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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/18/24. Examiner acknowledged that claims 1 and 11 are amended; claims 8, 17 and 19 are canceled; claims 21-23 are new. Currently, claims 1-7, 9-16, 18 and 20-23 are pending.
The non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting has been considered and withdrawn in response to the amendment filed on 01/21/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, applicant argues that Riisberg does not teach the metal structure and PCB share a common longitudinal axis passing through a central region when worn against a human body.
Examiner disagrees because Riisberg shows through Examiner markup Fig. 5 and 7A that the metal structure and PCB do share a common longitudinal axis passing through a central region when worn against a human body. Thus, Riisburg teaches the limitation as claimed. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 in view of Riisberg is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riisberg (US 2019/0006741) in view of machine translation of Jiang (CN 110798766A).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
501
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner markup Fig. 5 Examiner markup Fig. 7A
Regarding Claim 1, Riisberg teaches a wearable electronic device ([abstract] “headset to be worn”), comprising: a housing (Fig. 5: 28) shaped to be worn on a human body (Fig. 5: 6), wherein at least one first surface (Fig. 5: right side of 28) of the housing is shaped to come in contact with the human body and at least one second surface (Fig. 5: left side of 28) of the housing is shaped to be exposed when worn on the body; a printed circuit board ("PCB") (Fig. 2B: 10; [0014] “ground plate may comprise a printed circuit board (PCB)”) located within the housing; and
a metal structure (Fig. 2A: 8, 12) located within the housing and configured to be both an antenna (Fig. 2B: 8), wherein the PCB is positioned between the at least one first surface of the housing and the metal structure (Fig. 2A: 10, 14; Fig. 7C show the PCB is between housing and the metal structure), wherein the metal structure is located at a distance (Fig. 2B: distance separated by 22) from the PCB and oriented such that the metal structure is substantially parallel to the PCB, wherein the metal structure has a central region and a perimeter (Fig. 6A: 8 has opening in the center and ring for perimeter), wherein the metal structure has a central region and a perimeter, wherein the metal structure is coupled to the PCB via at least a first coupling ([0014] “ground plate (10) may comprise a PCB”; 8 is coupled to 10 via couplings as seen in Fig. 6A), and wherein the metal structure and the PCB share a common longitudinal axis (Examiner markup Fig. 5: Z; Fig. 7A: Z) passing through a central region of the metal structure and the PCB (Examiner markup Fig. 7A: Z passes through a center of the PCB and metal structure), the common longitudinal axis oriented substantially perpendicular to a tangent of a vertical surface of the human body (Fig. 5: axis Z is tangent to the wearer’s head) when the at least one first surface of the housing is in contact with the vertical surface of the human body (Fig. 5 headset housing is pressed against the wearer’s ear).
Riisberg does not explicitly teach in Fig. 2B a metal structure configured to be an input control and wherein an electric field between the PCB and the metal structure extends in a direction transverse to a tangent of a longitudinal surface of the human body. However, [0021] teaches “antenna structure is the DECT frequency band operating at 1880-1900 MHz. Alternatively and/or additionally, the operating frequency band of the antenna structure may be the Bluetooth frequency band operating at 2.4to 2.485 GHz”; Fig. 7A & Fig. 5 together illustrate the radiation patterns showing the antenna traversing the direction perpendicular to the body when worn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riisberg in order to operate between different frequency bands such that the device can operating in the TDMA/TDD or BLE ranges for the communication device. [0052-0053].
Riisberg does not teach wherein the metal structure curves from the central region towards the PCB at the perimeter.
Jiang is in the field of wearable electronic [abstract] and teaches wherein the metal structure (Fig. 2: 11) curves from the central region towards the PCB (Fig. 2: 21) at the perimeter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Riisberg with a curve metal structure as taught by Jiang in order to make the control location easier to recognized by touch since the touch area serves as an input control. (“[p.4] “antenna element 11 provided with touch function to the key 1 side”).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, the combination of Riisberg and Jiang teach the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first coupling is an antenna feed and a touch sensor input (Jiang [p.3] “elastic element 22 for electric signal transfer between the button and the main body”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Riisberg and Jiang teach the wearable electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a second coupling configured to be an antenna ground pin (Riisberg Fig. 1B: 18) or an impedance tuning sub.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Riisberg and Jiang teach the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the metal structure is located closer to the at least one second surface of the housing than the at least one first surface of the housing (Fig. 2B: 8 is closer to the inner surface of the housing the outer surface).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, the combination of Riisberg and Jiang teach the wearable electronic device of claim 1, further comprising one or more processors (Jiang Fig. 1: 41), the one or more processors configured to wirelessly couple, by the metal structure, to a second wearable electronic device (Jiang [p.2] “signal will be further attenuation so as to generate signal …for music” NOTE: it is obvious that the left and right earbud needs to be linked in order to play music for stereo enjoyment).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the combination of Riisberg and Jiang teach the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the input control is a touchpad (Jiang [p.4] “antenna elements 11 with touch control function”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, the combination of Riisberg and Jiang teach the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the PCB is configured to shield the metal structure from the human body (Riisberg Fig. 6C: 10 shields the antenna 8 from the body).
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, the combination of Riisberg and Jiang teach the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein when the metal structure receives an input, the metal structure is configured to detect a change in capacitance ([p.2] “a touch key 44 is provided to sense human body capacitance”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Riisberg and Jiang teach the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the wearable electronic device is an earbud (Jiang Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Riisberg teaches a device, comprising: a printed circuit board ("PCB") (Fig. 2B: 10; [0014] “ground plate may comprise a printed circuit board (PCB)”); and a metal structure configured to be both an antenna (Fig. 2B: 8), wherein the metal structure is located at a distance (Fig. 2B: distance separted by 22) from the PCB and oriented such that the metal structure is substantially parallel to the PCB, wherein the metal structure has a central region and a perimeter (Fig. 6A: 8 has opening in the center and ring for perimeter), wherein the metal structure is coupled to the PCB via at least a first coupling (Fig. 6A: 8 has opening in the center and ring for perimeter) such that metal structure is substantially parallel to the PCB, and wherein the metal structure and the PCB share a common longitudinal axis (Examiner markup Fig. 5: Z; Fig. 7A: Z) passing through a central region of the metal structure and the PCB (Examiner markup Fig. 7A: Z passes through a center of the PCB and metal structure), the common longitudinal axis oriented substantially perpendicular to a tangent of a vertical surface of a human body (Fig. 5: axis Z is tangent to the wearer’s head) when at least one first surface of the device is in contact with the vertical surface of the human body (Fig. 5 headset housing is pressed against the wearer’s ear).
Riisberg does not explicitly teach in Fig. 2B a metal structure configured to be an input control and wherein an electric field between the PCB and the metal structure extends in a direction transverse to a tangent of a longitudinal surface of the human body. However, [0021] teaches “antenna structure is the DECT frequency band operating at 1880-1900 MHz. Alternatively and/or additionally, the operating frequency band of the antenna structure may be the Bluetooth frequency band operating at 2.4to 2.485 GHz”; Fig. 7A & Fig. 5 together illustrate the radiation patterns showing the antenna traversing the direction perpendicular to the body when worn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riisberg in order to operate between different frequency bands such that the device can operating in the TDMA/TDD or BLE ranges for the communication device. [0052-0053].
Riisberg does not teach wherein the metal structure curves from the central region towards the PCB at the perimeter.
Jiang is in the field of wearable electronic [abstract] and teaches wherein the metal structure (Fig. 2: 11) curves from the central region towards the PCB (Fig. 2: 21) at the perimeter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Riisberg with a curve metal structure as taught by Jiang in order to make the control location easier to recognized by touch since the touch area serves as an input control. (“[p.4] “antenna element 11 provided with touch function to the key 1 side”).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Riisberg and Jiang teach the device of claim 10, wherein the electronic device is configured to be worn on a human body (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Riisberg and Jiang teach the device of claim 16, wherein the electric field extends in a direction transverse to a tangent of a longitudinal surface of the human body (Fig. 7A: electric field tangent to the body).
Regarding Claims 21-22, Riisberg teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the vertical surface of the human body is one of an ear (Fig. 5: 16) of the human body or a cheek of the human body.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riisberg and Jiang as applied to claim 11 and further in view of So (US 2017/0094431).
Regarding Claim 23, Riisberg and Jiang teaches the device of claim 11, wherein an electric field (E-field) propagates between the PCB and the metal structure (Fig. 7A), the E-field comprising: a fringe component (Fig. 7A: E-fields shown around the fringe area of the device), which does not propagate along the common longitudinal axis.
Riisberg and Jian does not teach the E-field comprising: a vertical E-field component, which propagates along the common longitudinal axis.
So is in the field of hearing device (abstract) and teaches the E-field comprising: a vertical E-field component, which propagates along the common longitudinal axis (Fig. 3B: 13; [0039] “the antenna unit is configured to transmit an electric field in a direction along or perpendicular to an ear-to-ear axis of a user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Riisberg and Jiang with E-field component propagates along the common longitudinal axis as taught by So in order to the sound is generate into the ear canal as worn by the user since the field is strongest at the common longitudinal axis (Fig. 7A-D).
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 HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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.
/Henry Luong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844