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
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bajic et al. (US 11,303,258 B1).
Re claim 1: Bajic et al. teaches an earcup for headphones that comprises a housing (combination of (4 and 5) or (4 and 10)) accommodating electroacoustic components (such as those components discussed In column 4, lines 52-57) and sound attenuation material (material used in the cushions (5 or 10)); wherein the housing includes a housing base body/housing main shell module (4) accommodating electroacoustic components (such as those components discussed In column 4, lines 52-57), a housing main shell module (cushion modules 5) with an overall height (thickness if element (5)) accommodating sound attenuation material and optionally at least one replacement module (10) with an overall height (thickness of element (10)) that is mechanically connected to the housing base body (see figures 1A and 1B thereby provided different expansion stages for acoustic damping (due to the thickness of the cushion and materials used for each cushion that provide respective internal volumes (6)); which are “modularly exchangeable” and/or “added in a modular manner” such that when using cushion (5) with a specified thickness providing an overall height that is different than when using a cushion (10) with a specified thickness smaller than that in (5), see arrangements in figures 1A and 1B. It is noted that the limitations after “b)”, lines 25-29 are not required to satisfy the claimed arrangement due to the use of the alternative language “and/or’.
Re claim 3: note in figures 1A and 1B the headband used is connected to the earcups via a mechanic connection at a top portion of each earcup thereby providing a connection that is symmetrically designed with respect to a symmetrical plane (imaginary plane not depicted by the front view of these figures, but inherently present).
Re claim 6: note the use of at least one microphone (20) that is part of housing module of the audio system (1)
Re claim 7: note components (5) and (10) satisfy the claimed shell replacement module and second shell replacement module, each of which can be connected to base body (4)
Re claim 8: note cushions (5) and (10) corresponding the claimed main shell module and shell replacement module have different heights due to their different thicknesses
Re claim 10: these limitations as set forth are deemed satisfied by the arrangement used in Bajic et al. since no definite meaning can be obtained from the language as presently set forth.
Re claim 12: see figure 1A and 1B teaching earcups (one on each side of a user) with base body or modules and/or replacement modules that have the same shape as set forth
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajic et al. in view of Cucuzza (WO2017/006355 A1).
Re claim 2: The teaching of Bajic is discussed above and incorporated herein. Bajic et al. does not teach a symmetry plane such that the housing modules and/or shell module or replacement modules have symmetry with respect to this plane since a side view in Bajic et al. is not provided. Cucuzza teaches in a similar environment of headphones to include a symmetry plane (for example an imaginary plane extended through headband and earcup extending into the page as shown in figures 3A and 3B) such that at least the shell module and cushion used are symmetrical to this plane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such a feature into the headphone arrangement of Bajic et al. to predictably provide a headphone with symmetrically placed components of the headphone. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajic et al. in view of Dyer et al. (WO2008/122081 A1), cited by applicant.
Re claim 4: The teaching of Bajic et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Bajic et al. does not teach to have modules with electro-acoustic components that brought into active contact with electro-acoustic components of the base. Dyer et al. teaches such an arrangement as seen from figure 2 along with the abstract discussing elements (12, 14 and 16) which reduces a need for a physical interconnection therebetween (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this teaching of Dyer et al. into the arrangement of Bajic et al. to predictably provide an arrangement which reduces a need for a physical interconnection between components of the headphone. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 5: the coupling means (16) taught by Dyer et al. is considered a plug-in contact by having the module (14) connected, i.e. plugged into the earcup (10) to make the connection.
Re claim 11: The teaching of Bajic et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Bajic et al. does not teach a plug socket for a connecting cable for a second ear cup. Dyer et al. teaches (figure 1, 3 and 4) a plug (21) connected into a socket on each earcup providing a connecting cable (20) between each earcup allow for the passage of power and signaling between the electronics in each earcup. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature taught by Dyer et al. into the arrangement of Bajic et al. to predictably provide a connecting cable (20) between each earcup allow for the passage of power and signaling between the electronics in each earcup. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajic et al.
Re claim 9: the teaching of Bajic et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Bajic et al. does not specifically teach replacement modules (cushions) providing three different overall heights as set forth. Bajic et al. does teach in column 4, line 2-21 that cushions come in different sizes each having a plushness and that a user might select one that is less plush or more plush depending one ones preference of comfort vs compactness and sound quality produced using each type. A skilled artisan, given the teaching of Bajic et al. would be able to obviously modify this two cushion arrangement to one with more than two cushions, for example three or more cushions to obtain a headphone with optimal comfort while at the same time one that is compact in size. These cushions would each have it own overall height, thickness satisfying earcup arrangements with overall heights So, S1 and S2 as set forth. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajic et al. in view of Cucuzza (WO2017/006355 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dyer et al.
Re claim 13: The teaching of Bajic et al. in view of Cucuzza is discussed above and incorporated herein. Also note in figures 1A and 1B of Bajic et al. the headband used is connected to the earcups via a mechanic connection at a top portion of each earcup thereby providing a connection that is symmetrically designed with respect to a symmetrical plane (imaginary plane not depicted by the front view of these figures, but inherently present). This combination does not teach to have modules with electro-acoustic components that brought into active contact with electro-acoustic components of the base. Dyer et al. teaches such an arrangement as seen from figure 2 along with the abstract discussing elements (12, 14 and 16) which reduces a need for a physical interconnection therebetween (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this teaching of Dyer et al. into the arrangement of Bajic et al. in view of Cucuzza as applied to predictably provide an arrangement which reduces a need for a physical interconnection between components of the headphone. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 14: the coupling means (16) taught by Dyer et al. is considered a plug-in contact by having the module (14) connected, i.e. plugged into the earcup (10) to establish an active connection. Also note the use of at least one microphone (20) in Baji et al. that is part of housing module of the audio system (1)
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajic et al. in view of Cucuzza (WO2017/006355 A1) and further in view of Dyer et al.
Re claim 15: the teaching of Bajic et al. in view of Cucuzza (WO2017/006355 A1) and further in view of Dyer et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not specifically teach replacement modules (cushions) providing three different overall heights as set forth by using different shell replacement modules. Bajic et al. does teach in column 4, line 2-21 that cushions come in different sizes each having a plushness and that a user might select one that is less plush or more plush depending one ones preference of comfort vs compactness and sound quality produced using each type. A skilled artisan, given the teaching of Bajic et al. would be able to obviously modify this two cushion arrangement to one with more than two cushions, for example three or more cushions to obtain a headphone with optimal comfort while at the same time one that is compact in size. These cushions would each have its own overall height, thickness satisfying earcup arrangements with overall heights So, S1 and S2 as set forth. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 16: these limitations as set forth are deemed satisfied by the arrangement used in Bajic et al. since no definite meaning can be obtained from the language as presently set forth.
Re claim 17: note Dyer et al. teaches (figure 1, 3 and 4) a plug (21) connected into a socket on each earcup providing a connecting cable (20) between each earcup allow for the passage of power and signaling between the electronics in each earcup. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature taught by Dyer et al. into the arrangement of Bajic et al. in view of Cucuzza (WO2017/006355 A1 as applied to predictably provide a connecting cable (20) between each earcup allow for the passage of power and signaling between the electronics in each earcup. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 18: see figure 1A and 1B of Bajic et al. teaching earcups (one on each side of a user) with base body or modules and/or replacement modules that have the same shape as set forth
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Contrary to applicant’s comments; Bajic et al. teaches a housing base body (4) as amended that accommodates electroacoustic components, The references cushions (5) and (10) correspond to the claimed housing main shell module and housing shell replacement module respectively, each having different heights (thicknesses). Note as applicant indicates these modules are formed with outer material (cloth, leather, etc) which accommodates sound attenuation cushion material therein as claimed. The claim does not set forth limitations directed to materials so that different sound attenuation properties are guaranteed as argued. Clearly, in Bajic et al. different expansion stages for acoustic damping is achieved by each of the different heights of sound attenuation material that is used in elements (5 and 10).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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 at 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 5/7/26
Prosecution Insights