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 14 and 15 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 14 is indefinite because there is no positive antecedent basis for “the at least first hole”. It appears claim 13 should depend from claim 4 which provides the antecedent basis.
Claim 15 is indefinite because there is no positive antecedent basis for “the second … holes”. It appears claim 13 should depend from claim 4 which provides the antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woon et al. (KR-102489062-B1, in view of the English Language Translation (ELT)).
Regarding claim 1, Woon discloses an acoustic processing apparatus (see figures 1-3), comprising: an enclosure; a sound duct 300 extending from the enclosure; and a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device 320 housed within the sound duct 300 (see figure 3 which teaches that the feedback microphone 320 housed within the sound duct 300 is a MEMS device).
Regarding claim 2, the MEMS device includes at least one of a MEMS driver, a MEMS microphone 320, or a MEMS biosensor. The MEMS device includes at least the MEMS microphone 320 as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, the sound duct 300 and the MEMS device 320 are configured as an integrated MEMS device. See figure 1, for example.
Regarding claim 12, the sound duct 300 has a substantially cylindrical shape. See ELT, page 3.
Regarding claim 20, Woon discloses an acoustic system (see figures 1-3), comprising: a sound source 310 creating a sound wave; an acoustic processing apparatus receiving the sound wave, the acoustic processing apparatus, comprising: an enclosure; a sound duct 300 extending from the enclosure; and a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device 320 housed within the sound duct 300 (see figure 3 which teaches that the feedback microphone 320 housed within the sound duct 300 is a MEMS 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.
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.
Claims 3-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woon et al. (KR-102489062-B1, in view of the English Language Translation (ELT)), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Fransen et al. (US 2023/0117270).
Woon discloses the invention as claimed, including that a receiver 310 is housed within the sound duct 300 and that the MEMS device housed within the sound duct 300 includes at least a MEMS microphone 320, but fails to specifically teach that the receiver 310 is a MEMS driver as claimed (i.e., that the MEMS device housed within the sound duct 300 includes a MEMS driver and the MEMS microphone 320). Fransen discloses an earbud configured for insertion into an ear canal of a user (see fig. 2), wherein the earbud includes a receiver 20 which may be in the form of a MEMS driver (see para. 0078), in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of achieving a receiver 20 which can be miniaturized and is inexpensive to manufacture.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Woon, in view of Fransen, such that the receiver 310 is a MEMS driver as claimed (i.e., that the MEMS device housed within the sound duct 300 includes the MEMS driver 310 and the MEMS microphone 320). A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of achieving a receiver 310 which can be miniaturized and is inexpensive to manufacture.
Regarding claim 4, the MEMS driver 310 includes at least a first hole 311. The MEMS microphone 320 includes at least a second hole 321. Although Woon does not specifically teach that a distance between the at least first hole 311 and the at least second hole 321, in a direction perpendicular to direction D1, is 3 mm or less, it would have been obvious to do this for the purpose of achieving an apparatus which is miniaturized, in at least the direction perpendicular to the direction D1, for ease of insertion of the sound duct 300 into the ear canal of the user.
Regarding claim 5, the MEMS driver 310 and the MEMS microphone 320 are integrally configured. See Woon, figure 1.
Regarding claim 6, the MEMS microphone 320 is a microphone that collects sound reproduced from the MEMS driver 310. Note that MEMS microphone 320 is a feedback microphone which feeds back sound to the MEMS driver 310 for noise control, which would include sound produced by the MEMS driver 310 during operation.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the MEMS driver 310 includes a third hole 340 (see Woon, fig. 1, regarding vent hole 340). Although Woon does not specifically teach that the driver 310 includes a diaphragm, it is well known as taught by Fransen that receivers, of the type as claimed, include a diaphragm in order to produce sound (see Fransen, para. 0080, for example). Further the diaphragm would be considered disposed between the at least first hole 311 and the third hole 310 as claimed.
Claims 7-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woon et al. (KR-102489062-B1, in view of the English Language Translation (ELT)) and Fransen et al. (US 2023/0117270), as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Barnacka et al. (US 2024/0348964) and Han et al. (US 2017/0156002).
Woon, as modified and applied to claim 3 above, discloses the invention as claimed including that the MEMS device includes the MEMS driver 310 and the MEMS microphone 320 (Woon, fig. 1, as modified in view of Fransen), but fails to specifically teach that the MEMS device housed within the sound duct 300 further includes a MEMS biosensor.
Barnacka discloses an earbud configured for insertion into an ear canal of a user (see figs. 5A, 5B, & 7), wherein the earbud includes a biosensor 206A housed within a sound duct 214 of the earbud, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of detecting biosignals from the user’s body via the ear canal to assess the health of the individual (para. 0014). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Woon, in view of Barnacka, such that the MEMS device housed within the sound duct 300 further includes a biosensor. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of detecting biosignals from the user’s body via the ear canal to assess the health of the individual.
Han discloses an earbud, wherein the earbud includes a bio signal sensor which may be in the form of a MEMS sensor (see para. 0074), in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of achieving a bio signal sensor which can be miniaturized and is inexpensive to manufacture. It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Woon, in view of Han, such that the biosensor is a MEMS biosensor as claimed (i.e., that the MEMS device housed within the sound duct 300 includes the MEMS driver 310, the MEMS microphone 320, and a MEMS biosensor). A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of achieving a biosensor which can be miniaturized and is inexpensive to manufacture.
Regarding claim 8, the MEMS driver 310, the MEMS microphone 320, and the MEMS biosensor are integrally configured as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, the MEMS device includes the MEMS biosensor. The MEMS biosensor includes at least one of a blood flow sensor, a heart rate sensor, an electroencephalography sensor, a blood pressure sensor, a blood glucose level sensor or a body temperature sensor. See Barnacka, regarding biosensor being a blood flow sensor (para. 0011), for example. See also, Han, regarding biosensor being a heart beat sensor or a blood flow sensor (para. 0074), for example.
Regarding claim 16, the MEMS biosensor is disclosed by Barnacka as being attached to a wall of the sound duct (see fig. 5A, for example), and as such is considered provided above each of the MEMS driver 310 and the MEMS microphone 320 in a plan view, or at least it would have been obvious to provide the MEMS biosensor as claimed in relation to the MEMS driver and the MEMS microphone.
Regarding claim 17, the MEMS biosensor is disclosed by Barnacka as being attached to a wall of the sound duct (see fig. 5A, for example), and as such is considered provided below each of the MEMS driver 310 and the MEMS microphone 320 in a plan view, or at least it would have been obvious to provide the MEMS biosensor as claimed in relation to the MEMS driver and the MEMS microphone.
Regarding claim 18, the MEMS biosensor is disclosed by Barnacka (para. 0011) and Hans (para. 0074) as being a blood flow sensor. Barnacka further teaches that a sensor within the earbud may be a temperature sensor (para. 0089), and it would have been obvious that the MEMS biosensor includes a blood flow sensor and a body temperature sensor as claimed to achieve a miniaturized sensor which is inexpensive to manufacture.
Regarding claim 19, one of the blood flow sensor and body temperature sensor is provided above each of the MEMS driver and the MEMS microphone and another of the blood flow sensor and the body temperature sensor is provided below each of the MEMS driver and the MEMS microphone as claimed, or at least it would have been obvious to provide the blood flow sensor and the body temperature sensor as claimed in relation to the MEMS driver and the MEMS microphone.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woon et al. (KR-102489062-B1, in view of the English Language Translation (ELT)), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Shin (US 9,654,860).
Woon discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to specifically teach that an attachment member is attached to an outside of the sound duct 300 and is elastically deformable. Shin discloses an earbud including a sound duct 220, wherein an attachment member 400 is attached to an outside of the sound duct 220 and is elastically deformable, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of at least preventing noise from flowing into an ear from an external sound source (see fig. 8, and col. 6, lines 43-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Woon, in view of Shin, such that an attachment member is attached to an outside of the sound duct 300 and is elastically deformable. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of at least preventing noise from flowing into an ear from an external sound source.
Claim 15 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 each disclose an acoustic processing apparatus.
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
September 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights