DETAILED ACTION
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hook et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,653,144 filed on April 15, 2021 (Van Hook), in view of Chow et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0268016 (Chow).
As to Claim 7, Van Hook discloses (in Figs. 12a-14b) an acoustic signal output device [300] worn as a standalone device on only one auricle of a user (the device can be configured to deliver sound to only one ear; col. 6, lines 6-11), comprising: a housing [308] that emits an acoustic signal ([308] is housing containing an acoustic driver; col. 12, lines 38-39); and a wearable portion [304] that holds the housing [306] and is configured to be worn on the only one auricle ([304] is a temple frame; see Fig. 12A), wherein the wearing portion includes a fixing portion including a concave inner wall surface (curved surface of temple frame [304]) configured to be fitted into an upper portion of the only one auricle (temple frames ordinarily fit into an upper portion of an auricle; see Fig. 12A), and a shielding wall [501] configured to cover the only one auricle when a side of the inner wall surface of the fixing portion [304] is fitted into an upper portion of the only auricle (col. 14, lines 17-44; see Figs. 14A and 14B).
Van Hook does not explicitly disclose the area that the shielding wall is configured to cover, specifically that the shielding wall is configured to cover only a part of the only one auricle. However, configuring a shielding wall to cover only a part of the auricle was well known in the design of similar acoustic signal output devices. Chow discloses an acoustic signal output device (Fig. 7) comprising a wearable portion [64] including a shielding wall [66] configured to cover only a part of an auricle (see Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to configure the shielding wall of Van Hook to cover only a part of the auricle, as a known technique for locating and sizing a shielding wall.
As to Claim 8, Van Hook remains as applied above to Claim 7. Van Hook further discloses a driver [32] (col. 6, line 29), wherein the driver [32] is configured to emit a first acoustic signal toward a first direction and emit a second acoustic signal toward a second direction (col. 6, lines 36-39), the housing is provided with a first sound hole [40] and a second sound hole [42], the first sound hole [40] is arranged on an end surface of the housing, the second sound hole [42] is arranged on a side surface of the housing (see Figs. 2 and 8), the first acoustic signal is emitted to an outside from the first sound hole [40], and the second acoustic signal is emitted to the outside from the second sound hole [42] (col. 6, lines 39-41; see Figs. 2 and 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 4 recites the unique features of an attenuation rate of the first acoustic signal at a second point with reference to a predetermined first point, where the first acoustic signal arrives at the first point and the second point is farther from the acoustic signal output device than the first point, being designed to be equal to or less than a predetermined value smaller than an attenuation rate due to air propagation of an acoustic signal at the second point with reference to the first point, or an attenuation amount of the first acoustic signal at the second point with reference to the first point is designed to be equal to or more than a predetermined value larger than an attenuation amount due to air propagation of an acoustic signal at the second point with reference to the first point . The closest prior art, Van Hook, teaches that the attenuation rate of the first signal emitted at the first point [40, 410a] is smaller than the attenuation rate in the far field, which corresponds to the location of the second point (col. 6, lines 41-46). However, the attenuation rate is not designed to be less than, equal to, or lower than a predetermined value relative to an attenuation rate of air propagation alone.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 9-10 both recite the unique features of the housing being held on the inner wall surface side of the shielding wall. Claim 11 recites the unique feature of a through hole being provided in a part of the shielding wall on a side of the fixing portion. Claim 12 recites the unique feature of the shielding wall including a hollow structure configured to house a helix of the auricle. The closest prior art does not disclose or suggest such features.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 7-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ryan Robinson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3956. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fan Tsang, can be reached on (571) 272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RYAN ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights