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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/12/24 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 10/12/24 are acceptable to the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: AN AUCOUSTIC OUTPUT DEVICE INCLUDING A LOW-FREQUENCY DRIVER AND A HIGH FREQUENCY DRIVER
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10,12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shetye et al. (US 9,794,676 B2), cited by applicant
Re claim 1: Shetye et al. teaches an acoustic output device (see figure 5), comprising:
a low-frequency acoustic driver (110) configured to output sounds from at least two first guiding holes (115, 117), wherein the at least two first guiding holes include a near-ear first guiding hole (115) closest to an ear hole of a user among the at least two first guiding holes and a far-ear first guiding hole (117) that is farther from the ear hole of the user than the near-ear first guiding hole;
a high-frequency acoustic driver (122) configured to output sounds from at least one second guiding hole (either (124) or a hole formed by a housing (123) allowing it to radiate directly toward ear), column 10, lines 3-6, wherein:
the low-frequency acoustic driver is configured to output the sounds in a first frequency range (at or below approximately 500 Hz) and the high-frequency acoustic driver is configured to output the sounds in a second frequency range (frequencies above approximately 500 Hz), the second frequency range including one or more frequencies higher than one or more frequencies in the first frequency range; and
a supporting structure (note that the device is a headphone (100) including at least structure (106) configured to be worn on a body of a user at a position close to but not blocking the ear hole (see figure 5), and support the high-frequency acoustic driver and the low-frequency acoustic driver,
wherein when the user wears the acoustic output device, the near-ear first guiding hole (115) and the at least one second guiding hole (that hole in front of housing (123) facing the user) face the ear hole (see figure 5).
Re claim 2: See figure 5 depicting holes in relation to a ear hole as set forth
Re claim 3: note figure 5 teaching structure, i.e. a housing that accommodates both the low-frequency driver and the high-frequency driver and isolates the drivers
Re claim 4: See figure 5 teaching low frequency driver (110) within housing that defines a front chamber (114) and a rear chamber (116)
Re claim 5: note chamber (114) is acoustically coupled to port hole (115) and chamber (116) is acoustically couples to port hole (117)
Re claim 6: see discussion in column 3, lines 60-63 in which the high frequency drive is in a housing that forms a rear chamber and since housed within this structure that portion in front of the drive would include a front chamber as set forth.
Re claim 7: note with the arrangement of the high frequency driver located within a housing as discussed in column 10, line 5, the area in front of the driver within the housing would be a front chamber and the opening/hole in this housing that allows sound to be acoustically outputted toward the user would be coupled to the chamber.
Re claim 8: the opening/hole in the housing that allows sound to be acoustically outputted toward the user from the high frequency driver is a single guiding hole
Re claim 10: see teaching in column 9, lines 36-41 teaching that the areas of the ports (115,117) can be used to achieve acoustic impedances that are approximately the same. Stated differently, when the area of the holes are the same to achieve acoustic impedances that are approximately the same, the ratio between the size of these holes, ports would be equal to “1”, which satisfies the limitation of “not less than 1”
Re claim 12: see teaching in column 9, lines 19-47 teaching that the acoustic impedance of each hole (115 and 117) do not need to be the same and that acoustic resistance materials can be used to vary this impedance.
Re claims 13 and 14: note if the acoustic impedance of each hole (115 and 117) is the same as taught in column 9, lines 35-37 than this ratio between these two hole acoustic impedances would by “1” which is as claimed between 0.7 and 1.8 as set forth in claim 13 and between 0.9-1.1 as set forth in claim 14.
Re claim 15: see column 9, lines 45-47
Re claim 16: note that at least plastics as taught in column 9, lines 43-45 satisfies at least a material used in a layer that has a waterproof quality
Re claim 17: having a low frequency range “below approximately 500 Hz” and frequencies “above approximately 500 Hz” discussed in column 10, lines 10-32 satisfies the language “lower than 650 Hz” and higher than 1000 Hz” as set forth.
Re claim 18: note the frequency ranges used for the low frequency driver and the high frequency driver (as taught in column 10, lines 10-32 each include a possible frequency that overlaps at approximately 500 Hz.
Re claim 19: having the low frequency driver operating at certain frequencies of approximately below 550 Hz and the high frequency driver operating at frequencies of approximately above 500Hz ensures that each driver operates at least with different frequency response characteristics due to the different frequencies at which they operate.
Re claim 20: see teaching of 180 degrees out of phase as discussed in column 9, lines 1-3 and 35; column 10, lines 21-22 satisfying as set forth the language opposite phases.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetye et al. in view of Hui (US 2015/0280677 A1), cited by applicant
Re claim 9: The teaching of Shetye et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Shetye et al. does not teach to space the guiding hole from the ear hole, specifically not larger than 2 cm as set forth. Hui teaches in a similar environment to include adjustable speaker driver mechanism(s) to provide changes in the distance from acoustic drivers to an ear hole to adjust the sound pressure levels of the driver allowing for adjustments in the audio quality of the headphone for a user; see figures 2a-2c along with paragraphs [0052 and 0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching of Hui into the arrangement of Shetye et al. to allow for adjustments of the distance between a speaker drive and an ear canal, including a distance of "not larger than 2 cm" to predictably provide a means for changing a sound pressure level of the sound outputted by the headphone to the ear canal thereby allowing for an adjustable audio quality for a user. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed acoustic output device including those features of claim 1 wherein a first distance is between the at least two first guiding holes, and the first distance is in a range of 20 millimeters-40 millimeters as set forth in claim 11 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (‘207 and ‘465) are patents obtained by applicant in parent applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 3/26/26
Prosecution Insights