases and devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Aralaguppe and Ding to further include the volumes of the second magnetic suction member and the second magnetic suction structure are smaller than volumes of the first magnetic suction member and the first magnetic suction structure for the purpose of fitting and holding devices of different shapes and sizes, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Aralaguppe does not explicitly disclose wherein the first magnetic suction structure and the first magnetic suction member form a first magnetic suction matching pair, the second magnetic suction structure and the second magnetic suction member form a second magnetic suction matching pair, and the first magnetic suction matching pair and the second magnetic suction matching pair cause electrode terminals of the earphone and electrode terminals of the charging case in one-to-one contact.
However, Ding as applied in claim 4 discloses wherein the first magnetic suction structure and the first magnetic suction member form a first magnetic suction matching pair, the second magnetic suction structure and the second magnetic suction member form a second magnetic suction matching pair, and the first magnetic suction matching pair and the second magnetic suction matching pair cause electrode terminals of the earphone and electrode terminals of the charging case in one-to-one contact [par. 141].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. US PGPUB 2020/0233046.
Regarding claim 6, Ding does not explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the first magnetic suction structure is in a range of 8 mm to 15 mm and a thickness of the first magnetic suction structure is in a range of 2 mm to 4 mm; and a diameter of the upper housing magnet is in a range of 4 mm to 6 mm and a thickness of the upper housing magnet is in a range of 1 mm to 8 mm.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the portable device charging arts to use sizes of in the millimeter range for magnets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ding to further include wherein a diameter of the first magnetic suction structure is in a range of 8 mm to 15 mm and a thickness of the first magnetic suction structure is in a range of 2 mm to 4 mm; and a diameter of the upper housing magnet is in a range of 4 mm to 6 mm and a thickness of the upper housing magnet is in a range of 1 mm to 8 mm for the purpose of sizing magnets to the size of smaller devices like earbuds, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Goh et al. US PGPUB 2023/0353923 discloses a magnetic earpod charging case with a hall sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
