The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite on lines 6-7 because it is unclear what one means by “in one at least one of the top shell and the bottom shell”. Does one mean “in at least one of the top shell and the bottom shell” herein?
Claim 1 is further indefinite on line 9 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the top surface of the microphone inlet”. There is a prior recitation on line 6 of “a top surface of the top shell”, but there is no prior recitation of “a top surface of the microphone inlet”.
Claim 1 is further indefinite on line 10 because there is no positive antecedent basis for “the bottom surface of the dividing member”.
Claim 11 is indefinite on line 1 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the opening of the microphone inlet”. There is prior recitation on lines 6-7 of claim 1 of “an opening in [one] at least one of the top shell and the bottom shell”, but there is no prior recitation of “an opening of the microphone inlet”. Perhaps the claim should be amended to be “the opening in the at least one of the top shell and the bottom shell” or just “the opening”.
Claim 15 is indefinite on lines 1-2 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the opening of the microphone inlet”. There is prior recitation on lines 6-7 of claim 1 of “an opening in [one] at least one of the top shell and the bottom shell”, but there is no prior recitation of “an opening of the microphone inlet”. Perhaps the claim should be amended to be “the opening in the at least one of the top shell and the bottom shell” or just “the opening”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Pooter et al. (US 2008/0118096).
De Pooter discloses a method (see figs. 1 and 4, for example), comprising: acoustic coupling, via a microphone inlet, air outside of a housing 20 of an ear-wearable device with a first end of an acoustic pathway within the housing; dividing the microphone inlet via a dividing member 32, 34 to break a uniform pressure front across the microphone inlet and provide a local pressure relief built on a first part of the microphone inlet to be released to a second part of the microphone inlet (the dividing member of fig. 4, for example, teaches that the dividing member breaks a uniform pressure front across the microphone inlet as claimed by dividing the airflow into two parts, and provides a local pressure relief on a first part of a microphone inlet to be released to a second part of the microphone inlet as claimed); acoustically coupling a microphone 20 at a second end of the acoustic pathway; and using signals from the microphone 20 to reproduce sound into an ear canal of a user of the ear-wearable device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2025/0227403).
Yamamoto discloses a method (see figs. 1, 3, and 5-8, for example), comprising: acoustic coupling, via a microphone inlet, air outside of a housing of an ear-wearable device with a first end of an acoustic pathway within the housing; dividing the microphone inlet via a dividing member 132 to break a uniform pressure front across the microphone inlet and provide a local pressure relief built on a first part of the microphone inlet to be released to a second part of the microphone inlet (the dividing member 132 of figs. 5-8, for example, teaches that the dividing member 132 breaks a uniform pressure front across the microphone inlet as claimed by dividing the airflow into two parts, and provides a local pressure relief on a first part of a microphone inlet to be released to a second part of the microphone inlet as claimed); acoustically coupling a microphone 18 at a second end of the acoustic pathway; and using signals from the microphone 18 to reproduce sound into an ear canal of a user of the ear-wearable device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hua et al. (US 2021/0099778).
Hua discloses a method (see figs. 1, 5A, & 5B, for example), comprising: acoustic coupling, via a microphone inlet, air outside of a housing of an ear-wearable device with a first end of an acoustic pathway within the housing; dividing the microphone inlet via a dividing member 114, 522 to break a uniform pressure front across the microphone inlet and provide a local pressure relief built on a first part of the microphone inlet to be released to a second part of the microphone inlet (the dividing member 114, 522 of figs. 1, 5B, for example, teaches that the dividing member 114, 522 breaks a uniform pressure front across the microphone inlet as claimed by dividing the airflow into two parts, and provides a local pressure relief on a first part of a microphone inlet to be released to a second part of the microphone inlet as claimed); acoustically coupling a microphone at a second end of the acoustic pathway; and using signals from the microphone to reproduce sound into an ear canal of a user of the ear-wearable device.
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, 2, 6-8, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2021/0211816) considered with De Pooter et al. (US 2008/0118096).
Higgins discloses an ear-wearable device (see figs. 3 and 6B, for example), comprising: a housing comprising a top shell 604A and a bottom shell 604B, a groove being defined at an interface of the top and bottom shells 604A, 604B (see fig. 6B, section 608B; see also, fig. 3, and para. 0044-0045, regarding “each module 304 shares a physical interface with at least one other module 304…” Physical interface may include … grooves, ….”); a microphone inlet acoustically coupling the groove with a first end of an acoustic pathway within the housing between the top and bottom shells 604A, 604B (see fig. 6B, section 608B), the microphone inlet defined by a top surface of the top shell 604A, a bottom surface of the bottom shell 604B, and an opening in at least one of the top shell 604A and the bottom shell 604B; and a microphone at a second end of the acoustic pathway and acoustically coupled to the acoustic pathway.
Higgins discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to specifically teach that the ear-wearable device further includes a dividing member dividing the microphone inlet, wherein a top surface of the dividing member being in contact with or connected to the top surface of the top shell 604A, and at least part of a bottom surface of the dividing member being in contact with or connected to the bottom surface of the bottom shell 604B. De Pooter discloses an ear-wearable device (see figs. 1 and 4, for example), comprising: a housing; a microphone inlet 30 acoustically coupling air outside of the housing with a first end of an acoustic pathway within the housing; a dividing member 32, 34 dividing the microphone inlet; and a microphone 22 at a second end of the acoustic pathway and acoustically coupled to the acoustic pathway. De Pooter discloses such an ear-wearable device with the dividing member 32, 34, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose that “each change in the course of flow path results in less ultimate wind noise experienced at microphone 22. That is, the effective length of the flow path is directly related to the cumulative air resistance experienced in the airflow path and the resultant reduction in ultimate wind noise” (para. 0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Higgins, in view of De Pooter, such that the ear-wearable device further includes a dividing member dividing the microphone inlet, wherein a top surface of the dividing member being in contact with or connected to the top surface of the top shell 604A, and at least part of a bottom surface of the dividing member being in contact with or connected to the bottom surface of the bottom shell 604B as claimed. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of changing the course of air flow at the dividing member as taught by De Pooter which results in a reduction in ultimate wind noise detected by the microphone.
Regarding claim 2, the dividing member will break a uniform pressure front across the microphone inlet and provide a local pressure relief built on a first part of the microphone inlet to be released to a second part of the microphone inlet. See the dividing member of De Pooter, fig. 4, which teaches that the dividing member breaks a uniform pressure front across the microphone inlet as claimed by dividing the airflow into two parts, and provides a local pressure relief on a first part of a microphone inlet to be released to a second part of the microphone inlet as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, a first part of the bottom surface of the dividing member is exposed within the acoustic pathway and a second part of the bottom surface of the dividing member is in contact with or connected to the bottom surface of the bottom shell 604B. Note that Higgins, as modified by De Pooter as explained above, would result in the dividing member within the acoustic pathway and connected to the bottom shell 604B as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, a distal end of the dividing member is exposed within the acoustic pathway. Note that Higgins, as modified by De Pooter as explained above, would result in the dividing member within the acoustic pathway as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to configure the first end of the acoustic pathway to have a first dimension from the top shell 604A to the bottom shell 604B and the second end of the acoustic pathway to have a second dimension from the top shell 604A to the bottom shell 604B, the first dimension being larger than the second dimension, the motivation being to provide a large enough opening at the first end to accommodate the dividing member of De Pooter as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, the acoustic pathway comprises a restriction in width along a minor axis of the acoustic pathway at the first end, the restriction proximate a distal end of the dividing member. Note that Higgins, as modified by De Pooter as explained above, would result in the dividing member within the acoustic pathway and the acoustic pathway restricted in width to accommodate the dividing member of De Pooter as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, the housing is configured to rest against a user’s outer ear. The ear-wearable device further comprising a receiver portion configured for placement in an ear canal of the user (see Higgins, fig. 2E, for example).
Regarding claim 15, the dividing member divides the opening into equal portions. See De Pooter, fig. 4, regarding that the dividing member divides the opening as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, the microphone inlet comprises a front microphone inlet and the microphone comprises a front microphone. See Higgins, fig. 6B, for example. The ear-wearable device further comprises: one or more microphone inlets acoustically coupling the groove with a first end of a rear acoustic pathway within the housing (see section 608A); and a rear microphone at a second end of the rear acoustic pathway and acoustically coupled to the rear acoustic pathway.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2021/0211816) considered with Yamamoto et al. (US 2025/0227403).
Higgins discloses an ear-wearable device (see figs. 3 and 6B, for example), comprising: a housing comprising a top shell 604A and a bottom shell 604B, a groove being defined at an interface of the top and bottom shells 604A, 604B (see fig. 6B, section 608B; see also, fig. 3, and para. 0044-0045, regarding “each module 304 shares a physical interface with at least one other module 304…” Physical interface may include … grooves, ….”); a microphone inlet acoustically coupling the groove with a first end of an acoustic pathway within the housing between the top and bottom shells 604A, 604B (see fig. 6B, section 608B), the microphone inlet defined by a top surface of the top shell 604A, a bottom surface of the bottom shell 604B, and an opening in at least one of the top shell 604A and the bottom shell 604B; and a microphone at a second end of the acoustic pathway and acoustically coupled to the acoustic pathway.
Higgins discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to specifically teach that the ear-wearable device further includes a dividing member dividing the microphone inlet, wherein a top surface of the dividing member being in contact with or connected to the top surface of the top shell 604A, and at least part of a bottom surface of the dividing member being in contact with or connected to the bottom surface of the bottom shell 604B. Yamamoto discloses an ear-wearable device (see figs. 1, 3, and 5-8, for example), comprising: a housing; a microphone inlet acoustically coupling air outside of the housing with a first end of an acoustic pathway within the housing; a dividing member 132 dividing the microphone inlet; and a microphone 18 at a second end of the acoustic pathway and acoustically coupled to the acoustic pathway. Yamamoto discloses such an ear-wearable device with the dividing member 132, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of reducing the speed of the air by providing the dividing member 132 to divide the flow passage of the air, and further causing the air in the divided flow passages to collide with each other from different opposite directions, thereby reducing air noise detected by the microphone 18 (see para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Higgins, in view of Yamamoto, such that the ear-wearable device further includes a dividing member dividing the microphone inlet, wherein a top surface of the dividing member being in contact with or connected to the top surface of the top shell 604A, and at least part of a bottom surface of the dividing member being in contact with or connected to the bottom surface of the bottom shell 604B as claimed. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of changing the course of air flow at the dividing member as taught by Yamamoto which results in a reduction in ultimate air noise detected by the microphone.
Regarding claim 2, the dividing member will break a uniform pressure front across the microphone inlet and provide a local pressure relief built on a first part of the microphone inlet to be released to a second part of the microphone inlet. See the dividing member 132 of Yamamoto, fig. 8 for example, which teaches that the dividing member 132 breaks a uniform pressure front across the microphone inlet as claimed by dividing the airflow into two parts, and provides a local pressure relief on a first part of a microphone inlet to be released to a second part of the microphone inlet as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, a first part of the bottom surface of the dividing member is exposed within the acoustic pathway and a second part of the bottom surface of the dividing member is in contact with or connected to the bottom surface of the bottom shell 604B. Note that Higgins, as modified by Yamamoto, as explained above, would result in the dividing member within the acoustic pathway and connected to the bottom shell 604B as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, a distal end of the dividing member is exposed within the acoustic pathway. Note that Higgins, as modified by Yamamoto as explained above, would result in the dividing member within the acoustic pathway as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to configure the first end of the acoustic pathway to have a first dimension from the top shell 604A to the bottom shell 604B and the second end of the acoustic pathway to have a second dimension from the top shell 604A to the bottom shell 604B, the first dimension being larger than the second dimension, the motivation being to provide a large enough opening at the first end to accommodate the dividing member of Yamamoto as claimed.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the opening has an opening width along a minor axis of the acoustic pathway and the dividing member 132 has a blocking width along the minor axis. See Yamamoto, fig. 5, for example, which teaches that the dividing member 132 has a blocking width along the minor axis which is the left-right direction of fig. 5. The bocking width being between 20% to 40% of the opening width (see Yamamoto, fig. 5, which teaches this dimension). Further it would have been obvious to manufacturer the opening width to be at least 0.004 inches and the blocking width to be 0.001 inches or less, as claimed, noting that the proportions of the blocking width to the opening width are maintained as taught by Yamamoto, the motivation to arrive at a microphone inlet which is small yet effective as taught by Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 13, the acoustic pathway comprises a restriction in width along a minor axis of the acoustic pathway at the first end, the restriction proximate a distal end of the dividing member. Note that Higgins, as modified by Yamamoto as explained above, would result in the dividing member within the acoustic pathway and the acoustic pathway restricted in width to accommodate the dividing member of Yamamoto as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, the housing is configured to rest against a user’s outer ear. The ear-wearable device further comprising a receiver portion configured for placement in an ear canal of the user (see Higgins, fig. 2E, for example).
Regarding claim 15, the dividing member divides the opening into equal portions. See Yamamoto, fig. 8 for example, regarding that the dividing member divides the opening as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, the microphone inlet comprises a front microphone inlet and the microphone comprises a front microphone. See Higgins, fig. 6B, for example. The ear-wearable device further comprises: one or more microphone inlets acoustically coupling the groove with a first end of a rear acoustic pathway within the housing (see section 608A); and a rear microphone at a second end of the rear acoustic pathway and acoustically coupled to the rear acoustic pathway.
Claims 3-5, 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-20 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
January 21, 2026