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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a “computer-readable storage medium” encompasses signals per-se, such as a transitory signal and/or carrier wave.
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) 1-3, 9-13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chawan et al. (US 2021/0274273 A1, cited in an IDS received 7/10/2024, and hereafter Chawan) in view of Minich et al. (US 2021/0076131 A1 and hereafter Minich).
Regarding claim 1, Chawan teaches:
“An earbud” (see Chawan, figures 1 and 9A-9B, units 115a-115b) “comprising:
a housing having a distal end and a proximal end” (see Chawan, figures 9A-9B, units 903 and 910, and ¶ 0169, where the earbud has a housing with an ear interface portion at one end and a stem portion at the other end).
Chawan teaches a distal end of the earbud housing that is magnetically attracted to a case and the case charges the earbuds when they are within the case (see Chawan, figure 1, unit 130, figure 10, units 905a-905h, and ¶ 0117-0118, 0170, and 0222). Chawan also teaches on-head detection logic (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, where capacitive sensors are used to detect the presence of the earbud in the user’s ear). However, Chawan does not appear to teach the features where “the distal end includ[es] a magnetically-sensitive section” and the “on-head-detection (OHD) logic electrically coupled to the magnetically-sensitive section at the distal end, the OHD logic configured to determine, based on a distal-end capacitance measured using the magnetically-sensitive section, whether the distal end of the housing is within the ear of the user” (emphasis added).
Minich discloses active noise reduction (ANR) audio devices and systems including wearable audio devices, such as earbuds, where ANR settings are controlled based on sensing that the earbuds are engaged or removed from the user’s ears (see Minich, abstract and ¶ 0034). Herein, Minich teaches that magnetic field sensors in the earbuds are used to determine if the earbuds are engaged or removed from the user’s ears (see Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Chawan with the teachings of Minich for the purpose of using a similar sensing method and expect similar results (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050 and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036).
Therefore, the combination of Chawan and Minich makes obvious the earbud additionally comprising:
“the distal end including a magnetically-sensitive section” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050 and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, where magnetically sensitive sensors are provided in the distal end, such as the ear interface portion),
“the distal end of the housing configured to be:
magnetically attracted to a charging receptacle” (see Chawan, figure 1, unit 130, figure 10, units 905a-905h, and ¶ 0117-0118 and 0170, where a housing of a case has earbud retention magnets for retaining the earbuds, and the case charges the earbuds), and
“insertable within an ear of a user” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3000a-3000b, and ¶ 0219, where the ear portion of the earbud housing is insertable in the user’s ear), and
“on-head-detection (OHD) logic electrically coupled to the magnetically-sensitive section at the distal end, the OHD logic configured to determine, based on a distal-end capacitance measured using the magnetically-sensitive section, whether the distal end of the housing is within the ear of the user” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, makes obvious magnetically-sensitive sensors that are used to detect the presence of the earbud in the user’s ear).
Regarding claim 2, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “earbud of claim 1, wherein the magnetically-sensitive section includes a metal injection molding (MIM) section including metal powder mixed with a binding material” (see Chawan, ¶ 0140, where it is obvious that the MIM section includes these well-known features).
Regarding claim 3, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “earbud of claim 1, wherein the magnetically-sensitive section is formed to substantially span the distal end of the housing” (see Chawan, figure 3, units 325 and 330, and ¶ 0140, 0170, and 0172, in view of Minich, ¶ 0036, where it is obvious to provide the magnetically-sensitive section in the ear interfacing section for detecting the insertion or removal of the earbud and for providing the magnetic retention with the charging case).
Regarding claim 9, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “earbud of claim 1, further comprising an OHD sensor disposed in the housing and coupled with the OHD logic, wherein the OHD logic monitors a value detectable by the OHD sensor that is indicative of whether the earbud is within the ear of the user” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, where it is obvious to use a well-known sensor, such as a magnetic field sensor, to determine if the earbud is within the ear of the user, and the well-known sensor implies the OHD logic monitors a magnetic field, or similar, value to indicate if the earbud is within the user’s ear).
Regarding claim 10, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 9 above. The combination makes obvious the “earbud of claim 9, wherein the OHD sensor includes an infrared (IR) sensor and the value includes an IR energy level detected by the IR sensor” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, where it is obvious to use another well-known sensor, such as an IR sensor and monitor the IR energy detected to determine if the earbud is within the user’s ear).
Regarding claim 11, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “earbud of claim 1, wherein the earbud further includes a speaker and wherein the OHD logic is further configured to stop the speaker from generating audio based on the OHD logic determining that the earbud is removed from within the ear of the user” (see Chawan, ¶ 0140 and 0221, in view of Minich, ¶ 0042, where the earbuds include speakers, and it is obvious to pause, or stop, audio content when it is detected that the earbud is removed from the user’s ear).
Regarding claim 12, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination of Chawan and Minich makes obvious the earbud of claim 1, and for the same reasons makes obvious:
“A method comprising:
monitoring a distal-end capacitance at a magnetically-sensitive section within a distal end of a housing of an earbud” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, makes obvious magnetically-sensitive sensors that are used to detect the presence of the earbud in the user’s ear); and
“responsive to the distal-end capacitance indicating that the distal end of the housing of the earbud is not in proximity to an ear surface, ceasing generation of audio from the earbud” (see Chawan, ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, ¶ 0042, where it is obvious to pause, or stop, audio content when it is detected that the earbud is removed from the user’s ear).
Regarding claim 13, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 12 above. The combination makes obvious the “method of claim 12, further comprising determining that the distal-end capacitance indicates that the distal end of the housing of the earbud is not in proximity to the ear surface” (see Chawan, ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, ¶ 0036, where it is obvious that a measurement of capacitance is used to indicate the insertion or removal of the earbud).
Regarding claim 17, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 12 above. The combination makes obvious the “method of claim 12, further comprising:
monitoring a value detected by a sensor supported by the housing of the earbud;
determining that the value indicates that the housing is in contact with the body” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, where it is obvious to use a well-known sensor, such as a magnetic field sensor, to determine if the earbud is within the ear of the user, and the well-known sensor implies the OHD logic monitors a magnetic field, or similar, value to indicate if the earbud is within the user’s ear), and
“wherein ceasing the generation of the audio from the earbud is further responsive to determining that the value indicates that the housing is in contact with the body” (see Chawan, ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, ¶ 0042, where it is obvious to pause, or stop, audio content when it is detected that the earbud is removed from the user’s ear).
Regarding claim 18, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 17 above. The combination makes obvious the “method of claim 17, wherein monitoring the value detected by the sensor supported by the housing of the earbud monitors an infrared (IR) sensor configured to detect IR energy emitted by the IR proximity sensor ceasing to be reflected by the ear surface” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, where it is obvious to use another well-known sensor, such as an IR sensor and monitor the IR energy detected to determine if the earbud is within the user’s ear).
Regarding claim 19, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination of Chawan and Minich makes obvious the earbud of claim 1, and for the same reasons makes obvious:
“A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (see Chawan, figure 2, units 202a-202b and 260, figure 48, units 4710, 4850, and4860, and ¶ 0120 and 0266-0267) “comprising:
monitoring a distal-end capacitance at a magnetically-sensitive section within a distal end of a housing of an earbud” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, makes obvious magnetically-sensitive sensors that are used to detect the presence of the earbud in the user’s ear); and
“responsive to the distal-end capacitance indicating that the distal end of the housing of the earbud is not in proximity to an ear surface, ceasing generation of audio from the earbud” (see Chawan, ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, ¶ 0042, where it is obvious to pause, or stop, audio content when it is detected that the earbud is removed from the user’s ear).
Claim(s) 4-8, 14-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chawan and Minich as applied to claims 1, 12, and 19 above, and further in view of Mohammadi et al. (US 2019/0297408 A1, cited in an IDS received 7/10/2024, and hereafter Mohammadi).
Regarding claim 4, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination of Chawan and Minich makes obvious the earbud of claim 1, however the combination does not appear to teach that “the OHD logic to determine whether a proximal-end capacitance at the proximal end of the housing indicates whether the proximal end of the housing is in proximity to a body indicating that the earbud is not inserted within the ear of the user”.
Mohammadi discloses earbud devices with capacitive sensors (see Mohammadi, abstract and figures 1-3). Herein, Mohammadi teaches an earbud with capacitive sensing circuitry with multiple electrodes provided on the stalk portion, or proximal-end, of the earbud housing, where the electrodes in the proximal-end are used for user input control and to determine if the earbud is within the ear (see Mohammadi, figure 1, units 20 and 40, figures 2-3, units 42 and 52, and ¶ 0022, 0025, and 0028-0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination of Chawan and Minich with the teachings of Mohammadi for the purpose of improving the ear detection features by providing reference measurements from the proximal-end (see Mohammadi, ¶ 0031).
Therefore, the combination of Chawan, Minich, and Mohammadi makes obvious the “earbud of claim 1, further comprising a touch-sensitive user input component disposed at the proximal end of the earbud housing and electrically coupled with the OHD logic” (see Chawan, ¶ 0228 and Minich, figure 2A, unit 115 and ¶ 0036, in view of Mohammadi, ¶ 0025 and 0029), “the touch-sensitive user input component configured to operate control logic of the earbud and be usable by the OHD logic to determine whether a proximal-end capacitance at the proximal end of the housing indicates whether the proximal end of the housing is in proximity to a body indicating that the earbud is not inserted within the ear of the user” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, and further in view of Mohammadi, figures 2-3, units 42 and 52, and ¶ 0028-0031, which makes obvious control circuitry to make capacitance measurements with the electrodes in the distal and proximal ends of the earbud to determine if the earbud is in the user’s ear).
Regarding claim 5, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 4 above. The combination makes obvious the “earbud of claim 4, wherein the touch-sensitive user input component includes multiple segments configured to receive separate user inputs to the control logic of the earbud and the OHD logic is further configured to electrically combine the multiple segments for operation as an electrode” (see Mohammadi, figures 2-3, units 42 and 52, and ¶ 0028-0031).
Regarding claim 6, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 4 above. The combination makes obvious the “earbud of claim 4, wherein the OHD logic is further configured to determine that the earbud is not inserted within the ear of the user based on distal-end capacitance and the proximal-end capacitance” (see Mohammadi, figures 2-3, units 42 and 52, and ¶ 0031, where reference measurements from the proximal-end improve in-ear detection when using both the distal-end and proximal-end measurements).
Regarding claim 7, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 6 above. The combination makes obvious the “earbud of claim 6, wherein the OHD logic is further configured to first determine that the earbud is removed from within the ear of the user based on the distal-end capacitance and then confirm that the earbud is removed from within the ear of the user based on the proximal-end capacitance” (see Mohammadi, ¶ 0031, where the order of operations is made obvious through subtracting a set of measurements from the other set of measurements to improve, or confirm, the detection that the earbud is removed from the ear).
Regarding claim 8, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 6 above. The combination makes obvious the “earbud of claim 6, wherein the OHD logic is further configured to first determine that the earbud is removed from within the ear of the user based on the proximal-end capacitance and then confirm that the earbud is removed from within the ear of the user based on distal-end capacitance” (see Mohammadi, ¶ 0031, where the order of operations is made obvious through subtracting a set of measurements from the other set of measurements to improve, or confirm, the detection that the earbud is removed from the ear).
Regarding claim 14, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 12 above. The combination of Chawan and Minich makes obvious the method of claim 12, however the combination does not appear to teach the feature for “determining that the proximal-end capacitance of the housing of the earbud indicates that the proximal end is in proximity with a body”. For the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination of Chawan and Minich with the teachings of Mohammadi for the purpose of improving the ear detection features by providing reference measurements from the proximal-end (see Mohammadi, ¶ 0031).
Therefore, the combination of Chawan, Minich, and Mohammadi makes obvious the “method of claim 12, further comprising:
monitoring proximal-end capacitance of the housing of the earbud” (see Mohammadi, figures 2-3, units 42 and 50, ¶ 0028-0029);
“determining that the proximal-end capacitance of the housing of the earbud indicates that the proximal end is in proximity with a body” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, and further in view of Mohammadi, figures 2-3, units 42 and 52, and ¶ 0028-0031, which makes obvious control circuitry to make capacitance measurements with the electrodes in the distal and proximal ends of the earbud to determine if the earbud is in the user’s ear), and
“wherein ceasing the generation of the audio from the earbud is further responsive to determining that the proximal-end capacitance of the housing of the earbud indicates that the proximal end is in proximity with the body” (see Chawan, ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, ¶ 0042, and further in view of Mohammadi, ¶ 0031, where it is obvious to pause, or stop, audio content when it is detected that the earbud is removed from the user’s ear).
Regarding claim 15, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 14 above. The combination makes obvious the “method of claim 14, further comprising:
monitoring a value detected by a sensor supported by the housing of the earbud;
determining that the value indicates that the housing is in contact with the body” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, and further in view of Mohammadi, ¶ 0029-0031, where it is obvious to monitor a value detected by the sensing structures supported by the housing of the earbud to determine if the earbud is within the user’s ear), and
“wherein ceasing the generation of the audio from the earbud is further responsive to determining that the value indicates that the housing is in contact with the body” (see Chawan, ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, ¶ 0042, and further in view of Mohammadi, ¶ 0031, where it is obvious to pause, or stop, audio content when it is detected that the earbud is removed from the user’s ear).
Regarding claim 16, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 14 above. The combination makes obvious the “method of claim 14, wherein monitoring the proximal-end capacitance of the housing of the earbud monitors a touch-sensitive user input component at the proximal-end of the housing of the earbud” (see Chawan, ¶ 0228 and Minich, figure 2A, unit 115 and ¶ 0036, in view of Mohammadi, ¶ 0025 and 0029, where it is obvious to monitor the proximal-end capacitance for user input control and/or to determine if the earbud is within the ear).
Regarding claim 20, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 19 above. The combination of Chawan and Minich makes obvious the method of claim 19, however the combination does not appear to teach the feature for “determining that the proximal-end capacitance of the housing of the earbud indicates that the proximal end is in proximity with a body”. For the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination of Chawan and Minich with the teachings of Mohammadi for the purpose of improving the ear detection features by providing reference measurements from the proximal-end (see Mohammadi, ¶ 0031).
Therefore, the combination of Chawan, Minich, and Mohammadi makes obvious the “computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform operations further comprising:
monitoring proximal-end capacitance of the housing of the earbud” (see Mohammadi, figures 2-3, units 42 and 50, ¶ 0028-0029);
“determining that the proximal-end capacitance of the housing of the earbud indicates that the proximal end is in proximity with a body” (see Chawan, figures 30-31, units 3045 and 3050, and ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, figure 2A, units 102 and 118, and ¶ 0036, and further in view of Mohammadi, figures 2-3, units 42 and 52, and ¶ 0028-0031, which makes obvious control circuitry to make capacitance measurements with the electrodes in the distal and proximal ends of the earbud to determine if the earbud is in the user’s ear), and
“wherein ceasing the generation of the audio from the earbud is further responsive to determining that the proximal-end capacitance of the housing of the earbud indicates that the proximal end is in proximity with the body” (see Chawan, ¶ 0221, in view of Minich, ¶ 0042, and further in view of Mohammadi, ¶ 0031, where it is obvious to pause, or stop, audio content when it is detected that the earbud is removed from the user’s ear).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 2025/0063283 A1 and hereafter Li) discloses a wearable device including an earphone and a host, or case, for the earphone (see Li, abstract and figures 1-6 and 85-86, and ¶ 0502, where the host detects if the earbud is within the box or outside the box).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel R Sellers whose telephone number is (571)272-7528. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-4:00.
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, Fan S Tsang can be reached at (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 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.
/Daniel R Sellers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694