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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 9 is 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.
The term “disk align with speaker yoke” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “align” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Huang (US 11,689,839 B2) and Franklin et al. (US 9,274562 B2) and Chappell et al. (US 12,494,674 B2).
Claim 1, Huang et al. disclose of electronic device comprising: a flexible printed circuit (FPC) having first, second, and third regions (fig.3A (34); col.5 line 50-67), the FPC being shaped to form multiple layers including first, second, and third layers (fig.3B & 3C (34 & 31-33); col.6 line 1-12), the second region forming the second layer and being between the first layer formed by the first region and the third layer formed by the third region (fig.3C (32); col.6 line 1-12); a main processor connected to the FPC (col.7 line 25-30); a battery connected to the FPC and connected in the first region and disposed between first and second region (fig.3C (31/35); col.6 line 1-10); and also a speaker connected to the FCP and a microphone and an sensor connected to the FPC in diverse regions (fig.3 (31-34); col.50 line 51-col.6 line 10; col.7 line 5-50).
Huang et al. never specify of the main processor as being a main logic board. However, Franklin et al. disclose of the similar concept related to having such a main logic board associate with the device herein (col.2 line 35-38). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by replacing the mentioned main processor for such noted main logic board so as to connect the various essential components there to for functionality.
Nonetheless, Huang et al. never limit such specific as charger pin in the third region and microphone being in the third region and the infrared sensor in the third region and having the speaker being in the second region and the logic being in the firs region.
One of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the electrical components in varying regions associated with the FCP as noted herein (Huang-fig.3A/3C), by specifying such exact specific of the charger pin in the third region and microphone being in the third region and the infrared sensor in the third region and having the speaker being in the second region and the logic being in the firs region as per engineering preference which yield the same expected result as to connect and integrate the various electronic components into the device to perform multifunction.
In addition, none of the prior art mentioned of such a charger pins being available, but Chappell et al. disclose of the similar aspect as above herein (col.1 line 57-61). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related to a charger pins being available so as to continuously recharge the battery for operational objectives.
Although, the art never specify of the charger pin to being connected to the FPC in the third region, but one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the mentioned charger associated with FPC by specifying if desired such charger pin to being connected to the FPC in the third region for providing the same expected result as to integrate the charger pin into the device to perform recharging function of the battery as needed.
Claim 8, the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the charger pins are located on the third regions as mentioned, nonetheless, the specific of the charger pin being at a bottom surface of the third region and wherein the bottom surface faces in a direction away from the speaker is never disclosed.
But, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the prior art which is related to charger pins are located on the third regions to any desired arrangement along the various regions of the FCP and speaker as mentioned and including specific of the charger pin being at a bottom surface of the third region and wherein the bottom surface faces in a direction away from the speaker for achieving the same result as to integrate the charger pin into the device to perform recharging function of the battery as needed.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 11,689,839 B2) and Franklin et al. (US 9,274562 B2) and Chappell et al. (US 12,494,674 B2) and Yang (US 2003/0021430 A1).
Claim 2, The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: the various components located in the first region as mentioned, nonetheless, Huang et al. never specify as comprising: a battery voltage loop and components of the battery voltage loop, wherein the components of the battery voltage loop include battery pads and a battery protection circuit.
However, Yang disclose of a certain unit comprising a battery voltage loop and components of the battery voltage loop, wherein the components of the battery voltage loop include battery pads and a battery protection circuit (fig.7 (2); par [17, 19-20]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted unit comprising a battery voltage loop and components of the battery voltage loop, wherein the components of the battery voltage loop include battery pads and a battery protection circuit for providing stable operating power to the unit.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 11,689,839 B2) and Franklin et al. (US 9,274562 B2) and Chappell et al. (US 12,494,674 B2) and Yang (US 2003/0021430 A1) and Naito et al. (US 6,752,226 B2).
3. The electronic device of claim 2, but the prior art lacked of the specific as further comprising: a dedicated ground trace located in the first region for electrically grounding the battery and the battery voltage loop.
But, Naito disclose of such a general system wherein a dedicated ground trace for electrically grounding the battery and the battery voltage loop (col.1 line 40-55). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to a dedicated ground trace for electrically grounding the battery and the battery voltage loop so as to avoid electrical problem and performance and safety related to shared ground.
Although, the combined teaching never specify of the VBAT loop with dedicated ground return being located the first region, again one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the mentioned loop with ground return in any designated area of the circuit including such VBAT loop with dedicated ground return being in the first region for achieving the same reason as to avoid electrical problem and performance and safety related to shared ground.
4. The electronic device of claim 3, but the art never specify of further comprising: a second ground trace located between the speaker and the battery.
However, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the mentioned ground trace by adding any amount of ground traces including such specific ground trace located between the speaker and the battery for providing proper operation of the battery to the speaker.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 11,689,839 B2) and Franklin et al. (US 9,274562 B2) and Chappell et al. (US 12,494,674 B2) and Paul et al. (US 11,972,070 B1).
5. The electronic device of claim 1, but none of the prior art specify as further comprising: a power trace located around a perimeter of the second region, wherein the power trace does not overlap with a speaker yoke area for the speaker.
But, Paul et al. disclose of the similar aspect related to a power trace located around a perimeter, wherein the power trace does not overlap with a speaker yoke area for the speaker (fig.10; col.23 line 62-col.24 line 25). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to a power trace located around a perimeter of the second region, wherein the power trace does not overlap with a speaker yoke area for the speaker so as to reduce noise related to magnetic fields.
Again, although, the art never specify of the power trace being around the perimeter of the second region, but one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the power trace to any regions associated with the FCP and including having such a power trace located around a perimeter of the second region for achieving the same result so as to reduce noise related to magnetic fields.
6. The electronic device of claim 1, but the prior art never specify of further comprising: a signal trace located around a perimeter of the second region.
But, Paul et al. disclose of the similar aspect related to a signal trace located around a perimeter of a region (fig.10; col.23 line 62-col.24 line 25). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to signal trace located around a perimeter of a region so as to reduce noise related to magnetic fields.
Again, although, the art never specify of the signal trace being around the perimeter of the second region, but one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the signal trace to any regions associated with the FCP and including having such a signal trace located around a perimeter of the second region for achieving the same result so as to reduce noise related to magnetic fields.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 11,689,839 B2) and Naito et al. (US 6,752,226 B2) and Ledingham et al. (US 2024/0284084 A1).
Claim 9, the prior art disclose of an earbud comprising: a flexible printed circuit (FPC) having first, second, and third regions (fig.3A (34); col.5 line 50-67), the second region being between the first and third regions fig.3A (34); col.5 line 50-67/the middle region of (34) is between the first and second region), the FPC having connectors configured to couple to components along a battery in the first region, a battery connected to the FPC in the first region and disposed between the first and second regions (fig.3 (34-35); col.5 line 50-67) ; and a speaker connected to the FPC in the region (fig.3C (30); col.5 line 65-67).
Nonetheless, the prior art never specify of the speaker connected to the FPC in the second region and disposed between the second and third region. But, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skills in the art to have modified the prior art by varying the components associated with regions of FPC by specifying if desired such speaker connected to the FPC in the second region and disposed between the second and third region for achieving the same result as to connect and integrate the various electronic components into the device to perform multifunction.
In addition, although, the prior art mentioned of the VBAT loop associated with the circuit board (col.5 line 50-67), nonetheless, the prior art never disclose said VBAT loop routed within the first region, the VBAT loop having a dedicated ground return within the first region.
But, Naito disclose of such a general system wherein a VBAT loop having a dedicated ground return (col.1 line 40-55). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to a VBAT loop having a dedicated ground return so as to avoid electrical problem and performance and safety related to shared ground.
Although, the combined teaching never specify of the VBAT loop with dedicated ground return being within the first region, again one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the mentioned loop with ground return in any designated area of the circuit including such VBAT loop with dedicated ground return being within the first region for achieving the same reason as to avoid electrical problem and performance and safety related to shared ground.
the prior art further mentioned of a middle disk area aligned with a speaker yoke of the speaker and electrical signal being routed (fig.3A; fig.3C (31/34 w (10); col.4 line 45-50; col.6 line 1-12/the speaker is proximate to the circuit and it middle area and inherently such speaker include a yoke and conducting wire).
Again, the art never specify of the middle disk area being in the second region, and the second region having a power trace and a signal trace routed around the middle disk area. But, the art did mentioned of such power trace and signal trace associated with a certain area related to a speaker (par [58]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect concerning such power trace and signal trace associated with a certain area related to a speaker for providing the electrical component between the speaker and circuits.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 11,689,839 B2) and Yue et al. (US 2014/0214717).
Claim 10, the prior art disclose of an electronic device comprising: a battery; a speaker; a flexible printed circuit (FPC) connecting the battery and the speaker (fig.3 (34-35); col.5 line 50-67), the FPC having a middle disk area disposed directly between the battery and the speaker (fig.3C (30); col.6 line 1-15), the middle disk area having a ground coverage greater than a threshold (fig.3A (34); col.6 line 1-15/the FPC has a certain area and thus said area has a certain threshold).
Nonetheless, the prior art never specify of such a power and signal traces on the FPC that do not overlap with a speaker yoke area of the speaker, the power and signal traces routed to produce a first H-field emission that substantially cancels a second H-field emission generated by the battery.
However, Yue et al. disclose of the similar concept related to a power and signal traces on a system that do not overlap with a speaker yoke area of the speaker, the power and signal traces routed to produce a first H-field emission that substantially cancels a second H-field emission generated by the battery (par [16, 19]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the circuit by adding such noted aspect related to a power and signal traces on the system that do not overlap with a speaker yoke area of the speaker, the power and signal traces routed to produce a first H-field emission that substantially cancels a second H-field emission generated by the battery so as to reduce electromagnetic interference by internal components of the earphone and thus improve speakers performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian can be reached at (571) 272-7848. 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights