DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final rejection for Application 18/949,675 filed November 15, 2024. This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119 to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0158618, filed on November 15, 2023. Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the second correction unit” in line 2 should be amended to be the second correction portion to remain consistent with language recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0323258 (Sheridan) in view of US 2026/0183191 (Grübl).
Regarding claim 1, Sheridan discloses an ear correction apparatus (The ear shaping device 100 is interpreted as an ear correction apparatus; Fig. 7; [0042]-[0043].) comprising:
a core having rigidity, ductility, and deformability properties and extending a predetermined length (The ear shaping apparatus is made of a wire in an embodiment; [0031]. The arc 20, angle 21, top portion 22, bottom portion 24, middle portion 31 and plurality of rings 36 are interpreted as forming a core. A wire has rigidity, ductility, and deformability properties as wires have some amount of rigidity, ductility and deformability and the claim does not specify any degree of each property. The core has a length; Fig. 7.);
a second correction portion connected to the core (The plurality of beads 38 are interpreted as a second correction portion and are connected to the wire in the middle portion 31.),
the second correction portion comprises a plurality of correction balls (The plurality of beads 38 are interpreted as a plurality of correction balls.),
the plurality of correction balls are arranged in a row to form a first array line (The beads 38 are arranged in a row that is interpreted as a first array line.),
the core penetrates the plurality of correction balls along the first array line (The wire in the middle portion 31 penetrates the beads 38 along the first array line.).
Sheridan does not disclose a first correction portion connected to the core; and the second correction portion connected to the core at a position away from the first correction portion, wherein the first correction portion comprises a support line having a predetermined curvature, and the core penetrates the first correction portion in a direction parallel to the support line of the first correction portion.
However, Grübl discloses a device 100 worn on a patient’s ear, making it analogous in some aspects to the ear shaping device of Sheridan. Particularly, upper shackle 110 and lower shackle 120 of Grübl are analogous to the top portion 22 and the bottom portion 24 of Sheridan. The upper 110 and lower 120 shackles of Grübl comprise a soft coating; [0011]. The soft coating is penetrated by the upper 110 and lower 120 shackles; Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add a soft coating to the top portion 22 of Sheridan as taught by Grübl. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Grübl teaches that the soft coating prevents pressure marks ([0037]).
As a result of the combination, the soft coating would be interpreted as a first correction portion connected to the wire, and the beads 38 would be positioned away from the soft coating on the top portion 22. Additionally, as the soft coating would follow the curvature of the top portion 22, the soft coating would be interpreted as having a support line with a curvature. The top portion 22 is parallel to the array line of beads, so the support line of the soft coating would be parallel as well; Sheridan Fig. 7. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to devices worn on the ear.
Regarding claim 2, Sheridan in view of Grübl discloses the ear correction apparatus of claim 1, wherein the core comprises: a first line portion penetrating the first correction portion (The top portion 22 of Sheridan is interpreted as a first line portion and would penetrate the soft coating applied thereto in view of Grübl.); and
a second line portion penetrating the second correction portion (The middle portion 31 is interpreted as a second line portion and penetrates the beads 38.),
wherein at least a portion of the first line portion and at least a portion of the second line portion extend parallel to each other at a predetermined distance from each other (The top portion 22 and middle portion 31 extend parallel to each other at a distance from each other; Fig. 7.),
the support line of the first correction portion and the second correction portion face each other (The support line of the soft coating applied to top portion 22 would face the beads 38; Fig. 7.), and
a correction space having a predetermined width is formed between the support line of the first correction portion and the second correction portion (The space between the beads and the support line of the soft coating would be interpreted as a correction space which has a width.).
Regarding claim 3, Sheridan in view of Grübl discloses the ear correction apparatus of claim 1.
Sheridan in view of Grübl, as applied above, does not disclose wherein the plurality of correction balls of the second correction portion have different sizes from each other.
However, Grübl further discloses at least two pressure elements 300 which are analogous to the beads 38 of Sheridan in that they both are features that are configured to change the position of the pinna. The pressure elements 300 may be of different shape, size, and thickness, depending on the condition to be treated; [0058]; Fig. 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the sizes of the beads 38 of Sheridan as taught by Grübl. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Grübl teaches that the different sizes allow for the pressure exerted at the stimulation points to be modified ([0063]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to devices worn on the ear.
Regarding claim 4, Sheridan in view of Grübl discloses the ear correction apparatus of claim 1.
Sheridan in view of Grübl, as applied above, does not disclose wherein the plurality of correction balls of the second correction unit comprise first correction balls and second correction balls having a diameter less than a diameter of the first correction balls, the first correction balls are positioned at a center portion of the first array line, and the second correction balls are positioned at end portions of the first array line.
However, Grübl further discloses at least two pressure elements 300 which are analogous to the beads 38 of Sheridan in that they both are features that are configured to change the position of the pinna. The pressure elements 300 may be of different shape, size, and thickness, depending on the condition to be treated; [0058]; Fig. 3.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the beads 38 on the end portions of the first array line of Sheridan to be smaller in diameter than the beads 38 in the center portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Grübl teaches that different sizes allow for the pressure exerted at the stimulation points to be modified ([0063]) so it is expected that by modifying the beads 38 on the end portions of the first array line of Sheridan to have a smaller diameter, the beads 38 on the end portions would exert less pressure, thereby creating a gradient where pressure is focused on the center portion beads 38.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the sizes of the beads 38 on the end portions of the first array line of Sheridan to be smaller in diameter than the beads 38 in the center portions. As a result, the beads 38 would comprise first correction balls and second correction balls having a diameter less than a diameter of the first correction balls, the first correction balls would be positioned at a center portion of the first array line, and the second correction balls would be positioned at end portions of the first array line. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to devices worn on the ear.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0058148 (Weinstein)
US 2023/0301815 (Weinstein)
US 2021/0282974 (Zopf et al.)
US 2020/0146891 (Weinstein)
US 2015/0051639 (Case et al.)
US 6,517,557 (Sorribes)
US 6,458,146 (Kramer)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seth Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM – 11:00 AM or 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM ET.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571)270-5237. 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.
/SETH R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
