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 . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Anticipation
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, 5–11, 13, 17–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2019/0349681 (published 14 November 2019) (“Igarashi”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “an audio device.” The following table and Figure 1, below, illustrate the correspondence between the claimed device and the Igarashi reference
Claim 1
The Igarashi Reference
“1. An audio device that is wearable on a user, the audio device comprising
The Igarashi reference similarly describes a sound pickup device (i.e., an audio device) designed to be worn on an ear of a user. Igarashi at Abs., ¶ 1.
“an insertion unit at least part of which is inserted to an external auditory canal when the audio device is worn by the user; and
In one embodiment, Igarashi’s device is formed as a sound pickup device 1600 having a sound pickup part 1610 (including a microphone), a holding part (elements 1621, 1622, 1623) and a sound output part 1650. The combination of the sound pickup part 1610 and the holding part (particularly arms 1622, 1623) corresponds to the claimed insertion unit. In particular, sound pickup part 1610 and the holding part are designed to fit in a user’s ear canal (i.e., external auditory canal) when device 1600 is worn. Id. at ¶¶ 56, 57, 60, 103, 112, FIGs.1, 6, 16, 23.
““a mic disposed in the insertion unit,
Igarashi describes a microphone included in a microphone hole 1611 formed in sound pickup part 1610. Id. at ¶ 103, FIG.16.
“wherein the insertion unit is configured as a tubular body including a through hole that extends through the tubular body in an insertion direction,
Igarashi depicts arms 1622, 1623 that form a tubular body (featuring cutouts between the arms). Id. Arms 1622, 1623 carry sound pickup part 1610 that further includes a through hole arranged as claimed. Id.
“the mic is disposed inside the through hole with a gap provided between the mic and an inner surface of the insertion unit,
Igarashi includes a microphone inside microphone hole 1611. Id. There is a gap between the microphone and an inner surface of arms 1622, 1623 that define a tubular body of an insertion unit. See id.
“[the mic is disposed] at a position at which at least part of a vibration section of the mic is included inside [[an]] the external auditory canal of the user and
Igarashi similarly locates a microphone (including its vibration section) in sound pickup part 1610, which is located inside a user’s ear canal. Id. at ¶¶ 103, 112, FIGs.16, 23.
“[the mic is disposed] at an angle at which the vibration section has a vibration direction toward an inner wall of the external auditory canal when the audio device is worn by the user, and
Igarashi depicts the microphone as having a sound pickup oriented towards the opening of the ear canal. Id. at ¶ 62, FIG.6.
Igarashi does not expressly describe the claimed disposition of a microphone so that its vibration direction toward an inner wall of the external auditory canal as claimed. However, since a microphone vibrates along an axis, every possible orientation of a microphone will result in the vibration axis being oriented towards an inner wall of the auditory canal. See id. at FIG.6; Figure 1, below.
“a distal end side opening of the through hole is exposed when the audio device is worn by the user, the distal end side opening being an opening on an opposite side of the through hole to the insertion direction, the through hole being provided in the insertion unit.”
Similarly, Igarashi’s microphone hole 1611 has a distal end that is exposed when a user wears device 1600. Id. at ¶ 112, FIG.23.
Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
588
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up version of Igarashi at FIG.6 (marked-up to add axes centered on the position of a microphone to show that the microphone vibration will always point towards one inner surface of an ear canal).
For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein an outer surface of the insertion unit includes a contact region that comes into contact with the inner wall of the external auditory canal and
“a noncontact region that is separated from the inner wall of the external auditory canal when the insertion unit is inserted to the external auditory canal, and
“the noncontact region extends from one end to another end of the insertion unit in the insertion direction to communicate the outside of the one end with a space inner side of the other end.”
Igarashi’s device similarly includes a contact region that includes the outer surface of arms 1622, 1623 and a noncontact region including sound pickup part 1610 as claimed. Sound pickup part 1610 extends from one end proximate to an ear drum to another end proximate to an ear canal opening and allows communication between the two ends because sound pickup part 1610 is open. See Igarashi at FIG.16. For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the mic is disposed in the through hole at a position closer to the distal end side opening than a point side opening when the audio device is worn by the user, the point side opening being an opening of the through hole opposite to the distal end side opening in the insertion direction.”
Similarly, Igarashi locates its microphone in microphone hole 1611 that is closer to the eardrum than to the ear canal opening. Igarashi at ¶ 103, 112, FIGs.16, 23. For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“comprising a first frame that is disposed in a cavum concha of the user when the audio device is worn by the user, wherein the first frame is connected to the insertion unit.”
Igarashi’s device includes a hollow ring body 1621 corresponding to the claimed first frame. Igarashi at ¶¶ 103, 105, 112, FIGs.16, 23. Hollow ring body 1621 fits in a user’s cavum concha and is connected to the insertion unit arms 1622 and 1623. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first frame is configured in a shape of a ring, and an outside surface of the first frame abuts the cavum concha when the audio device is worn by the user.”
Similarly, Igarashi’s hollow ring body 1621 is in a ring shape having an outside surface that abuts a user’s cavum concha. Igarashi at ¶¶ 103, 105, 112, FIGs.16, 23. For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first frame is configured to be uneven in thickness.”
Igarashi depicts its ring body 1621 with areas of differing thickness. See Igarashi at FIGs.16, 22. For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 8, and further requires the following:
“comprising a fourth frame configured to close at least part of a hollow portion of the shape of the ring of the first frame.”
Similarly, ring 1621 is closed partially by sound output part 1650 and sound guide part 1651. Igarashi at ¶ 105, FIGs. 16, 19. For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first frame is configured in a shape of an arc, and an outside surface of the first frame abuts the cavum concha when the audio device is worn by the user.”
Igarashi describes ring 1621 as alternatively having a C-shape, or arch-shape. Igarashi at ¶ 103, FIGs.16, 33 (depicting an O-shape and a C-shape, respectively). For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein a speaker is disposed in contact with the first frame.”
Igarashi describes using ring 1621 to mount a sound output part 1650 having a dynamic driver. Igarashi at ¶¶ 105–111, FIGs.16, 21, 22. For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“comprising a speaker,
“wherein the speaker is spaced apart from the insertion unit in the insertion direction, such that faces the distal end side opening
Igarashi describes using ring 1621, which is spaced from insertion unit elements (1610, 1622, 1623) to mount a sound output part 1650 having a dynamic driver. Igarashi at ¶¶ 105–111, FIGs.16, 21, 22. Igarashi forms the sound emission unit of sound output part 1650 to face the ear canal opening of the sound pickup portion 1610 including the through hole, or microphone hole 1611. Id. at ¶ 103, FIG.16. For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“comprising a speaker, wherein the speaker is disposed at a position and in an attitude at which and in which the speaker does not interfere with a tragus of the user when the audio device is worn by the user.”
Igarashi describes using ring 1621, which is spaced from insertion unit elements (1610, 1622, 1623) to mount a sound output part 1650 having a dynamic driver. Igarashi at ¶¶ 105–111, FIGs.16, 21, 22. The sound output part 1650 does not interfere with the user’s tragus because it is located in contract with the user’s cavum concha. See id. at ¶ 105–112, FIGs.16, 23. For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
Claim 20
The Igarashi Reference
“comprising:
“a speaker;
Igarashi further describes a speaker (elements 2101–2105).
“a frame configured to abut an ear of the user when the audio device is worn by the user;
Igarashi describes a sound output part 1650 with a rear portion, or frame, that abuts a user’s cavum concha.
“a storage unit configured to store the speaker; and
A portion of sound output part 1650 that surrounds a speaker (elements 2101–2105) acts as a storage unit to store the speaker. Id. at ¶¶ 106–111, FIGs.21, 22.
“a supporting member that is connected to the frame, the supporting member being configured to support the storage unit,
Igarashi describes a hollow ring, or supporting member, 1621 that supports sound output part 1650. Id. at ¶ 103, FIG.16.
“wherein the storage unit includes an opening and stores the speaker with a sound emission unit of the speaker exposed from the opening, and
Sound output part 1650 further includes an opening 1651 to allow sound emission from the speaker.
“a speaker cable that connects the speaker and another device is connected to a bottom surface of the speaker through a through hole and a gap between the speaker and the storage unit,
“the through hole being provided in the frame,
“the gap causing the opening and a space on the bottom surface side of the speaker to communicate with each other.”
Igarashi’s rear portion of sound output unit 160 further includes an exhaust part that forms a through hole for a speaker wire. Id. at ¶ 111, FIG.22. The speaker wire connects to the bottom of the speaker through the through hole and a gap between the speaker elements and the rear of sound output part 1650. Further, Igarashi’s speaker communicates between its front and back sides (i.e., a gap region) due to an opening in the speaker magnet 2101. Id. at ¶¶ 106–111, FIGs.21, 22.
Table 2
For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 21 depends on claim 5, and further requires the following:
“wherein the outer surface of the insertion unit includes a groove extending in the insertion direction, and the noncontact region includes the groove.”
Similarly, Igarashi’s device includes a portion 1610 that together with arms 1622 and 1623 form a groove that does not contact a user’s ear canal. See Igarashi at FIG.16. For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 is drawn to “an audio device.” The following table and Figure 2, below, illustrate the correspondence between the claimed device and the Igarashi reference.
Claim 17
The Igarashi Reference
“17. An audio device that is wearable on a user, the audio device comprising:
The Igarashi reference similarly describes a sound pickup device (i.e., an audio device) designed to be worn on an ear of a user. Igarashi at Abs., ¶ 1.
“a mic;
Igarashi describes a microphone included in a microphone hole 1611 formed in sound pickup part 1610. Id. at ¶ 103, FIG.16.
“a speaker;
Igarashi describes a speaker (elements 2101–2105) included in a sound output part 1650. Id. at ¶¶ 105–111, FIGs.16, 22.
“a frame configured to abut an ear of the user when the audio device is worn by the user,
Igarashi’s sound output part 1650 has a rear wall that contacts the user’s cavum concha. Igarashi at ¶¶ 105, 112, FIGs.16, 22.
“wherein the mic is disposed at a position at which at least part of a vibration section of the mic is included inside an external auditory canal of the user when the audio device is worn by the user, and
Igarashi similarly locates a microphone (including its vibration section) in sound pickup part 1610, which is located inside a user’s ear canal. Id. at ¶¶ 103, 112, FIGs.16, 23.
“a plurality of supporting members each configured to support the speaker; …
[[a]] the plurality of [[the]] supporting members are separated from each other,
“an end of each of the plurality of supporting members is connected to the frame and the other end of each of the plurality of supporting members is connected to the speaker, such that the plurality of supporting members do not contact each other.”
The sidewalls of sound output part 1650 each extend from the rear wall of sound output part 1650 and connect to the basket of the magnet. See id. at FIGs.21, 22.
Table 3
PNG
media_image2.png
531
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Marked-up version of Igarashi at FIG.16 (marked-up to highlight correspondence with the claimed invention).
For the foregoing reasons, the Gauger reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Obviousness
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Igarashi and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0358291 (patented 14 December 2017) (“Cheng”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Igarashi and US Patent Application Publication 2019/0069104 (published 28 February 2019) (“Lindberg”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Igarashi and US Patent 8,737,669 (patented 27 May 2014) (“Monahan”).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Igarashi; Monahan and US Patent Application Publication 2010/0061581 (published 11 March 2010) (“Soetejo”).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the mic is disposed at an angle at which the vibration direction of the vibration section is orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the inner wall of the external auditory canal when the audio device is worn by the user.”
The anticipation rejection of claim 1, above, shows that the Igarashi reference describes a device that corresponds closely to the claimed audio device. The Igarashi reference does not anticipate the claimed orthogonal orientation of a microphone’s vibration section’s vibration direction relative to an inner wall of an external auditory canal.
Igarashi teaches providing a microphone in an ear canal with a sound pickup direction being aimed towards an ear canal opening. Igarashi does not address vibration direction at all.
The Cheng reference teaches and suggests positioning a feedback microphone and speaker so that the vibration direction of the microphone is orthogonal to the sound passage used to transmit sound from the speaker to the ear canal. Cheng at ¶¶ 18, 32, 59, FIGs.2A, 2B. Cheng teaches that this would reduce interference between the speaker and the microphone (e.g., reduced impedance) and improve active noise reduction (ANR) performance (e.g., reduced cross-coupling between the speaker and microphone). Id. Read in light of the Igarashi reference that includes a microphone and speaker together in an ear-worn device, Cheng’s teachings would have reasonably suggested modifying Igarashi’s device so that its microphone vibrates orthogonally to the direction sound propagates in the ear canal (i.e., orthogonal to an inner wall of an ear canal). See Igarashi at FIG.16. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Igarashi and the Cheng references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“comprising a filter configured to attenuate wind, wherein the filter is disposed on at least any of the first frame or the insertion unit.”
The Lindberg reference teaches and suggests adding a wind filter to an earphone. Lindberg at ¶ 100, FIG.8. Specifically, Lindberg suggests locating a wind filter on a first frame. Id. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Igarashi’s earphone to similarly include a wind filter on a first frame. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Igarashi and the Lindberg references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“comprising a second frame configured to abut a cymba concha of the user when the audio device is worn by the user, wherein the second frame is connected to the first frame.”
The Monahan reference describes a body 12 with an attached retaining structure 20 that similarly abuts a cymba concha. Monahan at col. 3 ll. 3–36, FIGs.2, 3. Monahan describes that structure 20 enhances the stability of the device. Id. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Igarashi’s device to similarly include a second frame that abuts the cymba concha to improve device stability. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Igarashi and the Monahan references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“comprising a third frame that is curved to pass through outside of a helical crus of the user from a front surface of an auricle of the user to a back surface of the auricle when the audio device is worn by the user, wherein the third frame is connected to the first frame.”
The Soetejo reference teaches and suggests adding a similar type of third frame to an earphone frame that fits into a user’s concha. Soetejo at ¶¶ 2, 3, 7, 29–32, 36, FIG.1. In particular, Soetejo teaches an ear hook that extends from a concha-fit frame, wraps around a user’s helical crus and extends over a back surface of the auricle. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Igarashi’s device to include a corresponding hook, or third frame. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that Soetejo’s hook would further increase the retention of Igarashi’s device in a user’s ear during strenuous use. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Igarashi, the Monahan and the Soetejo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15, and further requires the following:
“wherein a portion of the first frame that is connected to the insertion unit, the second frame, or the third frame is configured to have greater thickness than thickness of another portion.”
Soetejo describes a hook 108 with greater thickness in portions 110 and 118 compared to portion 114. Soetejo at FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Igarashi, the Monahan and the Soetejo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 depends on claim 5, and further requires the following:
“wherein the insertion unit has a shape of a plate having two first outer surfaces and the [sic] two second surfaces extending in the insertion direction,
“the two first outer surfaces opposed to each other include the contact region, and
“the two second outer surfaces opposed to each other and broader than the two first outer surfaces include the noncontact region.”
Igarashi’s arms 1622 and 1623 form two plate shapes having two opposing outer surfaces and two opposing second surfaces along the insertion direction of device 1600. Igarashi at ¶ 103, FIG.16. As explained by Igarashi, it is preferable that contact is minimized. Id. at ¶ 57. Thus, Igarashi contemplates forming arms 1622 and 1623 with surfaces that are in contact with the ear canal and surfaces that are not in contact with the ear canal along the length of insertion. It would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to make an aesthetic change in size of those surfaces, such that some are broader than others. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). For the foregoing reasons, the Igarashi reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1, 2 and 5–22 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 22 contains subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 22 requires two second outer surfaces located in a noncontact region that are opposed to each other and broader than two first outer surfaces locate in a contact region. The Examiner has reviewed the Specification, particularly ¶¶ 43, 66–69. While those portions describe contact and noncontact regions, there is no disclosure of two opposing surfaces in a contact region and two second outer surfaces that are broader than two first outer surfaces located in a contact region. For the foregoing reasons, the claim is rejected for lack of written description support.
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites “a through hole” in line 10. Claim 20 further recites “the through hole” in line 11. Claim 1, from which claim 20 depends, recites “a through hole” in line 6 of claim 1. Accordingly, the reference to “the through hole” in line 11 of claim 20 is ambiguous, rendering the claim unclear.1 For the foregoing reasons, the claim is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 22 recites “the two second surfaces) in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. For the foregoing reasons, the claim is rejected as indefinite.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (23 February 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 9–14 further includes comments pertaining to the rejections made in the previous Non-Final Rejection (24 November 2025). Those comments have been considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
Additional Citations
The following table lists additional documents found during a search of this Application’s disclosed and claimed subject matter. This Office action does not rely on the following documents, but they are considered relevant and should be considered when drafting a response to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
US 5,712,453
Re claim 17, this suggests plurality of support arms instead of an annular opening.
Table 4
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
4/30/2026
1 In the interest of compact prosecution, the recitation of “the through hole” in claim 20 at line 11 is interpreted as a reference to “a through hole” in claim 20 at line 10.
Prosecution Insights