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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are canceled
Claims 41-50 are rejected
Claims 51-53 are objected to
Claim Objections
Claim 47 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 45. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 41-45 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read et al (US PUB 20190022348, hereinafter Read) in view of Lin et al (US PUB 20190327549, hereinafter Lin).
Regarding Claim 41, Read discloses an in-ear biosensor system (see at least the abstract and figure 1) comprising: an earbud including a nozzle and a housing (see figure 1), wherein the housing includes a body, and wherein the nozzle extends from the housing body and has a proximal end arranged for positioning within an inner ear canal of an individual; an earbud tip (e.g. sealing structure 102) attached to the proximal end of the nozzle that is adapted to engage the inner ear canal, wherein the earbud tip suspends the nozzle within the inner ear canal when engaged (e.g. the nozzle ), (see [0018], and figure 1); and an infrasonic/vibration sensor included within the nozzle at its proximal end, wherein the sensor detects biosignals including infrasonic signals from a body of the individual in the inner ear canal (e.g. a microphone 106 is positioned at the proximal end of nozzle for sensing biosignals such as the heartbeat or infrasonic rate of the user), and a speaker (e.g. speaker 110) included within the housing body that reproduces sound from an audio source and transmits the sound into the inner ear canal via the nozzle (see figure 1), wherein during operation of the earbud, an inner ear acoustic volume is formed from a combination of the inner ear canal and a cavity within the nozzle (e.g. when the earbud is worn during operation, a front portion of the nozzle forms an inner ear acoustic volume with the space between the nozzle end and the eardrum), (see [0018]-[0019] and [0022], also figures 1-3).
Read does not explicitly teach: wherein the speaker includes a diaphragm that faces outward towards the nozzle.
However, Lin in the same field of endeavor teaches an earbud (e.g. an in-ear monitor 300), including a nozzle (e.g. a nozzle or sound tube 328), a housing (e.g. housing 312) and a speaker (e.g. a speaker or driver 322), (see figure 3); wherein the speaker includes a diaphragm (e.g. a diaphragm or membrane 326) that faces outward towards the nozzle (see Lin, [0029] and figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate a diaphragm directly facing outward towards the nozzle as taught by Lin in the teachings of Read in order to enable the speaker radiate sound directly into the ear canal of the user, and thereby improving the output sound quality by blocking out external noise.
More so, the combination of Read and Lin further teaches: wherein the cavity extends from the proximal end of the earbud and into the nozzle up until the diaphragm of the speaker (e.g. acoustic cavity is formed by inner space of element 332, and the sound tube 328), (see Lin, figure 3).
Regarding Claim 42, Read as modified by Lin discloses the biosensor system of claim 41, wherein the infrasonic/vibration sensor (microphone 106) includes a detection face for detecting the biosignals (inherent) that is configured to point upwards within the nozzle, and wherein the infrasonic/vibration sensor is seated within the nozzle such that when the nozzle is parallel to a plane of a floor or ground, the detection face is parallel to the plane of the floor or ground (see Read, figure 1).
Regarding Claim 43, Read as modified by Lin discloses the biosensor system of claim 41, wherein during operation of the earbud, the biosignals enter the nozzle via the cavity while the transmitted sound travels out through the cavity of the nozzle and into the ear canal (e.g. the microphone 106 captures biosignal through the nozzle while sound outputted by the speaker 110 travels into the ear canal via the nozzle), (see Read, figure 1).
Regarding Claim 44, Read as modified by Lin discloses the biosensor system of claim 41, wherein the speaker (speaker 332) forms an acoustic seal with an inside wall (e.g. inner side wall of housing 312) of the housing body to prevent air and the biosignals from entering the housing body (see Lin, figure 3).
Regarding Claim 45, Read as modified by Lin discloses the biosensor system of claim 41, wherein the speaker (speaker 332) includes a sealed back portion that prevents air flow from the housing body into the speaker (e.g. the speaker is enclosed within an internal housing 320), (see Lin, [0029] and figure 3).
Regarding Claim 47, Read as modified by Lin discloses the biosensor system of claim 41, wherein the speaker (speaker 332) includes a sealed back portion that prevents air flow from the housing body into the speaker (e.g. the speaker is enclosed within an internal housing 320), (see Lin, [0029] and figure 3).
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read in view of Lin as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Urso et al (US PUB 20060291682, hereinafter Urso).
Regarding Claim 46, Read as modified by Lin discloses the biosensor system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the speaker is an acoustically stiff speaker that has an effective acoustic volume that is on the order of or less than the inner ear acoustic volume.
However, Urso in the same field of endeavors teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an in-ear hearing device (e.g. a CIC hearing device 20) with a speaker (e.g. receiver 25), wherein the speaker is an acoustically stiff speaker that has an effective acoustic volume that is on the order of or less than the inner ear acoustic volume (e.g. a speaker with a stiff shell is configured to have an effective volume of less than the inner ear acoustic volume of 0.5cc) as set forth in [0016] and [0020], also figure 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a speaker having an effective volume of less than the inner ear acoustic volume as taught by Urso in the teachings of Read in view of Lin so as to reduce occlusion effects, and thereby further enhance the wearing comfort of the user.
Claim(s) 48-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read in view of Lin as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Silvestri et al (US PUB 20140363040, hereinafter Silvestri).
Regarding Claim 48, Read as modified by Lin discloses the biosensor system of claim 41, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the speaker includes a back portion with an opening that allows air flow into and out of the back portion.
However, Silvestri in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an in-ear device with a speaker (e.g. speaker or driver 116) having a back portion with an opening (e.g. a port 122) that allows air flow into and out of the back portion as set forth in [0022]-[0023], and figure 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a back opening for the speaker as taught by Silvestri in the teachings of Read in view of Lin, so as to achieve pressure equalization and relief within the housing and the ear canal, thereby further improving the wearing comfort of the user.
Regarding Claim 49, Read as modified by Lin and Silvestri discloses the biosensor system of claim 41, wherein the housing body (e.g. housing 113) includes a controlled port (e.g. a port 119) located between a top surface of the speaker and an inside wall of the housing body that enables air flow between the housing body and the nozzle (e.g. nozzle 126), (see Silvestri, [0018]-[0019], and [0022], also figure 3).
Regarding Claim 50, Read as modified by Lin and Silvestri discloses the biosensor system of claim 41, wherein the housing body further includes a controlled opening filter (e.g. a mesh) placed in front of or within the controlled port, and wherein the filter is configured to provide an impedance that prevents the biosignals from entering the housing body via the controlled port (e.g. a mesh can be placed within the port to provide an impedance), (see Silvestri, [0019]-[0020], and figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 51-53 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record provided on PTO 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYESOLA C OJO whose telephone number is (571)272-0848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm Central Time.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7840. 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.
/OYESOLA C OJO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695