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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/27/24 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/27/24 are acceptable to the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology often used in patent claims, “means” which should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A HEARING DEVICE THAT PROVIDES A DISPLACMENT BETWEEN A PIVOT HINGE AND A SURFACE OF AN EARPIECE FACING A USER PROVIDING AN EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF A CLAMPING FORCE TO THE EARPIECE WHEN WORN BY A USER
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Independent claim 1 sets forth a hearing device with a distance from the pivot hinge to a primary surface of the earpiece in a range of 5 mm to 15 mm. The specification does not provide any description as to what location on the pivot hinge and what location on the primary surface are used when defining the claimed distance. Without such enablement, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to positively produce the claimed hearing device to achieve an even distribution of a clamping force is applied on the primary surface of the first earpiece (110) when the user is wearing the hearing device in its intended position as set forth. For example, the earpiece includes a cushion (130) that includes a primary surface that surrounds the ear when worn. There are numerous points along this surface and a distance between each of these points and an axis of pivot of a pivot hinge varies depending upon which point along the surface is being considered. On of ordinary skill would not be able to determine from applicants’ specification which point is used to define the distance. Similarly, the pivot hinge is comprised of various portions of the hinge with no specific point of the hinge being disclosed to be used in the defining of the claimed distance. Therefor the written specification does not provide enough specifics of the claimed hearing device to enable of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention as set forth. The limitations of claims 2-9 inherit the language of claim 1 without clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Freeman et al. (US 2020/0296501 A1), cited by applicant..
Re claim 1: Freeman et al. teaches a hearing device (figure 1) configured to be worn on a user's head, the hearing device comprising:
a first earpiece (24) configured to be worn at a first ear of the user, wherein the first earpiece comprises a primary surface (that surface that makes contact with a user’s head surrounding the ear of the user), the primary surface being configured to face the user's first ear when the user is wearing the hearing device in its intended position,
an earpiece support (12) being configured to rest on the user's head, the earpiece support having a first end (closest to pivot 18) and a second end (spaced therefrom);
wherein the first earpiece is pivotably attached to the first end of the earpiece support by means of a first pivot hinge(18), such that a distance from the first pivot hinge to the primary surface of the first earpiece is in the range of about 5 mm to 15 mm, (see arrangement of figures 1 and 5 which when drawing imaginary dashed lines in a similar manner as in applicants disclosed figure 1 whereby the pivot point is located at approximately in line with element (52), figure 4; along with the teaching of figure 5 in which elements (76 and 54) which are substantially the same thickness; and paragraph [0032] teaching the thickness of element (76) and therefore element (54) being between 5 mm and 15 mm) thereby an even distribution of a clamping force is applied on the primary surface of the first earpiece when the user is wearing the hearing device in its intended position, i.e. providing a comfortable fit while wearing the device.
Re claim 2: see earpiece (26) having similar features as that of earpiece (24) as depicted in figures 1
Re claim 3: note use of cushion elements (54) that is used in each of the ear pieces (24 and 26)
Re claim 4: see figures 4 and 7 teaching having connecting elements (end portions connected to the earpieces (24, 26) and pivot hinges (not labelled but similar to (those of figure 1) wherein there is an angle formed between the connecting elements and the primary surfaces between 15 degrees and 90 degrees as depicted
Re claim 7: note use of housings (cans 20 and 22) with the connecting elements used to connect the housings to the earpiece support
Re claim 8: note the headphones taught in Freeman et al. can include at least over-the-ear hearing device as discussed in paragraph [0003].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al. in view of Ding et al. (US 11.523,209 B1).
Re claim 9: The teaching of Freeman et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Freeman et al. however does not teach the use of a microphone boom attached to the earpiece housing(s). Ding et al. teaches in a similar environment to include a microphone boom (such as boom (122)) figure 1B providing a capability of detecting a user’s voice while reducing environmental sounds (as discussed under the section entitled “Example Techniques of Headset Noise Reduction; beginning in column 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate a microphone boom as taught by Ding et al. into the hearing device arrangement of Freeman et al. to predictably provide a means for picking up a user’s voice while reducing other environmental noises. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al. in view of Enquist et al. (US 2021/0195313 A1).
Re claim 5: The teaching of Freeman et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Freeman does not teach the use of stopping elements that limit rotation of the earpiece(s). Enquist et al. teaches in a similar environment to configure the pivot arrangements; i.e. configured with stops to limit rotation of the earpieces (See discussion in paragraph [0052]) to reduce any cable wear in the headphone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this teaching of Enquist et al. into the arrangement of Freeman et al. to predictably provide a way of limiting cable wear. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 6: as seen from figures 7-11 of Enquist et al. the angle of rotation allowed by the use of stop limit configurations of the pivots is within the range as set forth (between about -90 degrees to about 90 degrees)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kelley et al. teaches another headphone arrangement similar to that of applicants claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 6/16/26
Prosecution Insights