CTNF 18/870,813 CTNF 91403 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to communications filed 12/2/2024: Claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13-17, 19-22, and 24-25 are pending Claims 7, 9, 12, 18, and 23 are cancelled Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 13, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehner (DE202009001941, English translation provided by EPO) . Regarding claim 1 , Lehner teaches a hearing protector (¶1, hearing protectors) comprising: two earmuffs (Fig. 1, two earmuffs), each earmuff comprising: a cushion (¶2, Fig. 1, cushions); an outer shell defining a hollow space (Fig. 1, ¶2, hard outer shell) therein; and a sound absorbing material (Fig. 1, ¶2, sound absorbing material); a headband for retaining the earmuffs in position when worn by a user (Fig. 1, headband); wherein at least one of the earmuffs further comprises an active component (Fig. 1, ¶15, speakers), wherein the hearing protector further comprises a photovoltaic element for powering the active component (¶14, solar unit); wherein the photovoltaic element is attached to the headband (Fig. 1, power unit (¶14, can be solar) is attached to the headband); and wherein the photovoltaic element is electrically connected to the active component of the earmuff (¶14, power unit is used to power the active component (e.g. speakers)). Regarding claim 13 , Lehner teaches wherein the active component is arranged in the hollow space of the earmuff (¶33, Fig. 1, the active speakers/transducers are arranged inside the earmuff (see Fig. 1)). Regarding claim 17 , Lehner teaches and further comprising: a rechargeable battery, wherein the rechargeable battery is electrically connected to the photovoltaic element (¶14, solar cell can provide additional support to rechargeable batteries). Regarding claim 20 , Lehner teaches wherein each earmuff comprises an active component, the hearing protector further comprising a signal cable for connecting the active components of each of the earmuffs and wherein the electric power for powering the active components is distributed over the signal cable (Fig. 1, ¶40, processor connected to the left and right speakers via connection lines; ¶14, the active components/speakers are provided with the protection apparatus’ own power supply) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehner (DE202009001941, English translation provided by EPO) in view of He et al (NPL: “Research on the Performance of Honeycomb Support Structure Based on SLM”, hereinafter “He”) . Regarding claim 6 , Lehner fails to explicitly teach wherein the headband comprises a support element having a honeycomb structure. He teaches wherein the headband comprises a support element having a honeycomb structure (abstract, honeycomb structure can be used for support structures while providing light weight yet high strength). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the manufacturing technique of using a honeycomb structure (as taught by He) to the ear protection device (as taught by Lehner). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of providing lightweight and high strength to the support structure (He, abstract). Regarding claim 8 , Lehner in view of He teaches wherein the honeycomb structure comprises ribs, preferably defining hollow spaces therebetween (He, Fig. 9, honeycomb structure with empty cavities). Regarding claim 10 , Lehner in view of He teaches wherein the ribs are arranged in parallel with each other (He, Fig. 1, Fig. 9, the ribs are parallel to each other). Regarding claim 11 , Lehner in view of He teaches wherein the ribs are evenly spaced from each other (He, Fig. 1, Fig. 9, each honeycomb is evenly spaced) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14-16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehner (DE202009001941, English translation provided by EPO) in view of Anderson (WO2014060729, submitted by Applicant) . Regarding claim 14 , Lehner fails to explicitly teach wherein the photovoltaic element exhibits an elongated shape (Fig. 1, ¶14, the battery compartment may comprise of a solar unit which is shown as a rectangular shaped object). Anderson teaches wherein the photovoltaic element exhibits an elongated shape (Fig. 2, photovoltaic element in the rectangular shape over headband). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pair of hearing apparatus (as taught by Lehner) with the auxiliary charging mechanism (as taught by Anderson). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of extending the usage life of the hearing apparatus (Anderson, pg. 1). Regarding claim 15 , Lehner in view of Anderson teaches wherein the photovoltaic element is pre-shaped exhibiting a curved shape (Anderson, Fig. 4, curved shape of the photovoltaic element on top of the headband). Regarding claim 16 , Lehner in view of Anderson teaches wherein the photovoltaic element is flexible (Anderson, Fig. 2, pg. 3, flexible photovoltaic element). Regarding claim 21 , it is rejected similarly as a combination of claims 1 and 14. The method can be found in Anderson (pg. 1, method) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehner (DE202009001941, English translation provided by EPO) in view of Masalin (US20220354699) . Regarding claim 19 , Lehner fails to explicitly teach wherein the hearing protector exhibits a minimum sound attenuation M of at least 11 dB according to EN352-1:2020 or according to EN352-3:2020. Masalin teaches wherein the hearing protector exhibits a minimum sound attenuation M of at least 11 dB according to EN352-1:2020 or according to EN352-3:2020 (¶4, 44, hearing protection device that meets the EN352 standard). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the improved design of hearing protectors (as taught by Masalin) to the known hearing protectors (as taught by Lehner). The rationale to do so is to produce a product that meets the hearing protection standard set by EN352 when needed but allow the user to still communicate with others while wearing the protectors (Masalin, ¶4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehner (DE202009001941, English translation provided by EPO) in view of Anderson (WO2014060729, submitted by Applicant) in further view of He et al (NPL: “Research on the Performance of Honeycomb Support Structure Based on SLM”, hereinafter “He”) . Regarding claim 22 , Lehner in view of Anderson fail to explicitly teach wherein the headband comprises a support element having a honeycomb structure. He teaches wherein the headband comprises a support element having a honeycomb structure (abstract, honeycomb structure can be used for support structures while providing light weight yet high strength). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the manufacturing technique of using a honeycomb structure (as taught by He) to the ear protection device (as taught by Lehner in view of Anderson). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of providing lightweight and high strength to the support structure (He, abstract). Regarding claim 24 , it is rejected similarly as claim 8. The method can be found in Anderson (pg. 1, method) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2-5 and 25 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. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 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 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. /QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/870,813 Page 2 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/870,813 Page 3 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/870,813 Page 4 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/870,813 Page 5 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/870,813 Page 6 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/870,813 Page 7 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/870,813 Page 8 Art Unit: 2691
Prosecution Insights