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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 14-15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior art Rusconi et al. (2019/0052954).
As to claim 1, Rusconi teaches an earphone (Fig. 1) with speaker (Fig. 1, speaker 5, 6,7) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, housing 4), wherein the housing is placed on at least one ear of a user while not blocking an ear canal (Fig. 1, ear canal 22) of the user (Fig. 1);
a low frequency acoustic driver (bass speaker 7 as low frequency acoustic driver) accommodated in the housing and configured to generate sound within a first frequency range (bass speaker is a low frequency range speaker used to generate sound within a low frequency range);
a high frequency acoustic driver (treble speaker 5 as a high frequency acoustic driver) accommodated in the housing and configured to generate sound within a second frequency range (treble speaker is a high frequency range speaker used to generate sound within high frequency range), wherein
the low frequency acoustic driver is acoustically coupled with two first sound guiding holes (openings 13 and 19 as two first sound guiding holes) that are configured to emit the sound within the first frequency range (openings 13 and 19 to emit the sound within the first frequency range generated by the bass speaker 7);
the high frequency acoustic driver is acoustically coupled one single second sound guiding hole (Fig. 1, opening 17 as sound guiding hole) is configured to emit the sound within the second frequency range (opening 17 to emit sound within the high frequency range generated by the treble speaker 5).
Rusconi does not explicitly discuss the second frequency range includes a frequency higher than the first frequency range.
However, the second frequency range is high frequency range generated by the treble speaker; thus it would have been obvious that the second frequency range includes a frequency higher than the first frequency range generated by the bass speaker in order to ensure that the speaker can reproduce a broader spectrum of sounds accurately. A higher high frequency range than the base speaker’s range is necessary to ensure that the speaker can handle the full range of frequencies, from the deep base to the treble, without altering the sound quality.
As to claim 2, Rusconi teaches the speaker device of claim 1, wherein the low frequency acoustic driver (Fig. 4, 7) includes a pair of low frequency speaker units (Fig. 4, sections 7, 28, 30, 10, 13 generate sound wave 35 as first low frequency speaker unit; and sections 7, 29, 16, 19 generate sound wave 36 as second low frequency speaker unit).
As to claim 3, Rusconi teaches the speaker device of claim 2, wherein sounds generated by the pair of first frequency speaker units are in opposite phases ([0043] – sound waves 35 and sound waves 36 generated by speaker 7 being in opposite phase / 180 degree offset).
As to claim 4, Rusconi teaches the speaker device of claim 1, wherein the low frequency acoustic driver (Fig. 4, 7) includes a low frequency speaker unit (bass speaker 7 as a low frequency speaker unit) and the high frequency acoustic driver (5) includes a high frequency speaker unit (treble speaker 5 as a high frequency speaker unit).
As to claim 5, as known in the art, the bass speaker in general would include frequency range including frequencies below 650 Hz and the treble speaker in general would include frequency range including frequencies above 1000 Hz. Thus, bass speaker 7 disclosed in Fig. 1 or 3 would at least inherently include frequency range fell within frequencies below 650 Hz; and the treble speaker 5 disclosed in Fig. 1 or 3 would at least inherently include frequency range fell within frequencies above 1000 Hz.
As to claim 7, Rusconi teaches the speaker of device 1, wherein a center point of one of the first sound guiding holes (openings 13 and 19 as two first sound guiding holes) obviously having a center point that is not greater than 10 cm from the center point of the ear canal (22) of the user based on a distance between the ear canal and the top of the ear when the eyewear (1) is worn on the ear of the user.
As to claim 8, Rusconi teaches the speaker device of claim 1, wherein shapes of the two first sound guiding holes or the second sound guiding hole are strips (Figs. 1 & 2 show shape of the two first sound guiding holes or the second sound guiding hole are strips, openings 11-13 and 17-19 shown in Fig. 2).
As to claim 10, Rusconi teaches speaker of claim 1, wherein the two first sound guiding holes emit the sound within the first frequency range through two first sound guiding tube and the second sound guiding hole emits the sound with the second frequency range through one second sound guiding tube.
As to claim 14, Rusconi teaches speaker of claim 1, wherein the low frequency acoustic driver is located at a front end of the housing, and the high frequency acoustic driver is located at a back end of the housing (Fig. 1, low frequency acoustic driver 7 is located toward front end of housing 4 compares to the high frequency acoustic driver 5 is located after the low frequency acoustic driver 7 or toward back end of housing 4).
As to claim 15, Rusconi teaches speaker of claim 1, wherein the low frequency acoustic driver and the high frequency acoustic driver are located at a back end of the housing (Fig. 1, low frequency acoustic driver 7 and high frequency acoustic driver 5 are located toward back end of the housing 4).
As to claim 17, Rusconi teaches speaker of claim 1, wherein a baffle structure (Figs. 2 & 4 show a baffle structure (housing part 31 and/or 32 of element 4 as a baffle) is disposed between the two first sound guiding holes ( openings 13 and 19).
As to claim 19, Rusconi teaches the two first guiding holes (openings 13 and 19 as two first sound guiding holes) are spaced apart from each other by a first distance. Rusconi does not explicitly discuss the first distance is not greater than 40 mm. It is considered as obvious because it is just a matter of design choice or matter of changing size of the guiding tubes since Rusconi does teach the use of the guiding tube and limitations related to the size including radius or length of the guiding tube as claimed were not sufficient to patentable distinction over the prior art, see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1958) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1975), and further because the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device when there only difference between the prior art and the claimed was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, see In re Gardner, 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, forming the size including radius or length of the guiding tube as claimed in claims 13-15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed as a matter of design choice or matter of changing in size of the device in order to obtain an alternative embodiment without any unexpected result.
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior art Rusconi et al. (2019/0052954) in view of Karkkainen et al. (2013/0051585) or Bruss et al. (2013/0028437).
As to claim 6, Rusconi does not explicitly discuss the speaker device of claim 1, wherein the first frequency range and the second frequency range overlap each other.
Karkkainen the use of a bass signal for the bass speaker having frequency range from 300 Hz – 1500 Hz and a treble signal for the treble speaker having frequency ranging from 1500 Hz – 10000 Hz, and accordingly, the frequency for the bass speaker and the frequency for the treble at least overlap at 1500 Hz. ([0052]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rusconi, based on the teachings of Karkkainen by selecting or using the frequency for the bass speaker and the frequency for the treble speaker that are overlapped. The motivation for this modification is to provide better sound to the user and/or improve private of the playback sound.
OR
Bruss teaches the low frequency range and the high frequency range may overlap to some extent, such that the highest frequency of the high frequency range is higher than the highest frequency of the low frequency range and the lowest frequency of the low frequency range is lower than the lowest frequency of the high frequency range, but the highest frequency of the low frequency range is higher than the lowest frequency of the high frequency range ([0030]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bruss into the teachings of Rusconi so that the low frequency range and the high frequency range may be mutually exclusive, such that the lowest frequency of the high frequency range is higher than the highest frequency of the low frequency range.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior art Rusconi et al. (2019/0052954) in view of Matsuo et al. (2017/0230741).
As to claim 9, Rusconi does not explicitly discuss the speaker device of claim 1, wherein one of the two first sound guiding holes and the second sound guiding hole share a same sound guiding hole.
Matsuo teaches BA driver unit responsible for mid and high frequency ranges ([0058]); part of the sound of the BA driver unit released to the outside to attenuate the low frequencies ([0067]); and each of the BA driver units may be provided with a sound guide hole and a sound output port, or the two BA driver units may share one sound guide hole and one sound output port ([0075]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rusconi, based on the teachings of Matsuo, by having guiding holes sharing a same sound guiding hole in order to provide better sound to the user and/or improve private of the playback sound.
5. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior art Rusconi et al. (2019/0052954) in view of Marxen et al. (2017/0127199).
As to claim 11, Rusconi does not explicitly discuss the speaker device of claim 10, wherein a radius of the two first guiding tubes or the second guiding tube is between 1.75 mm and 5 mm.
Marxen teaches the sound tube 40 can take any suitable shape or combination of shapes and have any suitable dimensions. In one or more embodiments, the sound tube 40 has a substantially circular cross-section along a length of the sound tube. In one or more embodiments, the cross-section of the sound tube 40 is constant in a direction along the length of the sound tube. Further, in one or more embodiments, the cross-section of the sound tube 40 varies in the direction along the length ([0049]).
It would have been obvious that the radius of sound guiding tubes are purely design choice and can take any suitable dimensions. It is considered as obvious because it is just a matter of design choice or matter of changing size of the guiding tubes since Rusconi does teach the use of the guiding tube and limitations related to the size including radius or length of the guiding tube as claimed were not sufficient to patentable distinction over the prior art, see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1958) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1975), and further because the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device when there only difference between the prior art and the claimed was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, see In re Gardner, 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, forming the size including radius or length of the guiding tube as claimed in claims 13-15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed as a matter of design choice or matter of changing in size of the device in order to obtain an alternative embodiment without any unexpected result.
As to claim 12, Marsen teaches the speaker device of claim 10, wherein a length of each of the two first guiding tubes or the second guiding tube is not greater than 100 mm ([0049] - the length of the sound tube 40 is at least 1 mm and no greater than 100 mm).
As to claim 13, Marsen teaches the speaker device of claim 10, wherein a length diameter ratio of each of the two first guiding tubes or the second guiding tube is not greater than 200 mm ([0049] - an inner diameter of the sound tube 40 can have any suitable dimensions. In one or more embodiments, the inner diameter of the sound tube 40 can be equal to at least 0.5 mm and no greater than 5 mm).
6. Claims 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over submitted prior art Rusconi et al. (2019/0052954) in view of CN 206865707 (15 pages).
As to claim 16, Rusconi does not explicitly discuss the speaker device of claim 1, wherein the two first sound guiding holes or the second sound guiding hole are set at a front end of the housing. However, Rusconi teaches opening 19 as first sound guiding hole is at front end of the housing 4 of Fig. 4.
CN 206865707 teach second sound guiding hole is set at a front end of the housing (Fig. 2, high frequency sound guide tube 42 at front end of the housing).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of CN 206865707 into the teachings of Rusconi for the purpose providing user with easy maintenance.
As to claim 18, Rusconi teaches speaker of claim 16, wherein an auricle of the user serves as the baffle structure that is disposed between the two first sound guiding holes (when the device shown in Figs. 1 & 2 is worn by the user, the auricle of the user would interfere with the sound waves outputted from the sound openings and thus serves as the baffle structure).
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,351. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope and transparently found in the U.S. Patent No. 11,856,351 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
18/814576
US Patent 11,856,351
A speaker device, comprising:
An open earphone, comprising:
a housing, wherein the housing is placed on at least one ear of a user while not blocking an ear canal of the user;
a housing, wherein the housing is placed on a head or at least one ear of a user while not blocking an ear canal of the user;
a low-frequency acoustic driver accommodated in the housing and configured to generate sound within a first frequency range;
a low-frequency acoustic driver encapsulated in the housing and configured to generate sound within a first frequency range;
a high-frequency acoustic driver accommodated in the housing and configured to generate sound within a second frequency range, wherein
the second frequency range includes a frequency higher than the first frequency range, and
a high-frequency acoustic driver encapsulated in the housing and configured to generate sound within a second frequency range includes a frequency higher than the first frequency range, wherein
the low-frequency acoustic driver is acoustically coupled with two first sound guiding holes that are configured to emit the sound within the first frequency range; and
two first sound guiding holes configured to emit the sound within the first frequency range; and
the high-frequency acoustic driver is acoustically coupled with one single second sound guiding holes is configured to emit the sound within the second frequency range.
two second sound guiding holes configured to emit the sound within the second frequency range, wherein one of the two first sound guiding holes and one of the two second sound guiding holes share a same sound guiding hole.
Examiner also notes that claims 4, 5 , 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the ‘576 Patent application respectively corresponds to claims 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of US Patent 11,856,351.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 20 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.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM.
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 on 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights