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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO2015073146 to Henry.
With respect to claim 1 Henry discloses a hearing protection device comprising: at least one earmuff or earplug (40) optionally a headband for carrying the at least one earmuff or earplug;
Electronic equipment (see page 6 section titled Earpiece body);
Sound-absorbing material (44) and
A haptic sensing unit (21 as discussed on page 7 touch sensitive switch) to sense a touch pattern occurring on at least a first portion of the hearing protection device, preferably of the at least one earmuff or earplug and/or of the head band.
With respect to claim 2 Henry further discloses (see pages 6 and 7) wherein the electronic components may be selected from an active communication unit, an active noise cancellation unit or other switchable components.
With respect to claim 3 Henry further discloses wherein the haptic sensing unit comprises at least one sensor, wherein the at least one haptic sensor optionally comprises one of an accelerometer, a transducer and a touch sensor (see touch sensor as disclosed in pages 6-7 “touch sensitive switch”).
With respect to claim 4 Henry further discloses wherein the haptic sensing unit is programmed to execute a command (see page 7 lines 10-15), wherein the command optionally includes one or more of the listed commands (as the commands listed are in the optional, they have not been giver patentable weight).
With respect to claim 5 Henry further discloses wherein the haptic sensing unit comprises a plurality of haptic sensors (see page 7 lines 10-15), wherein each sensor is disposed in a different portion of the earmuff, earplug or headband, wherein at least one haptic sensor optionally comprises at least one of an accelerometer, a transducer and a touch sensor (touch sensitive switch is disclosed).
With respect to claim 8 Henry further discloses wherein the hearing protection device operates in a first mode when the haptic sensing unit senses a predetermined touch pattern such that the hearing protection device is switched into a second mode (page 7 lines 10-15, switching between settings).
With respect to claim 9 Henry further discloses wherein the at least one haptic sensor is mounted on a portion of the at least one earmuff, earplug or headband (see element 21 mounted on earplug in figure 1 ).
With respect to claim 15 Henry discloses a method of switching a hearing protection device from a first mode into a second mode, the hearing protection device comprising at least one earmuff earplug or optionally a headband for carrying the at least one earmuff or earplug (earplug shown),
Sound absorbing material (44) and a haptic sensing unit (21) to sense a touch pattern occurring on at least a first portion of the hearing protection device preferably of the at least one earmuff earplug or headband, the method comprising the steps of:
Providing a haptic sensing unit (21) having a haptic sensor configured to sense a touch pattern occurring on at least a first portion of the hearing protection device, [preferable of the at least one earmuff earplug or headband,
Executing a command when the haptic sensor senses a touch pattern occurring on at least a first portion of the hearing protection device preferably of the at least one earmuff earplug or headband; and
Triggering a particular state for hearing protection device based on the touch pattern sensed (see pages 6 and 7),
Wherein the command optionally includes one or more of the claimed commands (as the claims are in the optional they have not been given weight).
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.
Claims 6-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015073146 to Henry
With respect to claim 6 Henry discloses the invention as claimed except expressly a second haptic sensor that senses a second touch pattern performed on a second portion of the at least one earmuff earplug or headband.
Henry discloses (pages 6 and 7) various parameters to be controlled by means of at least one haptic sensor. The use of multiple sensors or switches to control for multiple different parameters would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. The use of multiple switches to control multiple different functions is well known in the art of audio structures, such multiplicity of switches are known to control for volume separately from the source of the incoming signals to be transduced, such as different radio stations, different sources etc. It would have been obvious to use different switches to provide for such separate functions to prevent the user from changing the sound input when the intent was to increase the volume as an example. Further it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 7 the selection of any touch pattern would have been obvious, as these touch patterns would be selected based upon the sensors capabilities. The selection of a double or triple touch would have been obvious variations of a single touch and the use of multiple touches would reduce the likelihood of inadvertent triggering of the switch.
With respect to claim 10 as in the case of claim 6 the provision for multiple sensing and switching members in multiple locations would have been obvious to enhance the user’s ability to control the device.
With respect to claim 11 as it regards the location of the first sensor on the one earmuff earplug and the other on the other earmuff or earplug this would have been an obvious manner in which to use the same structures as are present on the first earplug as taught by Henry, including switch 21 while still maintaining separate parameters to be controlled. This would reduce the number of distinct parts to be formed and thus reduce assembly costs.
With respect to claim 12 Henry as modified further discloses wherein the at least one earmuff or earplug comprises an outer shell (disclosed as being a plastic to encase the circuitry on pages 6-7) which is in use oriented away from the user’s skin (the outer portion is so oriented away which includes element 21 as shown in figure 1), wherein the outer shell comprises an a, y and z axis (by natures of being a 3 dimensional object this is the case) and wherein haptic sensors are configured and arranged such sensing a touch pattern is achieved.
While not expressly disclosing the touch pattern to be achieved in two direction, for the respective axes as the controls are taught to allow for such features as mode switching or volume increase or decrease (see pages 6-7) the two directional sensing would allow for in a given axis the control to move back and forth between two modes or to allow for the increase in one direction and the decrease in the other direction of such a parameter as volume). This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as such directions are known in the art of sound control and conventional.
With respect to claim 13 Henry as modified further discloses wherein the x axis is aligned along a frontal plane, the y axis is aligned along a sagittal plane and the z axis is aligned along a transversal plane (the axes are present, their designation is merely a matter of selection which would not expressly alter the function of the device).
3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015073146 to Henry
As applied to claim 134 above and in further view of WO2017205558 to Masaki
With respect to claim 14 Henry as modified discloses the invention as claimed except for the provision of the three axes accelerometer configured and arranged to detect inputs from six different directions such as along the x, y and z axes and for each axis in the positive and negative directions.
Masaki discloses (para 121) the use of a three axes accelerometer which measures and interfaces with an earplug.
It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the accelerometer of Masaki with the device of Henry to allow for the user to control the device in a hands free manner.
Further as it regards the measuring in a positive and negative direction such is conventional in accelerometers and obvious to select so as to allow for the controls to increase and decrease in the separate directions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Le (US101028423) discloses a hearing protection ear set with multiple modes of communication; Hawkes (US20180132027) discloses programmable earmuffs with user tap functionality selection; Raft (US20200100016) discloses a hearing protection device electronics therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FORREST M PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-9020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00-5:00.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837