Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Anticipation
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, 3, 6, 8–10, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2017/0264994 (published 14 September 2017) (“Gordon”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a wearable electronic device configured to be worn by a user.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed device and the Gordon reference.
Claim 1
The Gordon Reference
“1. A wearable electronic device configured to be worn by a user, comprising:
The Gordon reference describes an audio sleep mask apparatus 20 that corresponds to the claimed wearable electronic device. Gordon at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 6, 15, FIG.1.
“fabric configured to cover eyes of the user,
Gordon’s apparatus 20 includes a mask 22 that includes fabric panels 38, 40 that form a face portion 28 that covers a user’s eyes. Id. at ¶ 15, FIG.1.
“the fabric having: opposing first and second end portions;
Panels 38, 40 further form a left portion 30 and a right portion 32, or opposing first and second end portions. Id.
“a central portion between the first and second end portions; and
Face portion 28 corresponds to the claimed central portion. Id.
“a strip-shaped portion that extends along an edge of the central portion and that is stiffer than the central portion; and
Gordon’s panels 38, 40 define an opening 64 that includes a compartment 50, or pocket 62, and a closure, such as a hook-and-loop fastener. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 21. Thus, opening 64 corresponds to a strip-shaped portion that extends along an edge of face portion 28. Further, mask 22 will be stiffer in the region of opening 64 than in adjacent regions due to the inclusion of extra materials, including pocket material 62 and a fastener. (Cf. Spec. at ¶¶ 16, 19 (describing the inclusion of extra material, such as by doubling over material, as a means for stiffening an area of a mask)).
“one or more electrical components disposed on the strip-shaped portion of the fabric.”
Gordon describes locating electrical components in pocket 62, including wireless speaker system 52. Id. at ¶ 20, FIGs.1, 2.
Table 1
For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“a first speaker enclosed within first and second layers of the fabric in the first end portion and electrically coupled to the one or more electrical components via a first signal path routed through the strip-shaped portion.”
Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“a second speaker enclosed within the first and second layers of the fabric in the second end portion and electrically coupled to the one or more electrical components via a second signal path routed through the strip-shaped portion.”
Claims 2 and 3 are analyzed together. Gordon describes locating electrical components in compartment 50, or pocket 62, including wireless speaker system 52. Gordon at ¶ 20, FIGs.1, 2. System 52 includes left speaker 54 and right speaker 56 located at opposite left portion 30 and right portion 32. Each speaker 54, 56 is connected to electronics 58 by a wire. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference anticipates all limitations of the claims.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“a power source disposed on the strip-shaped portion and configured to output power to the one or more electrical components.”
Gordon describes providing a rechargeable battery in electronics 58. Gordon at ¶ 22. For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 is drawn to “a wearable electronic device configured to be worn by a user.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed device and the Gordon reference.
Claim 8
The Gordon Reference
“8. A wearable electronic device configured to be worn by a user, comprising:
The Gordon reference describes an audio sleep mask apparatus 20 that corresponds to the claimed wearable electronic device. Gordon at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 6, 15, FIG.1.
“fabric configured to cover eyes of the user;
Gordon’s apparatus 20 includes a mask 22 that includes fabric panels 38, 40 that form a face portion 28 that covers a user’s eyes. Id. at ¶ 15, FIG.1.
“a first speaker enclosed within first and second layers of the fabric; and
Gordon describes locating electrical components in a pocket 62 between panels 38 and 40. Id. at ¶ 20, FIGs.1, 2. The electrical components include a wireless speaker system 52 that has a left speaker 54 and a right speaker 56. Id.
“a first stiffener enclosed within the first and second layers of the fabric and configured to support the first speaker.”
Gordon describes forming a compartment 50, or pocket 62, between panels 38 and 40 to support speakers 54 and 56. This pocket acts as a stiffener because it adds extra layers of material to mask 22. (Cf. Spec. at ¶¶ 16, 19 (describing the inclusion of extra material, such as by doubling over material, as a means for stiffening an area of a mask)).
Table 2
For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“a second speaker enclosed within the first and second layers of the fabric; and
“a second stiffener enclosed within the first and second layers of the fabric and configured to support the second speaker.”
Gordon describes locating electrical components in a pocket 62 between panels 38 and 40. Gordon at ¶ 20, FIGs.1, 2. The electrical components include a wireless speaker system 52 that has a left speaker 54 and a right speaker 56. Id. Gordon describes forming a compartment 50, or pocket 62, between panels 38 and 40 to support speakers 54 and 56. This pocket acts as a stiffener because it adds extra layers of material to mask 22. (Cf. Spec. at ¶¶ 16, 19 (describing the inclusion of extra material, such as by doubling over material, as a means for stiffening an area of a mask)). For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 8, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“an electrical component coupled to the first speaker via a signal path extending through an opening of the first stiffener.”
Gordon describes locating electrical components in compartment 50, or pocket 62, including wireless speaker system 52. Gordon at ¶ 20, FIGs.1, 2. System 52 includes left speaker 54 and right speaker 56 located at opposite left portion 30 and right portion 32. Each speaker 54, 56 is connected to electronics 58 by a wire. Id. In an embodiment where speakers 54, 56 and electronics 58 are in separate compartments, each compartment will inherently include an opening for passing wires. See id. at ¶ 20. For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 is drawn to “a mask.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed mask and the Gordon reference.
Claim 16
The Gordon Reference
“16. A mask comprising:
The Gordon reference describes a sleep mask 22 that corresponds to the claimed mask. Gordon at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 6, 15, FIG.1.
“a first outer fabric layer;
“a second outer fabric layer;
Gordon’s apparatus 20 includes a mask 22 that includes fabric panels 38, 40 that form a face portion 28 that covers a user’s eyes. Id. at ¶ 15, FIG.1.
“a stiffening layer disposed between the first and second outer fabric layers; and
Gordon describes forming a compartment 50, or pocket 62, between panels 38 and 40 to support speakers 54 and 56. This pocket acts as a stiffener because it adds extra layers of material to mask 22. (Cf. Spec. at ¶¶ 16, 19 (describing the inclusion of extra material, such as by doubling over material, as a means for stiffening an area of a mask)).
“a speaker disposed between the stiffening layer and the second outer fabric layer.”
Gordon describes locating electrical components in a pocket 62 between panels 38 and 40. Id. at ¶ 20, FIGs.1, 2. The electrical components include a wireless speaker system 52 that has a left speaker 54 and a right speaker 56. Id.
Table 3
For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 16, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“an electrical component coupled to the speaker via a signal path extending through an opening of the stiffening layer.”
Gordon describes locating electrical components in compartment 50, or pocket 62, including wireless speaker system 52. Gordon at ¶ 20, FIGs.1, 2. System 52 includes left speaker 54 and right speaker 56 located at opposite left portion 30 and right portion 32. Each speaker 54, 56 is connected to electronics 58 by a wire. Id. In an embodiment where speakers 54, 56 and electronics 58 are in separate compartments, each compartment will inherently include an opening for passing wires. See id. at ¶ 20. For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Obviousness
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gordon and 2019/0298967 (effectively filed 26 June 2017) (“Garcia”).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gordon and US Patent Application Publication 2019/0149903 (published 16 May 2019) (“Dowding-Young”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gordon and US Patent Application Publication 2004/0184635 (published 23 September 2004) (“Natvig”).
Claims 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“one or more sensors disposed on the strip-shaped portion and configured to output sensor data to the one or more electrical components.”
While Gordon describes locating electronics 58 proximate a user’s forehead, Gordon does not describe any type of sensors. Gordon at ¶ 20. The Garcia reference teaches and suggests a technique for adjusting auditory stimulation delivered to a subject during sleep. Garcia at Abs., ¶¶ 19, 20, 23, FIG.2. Garcia teaches and suggests arranging sensor electrodes in a headband worn against a user’s forehead. See id. The signals record an EEG and provide the signal to a controller that adjusts auditory stimulation (e.g., volume levels) to optimize sleep slow-wave activity and enhance sleep restoration. Id. at ¶ 19.
Read together, Garcia and Gordon reasonably suggest modifying Gordon’s mask 22 to operate as an auditory stimulation device used to enhance sleep restoration. In particular, given the provision of speakers in Gordon’s mask 22, the mask serves as a natural base device for providing auditory stimulation during sleep. Garcia suggests modifying mask 22 to include EEG electrodes, or sensors, on a user’s forehead (i.e., on a strip-shaped portion). The sensors would output EEG signals to Gordon’s electronics 58. Electronics would then determine how to adjust the volume of auditory stimulation provided by speakers 54, 56. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Gordon and the Garcia references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more electrical components comprise wireless communications circuitry configured to wirelessly provide the sensor data to an external electronic device.”
Gordon describes configuring electronics 58 with wireless communication circuitry, such as Bluetooth. Gordon at ¶ 19. Further, Garcia describes locating sensor processing components in remote locations, suggesting the use of wireless communication circuitry to transmit sensor signals to a remote processor and to receive control signals from the remote processor. See Garcia at ¶ 32, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Gordon and the Garcia references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the fabric comprises at least one tragus opening configured to receive a tragus of the user.”
Gordon does not fairly describe any corresponding tragus openings in any layer of mask 22. The Dowding-Young reference teaches providing a layer of foam that is partially molded to the shape of a user’s face. Dowding-Young at ¶¶ 51, 54, 58, 60, 68, FIG.4. For instance, the foam, which may or may not be located in a sleeve, includes openings that approximate the shape of the user’s eyes and ears. Id. Dowding-Young teaches that this arrangement improves wearing comfort. Id.
Read in light of Gordon, particularly Gordon’s suggestion of using padded fabric, Dowding-Young’s teachings reasonably suggest modifying Gordon’s mask 22 to include foam that forms openings near the ear that receive a user’s outer ear, including the tragus. Fitting with Gordon’s overall structure of padded fabric, the foam would be included inside mask 22. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Gordon and the Dowding-Young references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 8, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“one or more sensors disposed on a strip-shaped portion of the fabric and configured to output sensor data.”
While Gordon describes locating electronics 58 proximate a user’s forehead, Gordon does not describe any type of sensors. Gordon at ¶ 20. The Garcia reference teaches and suggests a technique for adjusting auditory stimulation delivered to a subject during sleep. Garcia at Abs., ¶¶ 19, 20, 23, FIG.2. Garcia teaches and suggests arranging sensor electrodes in a headband worn against a user’s forehead. See id. The signals record an EEG and provide the signal to a controller that adjusts auditory stimulation (e.g., volume levels) to optimize sleep slow-wave activity and enhance sleep restoration. Id. at ¶ 19.
Read together, Garcia and Gordon reasonably suggest modifying Gordon’s mask 22 to operate as an auditory stimulation device used to enhance sleep restoration. In particular, given the provision of speakers in Gordon’s mask 22, the mask serves as a natural base device for providing auditory stimulation during sleep. Garcia suggests modifying mask 22 to include EEG electrodes, or sensors, on a user’s forehead (i.e., on a strip-shaped portion). The sensors would output EEG signals to Gordon’s electronics 58. Electronics would then determine how to adjust the volume of auditory stimulation provided by speakers 54, 56. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Gordon and the Garcia references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11, and further requires the following:
“wherein the strip-shaped portion of the fabric is stiffer than a central portion of the fabric.”
Gordon’s panels 38, 40 define an opening 64 that includes a compartment 50, or pocket 62, and a closure, such as a hook-and-loop fastener. Gordon at ¶¶ 20, 21. Thus, opening 64 corresponds to a strip-shaped portion that extends along an edge of face portion 28. Further, mask 22 will be stiffer in the region of opening 64 than in adjacent regions due to the inclusion of extra materials, including pocket material 62 and a fastener. (Cf. Spec. at ¶¶ 16, 19 (describing the inclusion of extra material, such as by doubling over material, as a means for stiffening an area of a mask)). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Gordon and the Garcia references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 11, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“control circuitry disposed on the strip-shaped portion and configured to receive the sensor data from the one or more sensors.”
Garcia describes locating sensor processing components together with the sensors, suggesting the inclusion of a controller in Gordon’s mask 22. See Garcia at ¶ 32, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Gordon and the Garcia references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 8, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first stiffener comprises a tragus opening configured to receive a tragus of the user.”
Gordon does not fairly describe any corresponding tragus openings in any layer of mask 22. The Dowding-Young reference teaches providing a layer of foam that is partially molded to the shape of a user’s face. Dowding-Young at ¶¶ 51, 54, 58, 60, 68, FIG.4. For instance, the foam, which may or may not be located in a sleeve, includes openings that approximate the shape of the user’s eyes and ears. Id. Dowding-Young teaches that this arrangement improves wearing comfort. Id.
Read in light of Gordon, particularly Gordon’s suggestion of using padded fabric, Dowding-Young’s teachings reasonably suggest modifying Gordon’s mask 22 to include foam that forms openings near the ear that receive a user’s outer ear, including the tragus. Fitting with Gordon’s overall structure of padded fabric, the foam would be included inside mask 22. And because the foam would add additional material to the interior of mask 22, it would inherently provide a degree of enhanced stiffness to the mask in the region of the ears. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Gordon and the Dowding-Young references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 8, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first stiffener comprises a protruding portion configured to bias the first speaker towards and into an ear concha of the user.”
Gordon does not describe a corresponding stiffener with a protruding portion that biases a speaker towards and into an ear concha of a user. Rather, Gordon describes locating a speaker 54, 56 in a pocket 50 that forms a relatively stiffer region of fabric due to the presence of additional material. Gordon at ¶ 20, FIG.2.
Gordon describes including means for securing its speaker in a pocket. Id. The Natvig reference expounds on this idea by teaching means for securing an earphone in an earmuff—which is reasonably viewed as analogous to Gordon’s pocket because it is a fabric member of limited volume. Natvig at ¶¶ 1–5. Natvig explains that the goal is to secure an earphone and prevent its shifting during wear. Id. Natvig’s solution is to insert a C-shaped limb 7 or flexible beam 8 into the earmuff. Id. at ¶¶ 21–25, FIGs.2, 4, 5, 7. The limb 7 or beam 8 then holds an earphone in place. The limb 7 or beam 8 has a protruding portion 3 that biases the earphone towards a user’s ear and concha. See id. at FIG.11.
Read in light of Gordon, the Natvig reference’s teachings reasonably suggest providing a C-shaped limb or flexible beam in Gordon’s pocket in order to secure a speaker, preventing shifting during use. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Gordon to include one of Natvig’s securing means in Gordon’s pocket as a way to hold speakers 54, 56 in place during wear of mask 22. Further, because Natvig’s means are bent in a manner to hold and bias an earphone towards a user’s ear and concha, following that example would have produced a stiffener with a protruding portion that bias a speaker towards a user’s ear and concha as claimed. See Natvig at FIG.11 (particularly portion 3). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Gordon and the Natvig references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 16, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“a foam member disposed between the speaker and the second outer fabric layer.”
Gordon describes the use of padded fabric (i.e., fabric with an additional padding element). Gordon at ¶ 18. Further, foam padding is notoriously well-known and worthy of Official notice. Thus, the teachings of Gordon reasonably suggest adding foam padding between a speaker and layer 38 to enhance user comfort since a speaker is a hard element and would predictably cause discomfort if a user lays on his side. See id. at ¶ 20 (describing the location of electronics 58 on a user’s forehead to avoid discomfort from laying on hard electronics). For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 16, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“a dome-shaped foam member disposed between the speaker and the second outer fabric layer.”
Gordon describes the use of padded fabric (i.e., fabric with an additional padding element). Gordon at ¶ 18. Further, foam padding is notoriously well-known and worthy of Official notice. Thus, the teachings of Gordon reasonably suggest adding foam padding between a speaker and layer 38 to enhance user comfort since a speaker is a hard element and would predictably cause discomfort if a user lays on his side. See id. at ¶ 20 (describing the location of electronics 58 on a user’s forehead to avoid discomfort from laying on hard electronics).
Gordon, however, does not go further by describing, teaching or suggesting forming a foam member as a dome-shaped foam member. The overall shape of a foam portion, however, is a matter of design choice on this record as there is no disclosed advantage to a domed shape over other shapes, such as a planar shape. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 16, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“a first adhesive layer disposed between the first outer fabric layer and the stiffening layer; and
“a second adhesive layer disposed between the second outer fabric layer and the stiffening layer.”
Gordon describes the use of adhesives to construct mask 22. Gordon at ¶ 16. This suggests the use of adhesives between panels 38, 40 and each side of a pocket 62, or stiffening layer, in order to permanently bond each component together. For the foregoing reasons, the Gordon reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–20 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
Double Patenting
Legal Basis
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
16452926 17680102
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights