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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman-Schwartz et al. ( US Pub. 20070245459) in view of LeGette et al. (US Pat. 5835609).
Regarding claim 1, Hillman-Schwartz discloses a protector ear covering device (see abstract) comprising:
an ear covering device having an exterior layer, an interior layer, and an elastic band (see figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 23, 26 and 28);
wherein said exterior layer having a waterproof material (see paragraphs 8 and 26; “water-proof material”);
wherein said elastic band formed around a peripheral edge of said ear covering device and defining an opening of said ear covering device (see fig. 2; paragraph 23);
wherein said elastic band is stretchable from a first circumference to a second circumference (see fig. 2; paragraph 23);
wherein said elastic band stretchable to said second circumference for placing said ear covering device over a wearer's ear (see fig. 2; paragraph 23); and
further wherein said elastic band retractable to a third circumference for securing said ear covering device around the wearer's ear (see fig. 2; paragraph 23).
Hillman-Schwartz fails to explicitly disclose wherein said interior layer having a breathable material.
However, LeGette discloses wherein said interior layer having a breathable material (see figs. 6 and 7A, item 40; abstract; col. 4, lines 47-58; “fabric material 40).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated LeGette’s wherein said interior layer having a breathable material with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in order to create a comfortable feeling (see LeGette, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein said second circumference is greater than said third circumference (see paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 3, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein said third circumference is greater than said first circumference (see paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 4, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 3, as discussed above.
Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette fails to explicitly disclose wherein said second circumference is at least three times greater than said first circumference.
However, examiner takes official notice wherein said second circumference is at least three times greater than said first circumference 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 since many elastic materials expand to three times the length.
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated wherein said second circumference is at least three times greater than said first circumference with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette in order to have the protector ear covering device fit larger ears.
Regarding claim 5, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 4, as discussed above.
Hillman-Schwartz fails to disclose wherein said ear covering device having one piece construction including one or more materials selected from a group consisting of a medical-grade silicone, a neoprene, and a microfiber.
However, LeGette discloses further wherein said ear covering device having one piece construction including one or more materials selected from a group consisting of a medical-grade silicone, a neoprene, and a microfiber (see col. 5, lines 28-40).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated LeGette’s wherein said ear covering device having one piece construction including one or more materials selected from a group consisting of a medical-grade silicone, a neoprene, and a microfiber with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in order to create a comfortable feeling.
Regarding claim 6, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 5, as discussed above.
Hillman-Schwartz fails to disclose wherein said ear covering device having a heat resistant material.
However, LeGette discloses further wherein said ear covering device having a heat resistant material (see col. 5, lines 28-40; note that neoprene is inherently heat resistant).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated LeGette’s wherein said ear covering device having a heat resistant material with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in order to create a comfortable feeling.
Regarding claim 7, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 6, as discussed above.
Hillman-Schwartz fails to disclose wherein said ear covering device having a material including a fabric weight of at least 700 GSM.
However, LeGette discloses further wherein said ear covering device having a material including a fabric weight of at least 700 GSM (see col. 5, lines 28-40; note that weight of at least 700 GSM is an inherent property of neoprene).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated LeGette’s wherein said ear covering device having a material including a fabric weight of at least 700 GSM with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in order to create a comfortable feeling.
Regarding claim 8, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 7, as discussed above.
Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette fails to disclose wherein said exterior layer having a thickness from 2 mm to 7 mm.
However, examiner takes official notice wherein said exterior layer having a thickness from 2 mm to 7 mm 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 since standard industry thickness of neoprene are 2-7 mm.
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated wherein said exterior layer having a thickness from 2 mm to 7 mm with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette in order to create a comfortable feeling.
Regarding claim 9, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette fails to disclose wherein said interior layer having a thickness from 4 mm to 8 mm.
However, examiner takes official notice wherein said interior layer having a thickness from 4 mm to 8 mm 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 since multi-layer neoprene inner lining lies in this thickness.
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated wherein said interior layer having a thickness from 4 mm to 8 mm with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette in order to create a comfortable feeling.
Regarding claim 10, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 9, as discussed above.
Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette fails to disclose wherein said interior layer having a material of silk, and further wherein said interior layer contacting the wearer's ear when said ear covering device is worn by the wearer.
However, examiner takes official notice wherein said interior layer having a material of silk, and further wherein said interior layer contacting the wearer's ear when said ear covering device is worn by the wearer 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 since LeGette teaches comfortable feeling materials (see abstract).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated wherein said interior layer having a material of silk, and further wherein said interior layer contacting the wearer's ear when said ear covering device is worn by the wearer with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette in order to create a comfortable feeling.
Regarding claim 11, Hillman-Schwartz discloses a protector ear covering device (see abstract) comprising:
an ear covering device having an exterior layer, an interior layer, and an elastic band (see figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 23, 26 and 28);
wherein said exterior layer having a waterproof material, (see paragraphs 8 and 26; “water-proof material”);
wherein said elastic band formed around a peripheral edge of said ear covering device and defining an opening of said ear covering device (see fig. 2; paragraph 23);
wherein said elastic band is stretchable from a first circumference to a second circumference (see fig. 2; paragraph 23);
wherein said elastic band stretchable to said second circumference for placing said ear covering device over a wearer's ear (see fig. 2; paragraph 23); and
further wherein said elastic band retractable to a third circumference for securing said ear covering device around the wearer's ear (see fig. 2; paragraph 23).
Hillman-Schwartz fails to explicitly disclose a Bluetooth speaker, further wherein said exterior layer having a heat resistant material; wherein said interior layer having a breathable material; and wherein said Bluetooth speaker attached to said interior layer.
However, LeGette discloses speakers (see fig. 6, items 36); further wherein said exterior layer having a heat resistant material (see col. 5, lines 28-40; note that neoprene is inherently heat resistant); wherein said interior layer having a breathable material (see figs. 6 and 7A, item 40; abstract; col. 4, lines 47-58; “fabric material 40); and wherein said speaker attached to said interior layer (see fig. 6, items 36).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated LeGette’s speakers; further wherein said exterior layer having a heat resistant material; wherein said interior layer having a breathable material; and wherein said speaker attached to said interior layer with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in order to create a headphone incorporated into a comfortable feeling ear protection device (see LeGette, abstract).
Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette fails to disclose the speakers are Bluetooth speakers.
However, examiner takes official notice Bluetooth speakers 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 since Bluetooth speakers are widely used in wireless headphones.
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated Bluetooth speakers with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette in order to provide wireless audio output device.
Regarding claim 12, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 11, as discussed above, wherein said second circumference is greater than said third circumference (see paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 13, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 12, as discussed above, wherein said third circumference is greater than said first circumference (see paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 14, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 13, as discussed above,
Hillman-Schwartz fails to disclose wherein said ear covering device having one piece construction including one or more materials selected from a group consisting of a medical-grade silicone, a neoprene, and a microfiber.
However, LeGette discloses further wherein said ear covering device having one piece construction including one or more materials selected from a group consisting of a medical-grade silicone, a neoprene, and a microfiber (see col. 5, lines 28-40).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated LeGette’s wherein said ear covering device having one piece construction including one or more materials selected from a group consisting of a medical-grade silicone, a neoprene, and a microfiber with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in order to create a comfortable feeling.
Regarding claim 15, Hillman-Schwartz in view of LeGette disclose the ear covering device of claim 14, as discussed above.
Hillman-Schwartz fails to disclose wherein said ear covering device having a material including a fabric weight of at least 700 GSM.
However, LeGette discloses further wherein said ear covering device having a material including a fabric weight of at least 700 GSM (see col. 5, lines 28-40; note that weight of at least 700 GSM is an inherent property of neoprene).
Therefore, it 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, to have incorporated LeGette’s wherein said ear covering device having a material including a fabric weight of at least 700 GSM with the protector ear covering device of Hillman-Schwartz in order to create a comfortable feeling.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the ear covering device of claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the ear covering device of claims 2 and 3; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claims 2 and 3, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the ear covering device of claim 4; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claim 4, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the ear covering device of claims 5 and 6; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claims 5 and 6, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the ear covering device of claims 8 and 9; therefore, is rejected for the significantly the similar reasons as claims 8 and 9, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7697. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM, PST.
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, VIVIAN CHIN can be reached at (571) 272-7848. 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.
/PAUL KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695