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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite, “soundwave” or “sound wave” interchangeably. Please correct and use consistent language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 – 18 and 30 - 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0252710 (Bottoni et al.).
(Original) A headphone comprising:
a first set of directional sound transducers (Fig. 4, reference 4), and
a second set of directional sound transducers, (Fig. 4, reference 6)
wherein the first set and the second set are positioned so that a direction of soundwaves generated by the first set (Fig. 4, reference 5) is at predetermined angle of 80-120° (paragraph 0035) to the direction of soundwaves generated by the second set. (Fig. 4, reference 7).
Although Bottoni et al. do not use the phrase, “directional sound transducers” it is obvious from the drawings that such is the case. If this is argued, the phrase and use of, “directional sound transducers” has been in the art for about 20 years. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated directional sound transducers wherever and whenever it was deemed necessary.
With respect to claim 2, note paragraphs 0061 – 0063.
With respect to claim 3, note paragraph 0063 and Fig. 10.
With respect to claim 4, see Fig. 10, wherein “a straight line” between transducers 6a and 6e forms, “predetermined angle 80 – 120 degrees to the direction of soundwaves generated by the first set” (see paragraph 0097) and to soundwaves generated by the second set” (at least the axis of transducers 6c, 6d).
With respect to claims 5, 12, 17, 18 and 31, these limitations relate to placing transducers along a straight line to generate a cylindrical wavefront. Doing such is so notoriously old in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do such whenever and wherever it was deemed necessary. (in addition, note the rejection below with respect to claim 17).
With respect to claim 6, note paragraph 0063.
With respect to claims 7, 14 - 16, a holder and ear clips are so notoriously old in the art that no art need be supplied.
With respect to claims 8 – 9, baffles are notoriously old in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such whenever or wherever it was deemed necessary. The limitations of claim 9 is one of several obvious possibilities which one of ordinary skill in the art would select depending on certain circumstances.
With respect to claim 10, note Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 11, see paragraph 0062.
With respect to claim 13, see paragraph 0060, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that an ear cup is provided with cushioning or ped.
With respect to claim 30, note paragraph 0065
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application No. 2018/0167733 (Kaetel).
With respect to claim 17,
Kaetel discloses:
17. (Original) A headphone (abstract) comprising:
a holder (paragraphs 18 – 19, 30 and 39 and Fig 1A, reference 2; and
a sound source attached to the holder, configured to generate sound waves (paragraphs 18 – 19, 30 and 39 having a sector of a cylindrical wavefront at 5-60 mm from the sound source.
Kaetel does not disclose the sound wave having, “a sector of a cylindrical wavefront at 5 – 60mm from the sound source”. However, it is well known in the art that cylindrical wavefronts are achieved by placing the converters along a straight line at a certain distance from the source. Kaetel discloses a cylindrical (diameter and depth see paragraph 0035) directional array (see paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Kaetel, to layout such an array wherever and whenever it was deemed necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Figs and Abstracts of the references cited on the accompanying 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 - 272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571-272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273 -7484.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
12Dec2025
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights