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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 13-15, 17, and 19, and the cancellation of claims 4 and 8, and the addition of claim 20 filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-20 are currently pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Seeley in modifying Van ‘T Hof, as Seeley is directed to a different field of endeavor. On current review, Seeley discloses a valve for controlling the flow of fluids, see [0007] of Seeley, whereas the claimed invention is directed to a hearing protection device configured to attenuate sound waves propagating through a sound path.
Examiner’s response: In response to applicant's argument that Seeley is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Seeley reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, as Seeley discloses a piezoelectric actuator/plurality of elongate fingers that act like a flap to at least partially close an opening.
Applicant’s argument: On current review, the structure disclosed in Seeley does not include such a gap between the elongated flap portions and the flow-directing structure in a non-actuated state [as now claimed in amended claims 1 and 19]. To the contrary, Seeley requires sealing contact between these elements. This requirement is explicitly stated in paragraph [0010] of Seeley. The absence of a gap is a functional necessity in Seeley, given that the device is intended to prevent gas flow in a closed state. Accordingly, even the Examiner’s proposed combination of Van ‘T Hof and Seeley fails to disclose or suggest a plurality of elongate fingers arranged such that a gap is present between the first and second portions in a non-actuated state, with that gap forming part of a sound path [as currently amended].
Examiner’s response: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, in light of the amendments made to the independent claims, the office action has been updated, and VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL now reads on the amended claims. STOPPEL is a teaching reference to modify the first and second portions of VAN ‘T HOF, and teaches a gap, which forms at least part of a sound path, present between analogous first and second portions. Therefore, the primary reference is VAN ‘T HOF, not Seeley, therefore, the arguments against Seeley requiring sealing contact between elements is moot, as Seeley is not the primary reference being modified to have a gap.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant is unable to find either in the statement of rejection or in the cited prior art based on current review thereof the elements of claim 20.
Examiner’s response: In light of the addition of claim 20, the office action has been updated. See below.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, “to alter an acoustic response” in lines 2-3 should be recited as “to alter the acoustic response.”
Regarding claim 20, “the dimensions” in lines 10-11 should be recited as “dimensions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5-6, and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN ‘T HOF et al. (referred to as “VAN ‘T HOF”) (US 2020/0352788 A1) in view of Seeley et al. (referred to as “Seeley”) (US 2005/0133751 A1) further in view of STOPPEL et al. (referred to as “STOPPEL”) (US 2020/0100033 A1).
Regarding claim 1, VAN ‘T HOF discloses a hearing protection device (100) for insertion into an ear canal of a mammalian subject (see Fig. 3B and [0034]; earplug 100 is a hearing protection device that is inserted into an ear canal of a mammalian subject), comprising a first adjustable acousto-mechanical element (10), the first acousto-mechanical element (10) comprising:
a first portion (11) having an opening (12a) which forms at least part of a sound path (see Figs. 4A-4C; filter housing 11 is a first portion with an aperture 12a which forms at least part of a sound path as sound passage 12 extends through filter housing 11 for receiving sound, see [0035]);
a second portion (13) configured to at least partially close the opening (12a) (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0036], [0039]; valve system 13 comprises one or more acoustic valves 13a which is configured to at least partially close the aperture 12a); and
an actuation portion configured to exert a force on the second portion (13a) (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0039]; the one or more acoustic valves 13a comprises an actuator, such as piezoelectric material for actuating the valves, and thus this piezoelectric material (not shown) is an actuator portion configured to exert a force on the one or more acoustic valve 13a)
wherein, the force exerted by the actuation portion causes at least part of the second portion (13a) to move towards/away from the first portion (11), varying dimensions of the opening (12a) to alter an acoustic response of the sound path (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0039]; the force exerted by the actuator, which is the piezoelectric bender, causes at least part of the acoustic valve 13a to move towards/away from the filter housing 11, as the acoustic valve 13a pivots, lifts, or bends towards/away from filter housing 11, as seen in Figs. 4A-4C, which varies the dimension of the aperture 12a to alter an acoustic response of the sound path).
VAN ‘T HOF is silent on the second portion comprising a plurality of elongate fingers; and wherein the first and second portions are arranged such that, in a non-actuated state, a gap is present between the first and second portions, the gap forming at least part of the sound path.
However, Seeley teaches an analogous second portion (34) (see Fig. 1; elongated flap portions 34 are analogous second portions as they are configured to at least partially close openings or slots 26, see [0010]), and wherein the second portion (34) comprises a plurality of elongate fingers (34) (see Fig. 1 and [0010]; the piezoelectric bending actuator 16 comprises elongated flap portions 34, as seen in Fig. 1, which are interpreted as a plurality of elongate fingers as they are a plurality of elongate extensions that are joined at attachment portion 36), providing greater flexibility and quicker response time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second portion (13) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF to comprise a plurality of elongate fingers (34) as taught by Seeley to have provided an improved hearing protection device that provides greater flexibility and quicker response time.
VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley discloses the invention as discussed above.
VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley is silent on wherein the first and second portions are arranged such that, in a non-acutated state, a gap is present between the first and second portions, the gap forming at least part of the sound path.
However, STOPPEL teaches an analogous first portion (22****) and an analogous second portion (10) (see Fig. 13d and [0137]; diaphragm structure 22**** is an analogous first portion as it has an opening or cavity below the overhang, and actuator 10 is an analogous second portion as it at least partially closes the opening/slit 14), and wherein the first and second portions (22****, 10) are arranged such that, in a non-actuated state, a gap (14’) is present between the first and second portions (22****, 10), the gap (14’) forming at least part of the sound path (see Fig. 13d and [0137]; in a non-actuated state, when actuator 10 is planar as shown in Fig. 13d in dotted lines, slit 14’ is present between the diaphragm structure 22**** and the actuator 10, and the slit 14’ forms at least part of a sound path as it allows sound to travel), providing to attenuate harmful sounds while still allowing a user to hear some important things, like voices or one’s surroundings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first portion (11 of VAN ‘T HOF) and second portion (13 of VAN ‘T HOF) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley in a non-actuated state, to be arranged such that a gap (130) is present between the first and second portions, the gap forming at least part of a sound path as taught by STOPPEL to have provided an improved hearing protection device that attenuates harmful sounds while still allowing a user to hear some important things, like voices or one’s surroundings.
Regarding claim 2, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL further discloses wherein the actuation portion comprises a piezoelectric material (see [0039] and Figs. 4A-4C of VAN ‘T HOF; the one or more acoustic valves 13a of VAN ‘T HOF comprises an actuator, which may be a piezoelectric material).
Regarding claim 3, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 2. VAN ‘T HOF further discloses wherein the piezoelectric material is provided on the second portion (13 of VAN ‘T HOF) (see [0039] of VAN ‘T HOF which discusses how the valve system 13 of VAN ‘T HOF comprises a piezoelectric material for actuating the valves, such as ceramic piezoelectric benders, and thus the piezoelectric material is provided on the valve system), wherein the second portion (13 of VAN ‘T HOF) is configured to deform relative to the first portion (11 of VAN ‘T HOF) (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0039] of VAN ‘T HOF; the acoustic valve 13a of VAN ‘T HOF of the valve system 13 of VAN ‘T HOF is configured to deform relative to filter housing 11 of VAN ‘T HOF as the acoustic valve 13a of VAN ‘T HOF may pivot, lift, or bend).
Seeley further teaches an analogous second portion (34) (see Fig. 1; flap portions 34 are analogous second portions as they are configured to at least partially close openings or slots 26), and wherein second portion (34) is configured to deform relative to the first portion (14) upon application of a voltage to the piezoelectric material (16) (see Figs. 1-2 and [0010]-[0011]; the flap portions 34 are configured to deform as the flap portions 34 may bend, as seen in Fig. 1 via bent elongated flap portion 40, relative to flow directing structure 14 upon application of a voltage to the piezoelectric bending actuator 16), providing to control the device in a precise and efficient manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second portion (13 of VAN ‘T HOF) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL to deform relative to the first portion upon application of a voltage to the piezoelectric material as taught by Seeley to have provided an improved hearing protection device that provides to control the device in a precise and efficient manner.
Regarding claim 5, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Seeley further teaches wherein the second portion (34) comprises a connecting band (36) (see Fig. 1 and [0010]; the elongated flap portions 34 is an analogous second portion as it is configured to at least partially close openings/slots 26, and the elongated flap portions 34 comprises attachment portion 36, which is a connecting band as this attachment portion 36 area connects the elongate flaps 34 on the left and on the right sides together), providing a connecting band that holds the plurality of elongate fingers together such that they are able to independently bend/lift in response to a force.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the plurality of elongate fingers (34 of Seeley) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL with a connecting band (36) as taught by Seeley to have provided an improved hearing protection device that has a connecting band to hold the plurality of elongate fingers together such that they are able to independently bend/lift in response to a force.
Regarding claim 6, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley discloses the invention as discussed in claim 5.
Seeley further teaches wherein the analogous actuation portion (16) comprises piezoelectric material (52) which is provided on both the plurality of elongate fingers (34) and the connecting band (36) (see Figs. 1-2 and [0012]-[0014]; the piezoelectric bending actuator 16 is an analogous actuation portion as it is an actuator, and the piezoelectric bending actuator 16 is shown in an exploded view in Fig. 2, which shows the piezoelectric layer 52 which is a piezoelectric material and this material is provided on both the elongated flap portions 34 and attachment portion 36 as the piezoelectric layer 52 extends the length of the piezoelectric bending actuator 16), providing for stronger opening/closing of the apertures and thus allowing for smoother control over the acousto-mechanical element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuation portion in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL to comprise piezoelectric material on both the elongate fingers and the connecting band as taught by Seeley to have provided an improved hearing protection device that provides for stronger opening/closing of the apertures and thus allows for smoother control over the acousto-mechanical element.
Regarding claim 9, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL further discloses wherein the first (11 of VAN ‘T HOF) and second portions (13a of VAN ‘T HOF) are arranged such that at least part of the first portion (11 of VAN ‘T HOF) overlaps at least part of the second portion (13a of VAN ‘T HOF) (see Figs. 4A-4C of VAN ‘T HOF; the filter housing 11 of VAN ‘T HOF overlaps at least part of the valves 13a, 13b of VAN ‘T HOF when the valves 13a,13b of VAN ‘T HOF are in a closed configuration and they engage with filter housing 11 of VAN ‘T HOF).
STOPPEL further teaches wherein the analogous first and second portions (22****, 10) are arranged such that at least part of the first portion (22****) overlaps at least part of the second portion (10) (see Fig. 13d and [0137]; a portion of the diaphragm structure 22**** overlaps with at least part of the actuator 10 at the free end 10f via the widening or overhang structure), providing a mechanical stop to enable mechanical overload protection (see [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first portion (11 of VAN ‘T HOF) and second portion (13 of VAN ‘T HOF) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL to be arranged such that at least part of the first portion overlaps at least part of the second portion as taught by STOPPEL to have provided an improved hearing protection device that provides a mechanical stop to enable mechanical overload protection (see [0137]).
Regarding claim 10, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 9.
STOPPEL further teaches wherein the analogous first and second portions (22****, 10) are offset, such that, in a non-actuated state, a tortuous path is formed between overlapping parts of the first and second portions (22****, 10) (see Fig. 13d and [0137]; the diaphragm structure 22**** and the actuator 10 are offset such that in a non-actuated state, a tortuous path is formed between the overlapping parts of the diaphragm structure 22**** and actuator 10, as seen in Fig. 13d when actuator 10 is in a non-actuated state which is shown as actuator 10 being linear (not deflected/bent in any way) the free end 10f of the actuator 10 overlaps with the diaphragm structure 22**** via the widening or overhang structure, and forms a tortuous path or a not straightforward path), providing a mechanical stop to enable mechanical overload protection (see [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second portions (11, 13 in view of VAN ‘T HOF) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL to be offset, such that, in a non-actuated state, a tortuous path is formed between the overlapping parts of the first and second portions as taught by STOPPEL to have provided an improved hearing protection device that provides a mechanical stop to enable mechanical overload protection (see [0137]).
Regarding claim 11, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL further discloses wherein the first portion (11 of VAN ‘T HOF) has a plurality of discrete openings (12a, 12b of VAN ‘T HOF) (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0044] of VAN ‘T HOF; apertures 12a, 12b of VAN ‘T HOF are a plurality of discrete openings within filter housing 11 of VAN ‘T HOF), and the first adjustable acousto-mechanical element (10 of VAN ‘T HOF) comprises a respective plurality of second portions (13a, 13b of VAN ‘T HOF) configured to at least partially close the plurality of discrete openings (12a, 12b of VAN ‘T HOF) (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0045]-[0046] of VAN ‘T HOF; a plurality of acoustic valves 13a, 13b of VAN ‘T HOF are configured to at least partially close the plurality of apertures 12a, 12b of VAN ‘T HOF, respectively).
Regarding claim 12, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL further discloses a user operable input to adjust the first adjustable acousto-mechanical element (10 of VAN ‘T HOF) (see [0041] of VAN ‘T HOF which discusses how a controller 14 of VAN ‘T HOF may adjust the acoustic filter 10 of VAN ‘T HOF via a volume knob or volume input from another device such as a smartphone and thus is a user operable input, as the specification states the user operable input may be a button, see Pg. 5 lines 20-22 of applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 13, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL further discloses comprising an adjustment arrangement (14 of VAN ‘T HOF) for adjusting the first adjustable acousto-mechanical element (10 of VAN ‘T HOF), and a controller (volume knob) arranged to control the adjustment arrangement so as to alter the acoustic response of the sound path (see [0040]-[0041] of VAN ‘T HOF which discusses how controller 14 adjusts the acoustic filter 10 of VAN ‘T HOF via a volume knob or volume input from another device, e.g., a smartphone, which is a controller arranged to control the controller 14 so as to alter the acoustic response of the sound path).
Regarding claim 14, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL further discloses a user input, which enables a user to select operation of the hearing protection device (100 of VAN ‘T HOF) (see [0041] of VAN ‘T HOF which discusses how a controller 14 of VAN ‘T HOF may adjust the acoustic filter 10 of VAN ‘T HOF via a volume knob or volume input from another device such as a smartphone and thus is a user input which enables the user to select operation of the earplug 100 of VAN ‘T HOF as the controller may be integrated with the earplug).
Regarding claim 15, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of STOPPEL further discloses wherein the first adjustable acousto-mechanical element (10 of VAN ‘T HOF) comprises part of a set of acoustic elements, controlling the frequency response of the attenuation (the acoustic filter 10 of VAN ‘T HOF comprises part of a set of acoustic elements such as an acoustic filter, controlling the frequency response of the attenuation of sound, see [0040]-[0042] of VAN ‘T HOF).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley in view of STOPPEL further in view of Ozevin (US 12,407,974 B2).
Regarding claim 7, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 5.
VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL is silent on wherein the actuation portion comprises a piezoelectric material which is provided on the connecting band only.
However, Ozevin teaches an analogous piezoelectric material (122) (see Figs. 12A; piezoelectric material 122), wherein the piezoelectric material is provided on the analogous connecting band (120) only (see Fig. 12A; the central disk-shaped portion 120 is an analogous connecting band as the central disk-shaped portion 120 centrally connects/joins each of the cantilever beams 124,125,126,127, which are analogous elongate fingers as they are extensions and the central disk-shaped portion 120 is an elongate area, and the piezoelectric material 122 is provided only on the central disk-shaped portion 120, as it is not on the cantilever beams, as seen in Fig. 12A, see Col. 11 lines 19-27), providing a device that is lower in cost, and requires less voltage and energy, conserving energy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the piezoelectric material of the actuation portion in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL to only be provided on the connecting band as taught by Ozevin to have provided an improved hearing protection device that is lower in cost and requires less voltage and energy, conserving energy.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley in view of STOPPEL further in view of Kvaloy et al. (referred to as “Kvaloy”) (US 2022/0168149 A1).
Regarding claim 16, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL further discloses a second acousto-mechanical element (15 of VAN ‘T HOF), arranged acoustically in series with the first adjustable acousto-mechanical element (13 of VAN ‘T HOF) (see Figs. 7A-7C and [0061] of VAN ‘T HOF; acoustic element 15 is a second acousto-mechanical element, and can be arranged acoustically in series with valve system 13, as discussed in [0061] of VAN ‘T HOF), the second acousto-mechanical element (15 of VAN ‘T HOF) comprising a membrane (see Figs. 7A-7C and [0061] of VAN ‘T HOFwhich discusses the acoustic element 15 being a flexible membrane).
VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL is silent on the second acousto-mechanical element being adjustable, and comprising an adjustable membrane.
However, Kvaloy teaches an analogous second adjustable acousto-mechanical element (26) comprising an analogous membrane (26) (see Figs. 3, 7, 9a-9b and [0081]), and comprising an adjustable membrane (26) (see Figs. 3, 7, 9a-9b and [0081], and [0091]; the adjustable membrane 26 is an analogous second adjustable acousto-mechanical element as the tension on the adjustable membrane 26 is adjustable), providing to achieve acoustic response of the sound path which does not significantly reduce the quality of the sound passing through the sound path while maintaining the ability to control the sound (see [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second acousto-mechanical element (15 of VAN ‘T HOF) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely further in view of STOPPEL to be an adjustable membrane (26) as taught by Kvaloy to have provided an improved hearing protection device that achieves acoustic response of the sound path which does not significantly reduce the quality of the sound passing through the sound path while maintaining the ability to control the sound (see [0011]).
Regarding claim 17, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely in view of STOPPEL further in view of Kvaloy discloses the invention as discussed in claim 16.
Kvaloy further teaches an adjustment arrangement for simultaneously adjusting the first and second adjustable acousto-mechanical elements (4, 26) to alter an acoustic response of the one sound path (see [0079] which discusses an adjustable channel 4 which is a first adjustable acousto-mechanical element, and this adjustable channel 4 is adjusted via actuation member 16 as discussed in [0080], and [0094] further discusses how actuation member 16 may be used to control the position of the piston 8 for adjustable channel 4, and simultaneously adjust the tension on the membrane 26, the second acousto-mechanical element, to control the acoustic response of the sound path through the device, also see [0096]), providing to achieve acoustic response of the sound path which does not significantly reduce the quality of the sound passing through the sound path while maintaining the ability to control the sound (see [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first and second adjustable acousto-mechanical elements in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely in view of STOPPEL further in view of Kvaloy with an adjustment arrangement (actuation member 16) for simultaneously adjusting the first and second adjustable acousto-mechanical elements to alter an acoustic response of the at least one sound path as taught by Kvaloy to have provided an improved hearing protection device that achieves acoustic response of the sound path which does not significantly reduce the quality of the sound passing through the sound path while maintaining the ability to control the sound (see [0011]).
Regarding claim 18, VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely in view of STOPPEL further in view of Kvaloy discloses the invention as discussed in claim 17. VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seely in view of STOPPEL further in view of Kvaloy further discloses wherein the adjustment arrangement comprises a second actuator (16 of Kvaloy) for adjusting the second adjustable acousto-mechanical element (26 of Kvaloy) (as previously modified above, see claim 17, actuation member 16 of Kvaloy is a second actuator, as the first actuator is the piezoelectric bender, see [0039] of VAN ‘T HOF, for adjusting the adjustable membrane 26 of Kvaloy, see [0094]-[0096] of Kvaloy).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley further in view of Liang et al. (referred to as “Liang”) (US 11,399,228 B2).
Regarding claim 19, VAN ‘T HOF discloses an adjustable acousto-mechanical element (10), the adjustable acousto-mechanical element (10) comprising:
a first portion (11) forming an opening (12a) which forms at least part of a sound path (see Figs. 4A-4C; filter housing 11 is a first portion which forms an aperture 12a which forms at least part of a sound path as sound passage 12 extends through filter housing 11 for receiving sound, see [0035]);
a second portion (13a) configured to at least partially close the opening (12a) (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0036], [0039]; valve system 13 comprises one or more acoustic valves 13a which is configured to at least partially close the aperture 12a); and
an actuation portion configured to exert a force on the second portion (13a) (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0039]; the one or more acoustic valves 13a comprises an actuator, such as piezoelectric material for actuating the valves, and thus this piezoelectric material (not shown) is an actuator portion configured to exert a force on the one or more acoustic valve 13a),
wherein, the force exerted by the actuation portion causes at least part of the second portion (13a) to move towards/away from the first portion (11), varying dimensions of the opening (12a) to alter an acoustic response of the sound path (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0039]; the force exerted by the actuator, which is the piezoelectric bender, causes at least part of the acoustic valve 13a to move towards/away from the filter housing 11, as the acoustic valve 13a pivots, lifts, or bends towards/away from filter housing 11, as seen in Figs. 4A-4C, which varies the dimension of the aperture 12a to alter an acoustic response of the sound path).
VAN ‘T HOF is silent on the second portion comprising a plurality of elongate fingers; and wherein the first and second portions are arranged such that, in a non-actuated state, a gap is present between the first and second portions, the gap forming at least part of the sound path.
However, Seeley teaches an analogous second portion (34) (see Fig. 1; elongated flap portions 34 are analogous second portions as they are configured to at least partially close openings or slots 26, see [0010]), and wherein the second portion (34) comprises a plurality of elongate fingers (34) (see Fig. 1 and [0010]; the piezoelectric bending actuator 16 comprises elongated flap portions 34, as seen in Fig. 1, which are interpreted as a plurality of elongate fingers as they are a plurality of elongate extensions that are joined at attachment portion 36), providing greater flexibility and quicker response time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second portion (13) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF to comprise a plurality of elongate fingers (34) as taught by Seeley to have provided an improved hearing protection device that provides greater flexibility and quicker response time.
VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley discloses the invention as discussed above.
VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley is silent on wherein the first and second portions are arranged such that, in a non-acutated state, a gap is present between the first and second portions, the gap forming at least part of the sound path.
However, Liang teaches an analogous first portion (BS+140) and second portion (110) (see Fig. 10; anchor structure 140+base BS is an analogous first portion as it is a fixed portion that has an opening BVT and first membrane 110 is an analogous second portion as it is configured to at least partially close the opening), and wherein the first (BS+140) and second portions (110) are arranged such that, in a non-actuated state, a gap (130) is present between the first and second portions (BS+140,110), the gap (130) forming at least part of a sound path (see Fig. 10-12; in a non-actuated state, slit 130 or gap is present between the first and second portions, and the slit 130 forms at least part of a sound path as the slit 130 forms a vent 130T), providing to attenuate harmful sounds while still allowing a user to hear some important things, like voices or one’s surroundings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first portion (11 of VAN ‘T HOF) and second portion (13 of VAN ‘T HOF) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Seeley in a non-actuated state, to be arranged such that a gap (130) is present between the first and second portions, the gap forming at least part of a sound path as taught by Liang to have provided an improved hearing protection device that attenuates harmful sounds while still allowing a user to hear some important things, like voices or one’s surroundings.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN ‘T HOF in view of Liang further in view of Seeley.
Regarding claim 20, VAN ‘T HOF discloses an adjustable acousto-mechanical element (10), the adjustable acousto-mechanical element (10) comprising:
a first portion (11) forming an opening (12a) which forms at least part of a sound path (see Figs. 4A-4C; filter housing 11 is a first portion with an aperture 12a which forms at least part of a sound path as sound passage 12 extends through filter housing 11 for receiving sound, see [0035]);
a second portion (13a) configured to at least partially close the opening (12a) (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0036], [0039]; valve system 13 comprises one or more acoustic valves 13a which is configured to at least partially close the aperture 12a);
an actuation portion comprising piezoelectric material configured to exert a force on the second portion (13a) (see Figs. 4A-4C and [0039]; the one or more acoustic valves 13a of the valve system 13 comprises an actuator, such as piezoelectric material for actuating the valves, and thus this piezoelectric material (not shown) is an actuator portion configured to exert a force on the one or more acoustic valve 13a),
wherein the piezoelectric material is provided on the second portion (13a) (see [0039] which discusses how the acoustic valves 13a comprises a piezoelectric material for actuating the valves, such as ceramic piezoelectric benders, and thus the piezoelectric material is provided on the acoustic valve 13a), the second portion (13a) is configured to deform relative to the first portion (11) such that at least part of the second portion (13a) moves towards/away from the first portion (11), varying the dimensions of the opening (12a) to alter an acoustic response of the sound path (see [0039] and Figs. 4A-4C; the acoustic valve 13a is configured to pivot, lift, or bend and thus deforms relative to the filter housing 11, such that at least part of the acoustic valve 13a moves towards/away from the filter housing 11 as acoustic valve 13a acts like a flap and moves towards/away from the filter housing 11, and thus varying dimensions of aperture 12a to alter an acoustic response of the sound path).
VAN ‘T HOF is silent on wherein the first and second portions are formed from a single piece of material; and wherein the second portion is configured to deform relative to the first portion upon application of a voltage to the piezoelectric material.
However, Liang teaches an analogous first portion (140) and second portion (110) (see Fig. 10; anchor structure 140 is an analogous first portion as it is a fixed portion that has slit or opening 130 and first membrane 110 is an analogous second portion as it is configured to at least partially close the slit or opening), wherein the first and second portions (140, 110) are formed from a single piece of material (see Fig. 10 and Col. 6 lines 16-27 which discusses how the anchor structure 140 and first membrane 110 may each be formed from any suitable material, such as silicon which is a single piece of material), providing an easy way to manufacture the first and second portions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second portions (11, 13) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF to be formed from a single piece of material as taught by Liang to have provided an improved adjustable acousto-mechanical element that is easy to manufacture.
VAN ‘T HOF in view of Liang discloses the invention as discussed above.
VAN ‘T HOF in view of Liang is silent on wherein the second portion is configured to deform relative to the first portion upon application of a voltage to the piezoelectric material.
However, Seeley teaches an analogous second portion (34) (see Fig. 1; flap portions 34 are analogous second portions as they are configured to at least partially close openings or slots 26), and wherein second portion 34 is configured to deform relative to the first portion (14) upon application of a voltage to the piezoelectric material (16) (see Figs. 1-2 and [0010]-[0011]; the flap portions 34 are configured to deform as the flap portions 34 may bend, as seen in Fig. 1 via bent elongated flap portion 40, relative to flow directing structure 14 upon application of a voltage to the piezoelectric bending actuator 16), providing to control the device in a precise and efficient manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have modified the second portion (13a of VAN ‘T HOF) in the device of VAN ‘T HOF in view of Liang to deform relative to the first portion upon application of a voltage to the piezoelectric material as taught by Seeley to have provided an improved acousto-mechanical element that provides to control the device in a precise and efficient manner.
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 ROBIN HAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9-5 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, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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.
/ROBIN HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786