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 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.
Claim 4 is 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.
The limitation “the user interface is configured for enabling the user to switch the Bluetooth connection between the known device(s)” 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.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 is a docking device with a user interface that can switch the Bluetooth connection between an earbud and a first known device, to a second Bluetooth connection between the earbud and a second known device. The current state of the prior art in the field of Bluetooth connection for wireless earphones teaches a primary control device that can control its own Bluetooth connection with an earbud. PHOSITA would predict that it is possible for the user interface of the dock to configure the Bluetooth connection between the dock and the earphones, it is also predictable that a known device can configure the Bluetooth connection between the known device and the earphones. The specification only discloses that the dock can switch the Bluetooth connection between an earbud and a first known device, to a second Bluetooth connection between the earbud and a second known device but does not provide direction or working examples regarding how the dock is capable of changing the Bluetooth connection of another 2 devices different from the dock, since it differs from the current state of the art of Bluetooth connections. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by PHOSITA to practice the full scope of claim 4.
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 4 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 “known devices” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “known devices” 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. The metes and bounds of what is considered known is unclear because what is known constantly changes, and who it is known to is undefined.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the display.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation was not preceded by any recitation of a display.
Claim 15 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. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the one or more electronic device associated with the user” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation was not preceded by any recitation of one or more electronic device associated with the user.
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, 5-7, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley (US 2022/0386013) in view of Azpen (Amazon page : Wireless Charging Audio Dock by Azpen with Dual 8 watts Bluetooth Speakers, Upgraded Microphone for Handsfree Call, Wireless Charger for iPhone 15 14 13 12 11 and Samsung S23 S22 S21 S20).
Regarding claim 1, Kelley teaches A dock for a cradle, the cradle being configured for accommodating a pair of earbuds for a user (Kelley figures 7A-B, “The chargeable case may be used for any type of chargeable equipment, e.g., earbuds”), the dock (Kelley ¶0057, “charging plate”) comprising: a user interface configured for providing control of one or more functionalities of the earbuds (Kelley ¶0051, “the charging dock may include user interface (UI) controls e.g., for media and telephony. For example, control elements for accepting and rejecting calls, controlling volume, muting, etc., may be included”); a fixation means configured for fixating the cradle in the dock (Kelley ¶0057, “the chargeable case may be placed on top of the charging plate, e.g., resting on a desk. Alignment may be mechanically provided based on the shape of the charging plate and a matching shape of the charging case. Alternative embodiments may further include magnets or an adhesive, e.g., to enable a wall-mounted solution”), however does not explicitly teach a user interface configured for providing control of one or more functionalities of the earbuds.
Azpen teaches a user interface configured for providing control of one or more functionalities of the earbuds (Azpen, Page 1 and 3 shows user interfaces such as volume button, answer button. Page 6 review by “AlltechGadgets” : “touch control button on the front for you the change the volume, pause, play and answer phone call…”. Due to general Bluetooth functionality, this also works when the phone is connected to the earbuds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Azpen to improve the known dock of Kelley to achieve the predictable result of reducing the number of components by implementing more controls in one device.
Regarding claim 5, Kelley in view of Azpen teaches wherein the user interface comprises one or more physical buttons (Azpen, Page 1 and 3 shows user interfaces such as volume button, answer button. Page 6 review by “AlltechGadgets” : “touch control button on the front for you the change the volume, pause, play and answer phone call…”. Due to general Bluetooth functionality, this also works when the phone is connected to the earbuds).
Regarding claim 6, Kelley in view of Azpen teaches wherein the functionalities of the user interface comprise one or more of: call control (Azpen, Page 1 and 3 shows user interfaces such as volume button, answer button. Page 6 review by “AlltechGadgets” : “touch control button on the front for you the change the volume, pause, play and answer phone call…”. Due to general Bluetooth functionality, this also works when the phone is connected to the earbuds); volume control; mute control; connectivity with other devices; antenna performance; noise indicator of background noise; control for cloud communication service; battery status; settings/configuration control; control for external microphone; control for dongle for wireless communication.
Regarding claim 7, Kelley in view of Azpen teaches wherein the fixation means comprises a first magnetic element, where the first magnetic element is configured for magnetic attraction with a second magnetic element of the cradle (Kelley ¶0057, “Alignment may be mechanically provided based on the shape of the charging plate and a matching shape of the charging case. Alternative embodiments may further include magnets” and ¶0033-0034).
Regarding claim 9, Kelley in view of Azpen teaches wherein the fixation means comprises a recess which is configured to match with an outer shape of the cradle (Kelley ¶0057, “Alignment may be mechanically provided based on the shape of the charging plate and a matching shape of the charging case. Alternative embodiments may further include magnets” and ¶0033-0034).
Regarding claim 10, Kelley in view of Azpen teaches wherein the fixation means comprises an adaptor which is configured to match with the cradle (Kelley ¶0057, “Alignment may be mechanically provided based on the shape of the charging plate and a matching shape of the charging case. Alternative embodiments may further include magnets” and ¶0033-0034).
Regarding claim 11, Kelley in view of Azpen teaches wherein the dock is connected with the cradle, when the cradle is fixated in the dock (Kelley ¶0057, “the chargeable case may be placed on top of the charging plate, e.g., resting on a desk. Alignment may be mechanically provided based on the shape of the charging plate and a matching shape of the charging case. Alternative embodiments may further include magnets or an adhesive, e.g., to enable a wall-mounted solution”).
Regarding claim 12, Kelley in view of Azpen teaches wherein the dock is configured to connect with the cradle by means of wireless connection (Kelley ¶0057, “the chargeable case may be placed on top of the charging plate, e.g., resting on a desk. Alignment may be mechanically provided based on the shape of the charging plate and a matching shape of the charging case. Alternative embodiments may further include magnets or an adhesive, e.g., to enable a wall-mounted solution”) or via pogo-pins.
Regarding claim 13, Kelley in view of Azpen teaches wherein the dock provides that when the cradle is fixated in the dock and the earbuds are in the cradle, rechargeable batteries of the earbuds are configured to be charged by the cradle via the dock (Kelley ¶0057, “the chargeable case may be placed on top of the charging plate, e.g., resting on a desk. Alignment may be mechanically provided based on the shape of the charging plate and a matching shape of the charging case. Alternative embodiments may further include magnets or an adhesive, e.g., to enable a wall-mounted solution”).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley (US 2022/0386013) in view of Azpen (Amazon page : Wireless Charging Audio Dock by Azpen with Dual 8 watts Bluetooth Speakers, Upgraded Microphone for Handsfree Call, Wireless Charger for iPhone 15 14 13 12 11 and Samsung S23 S22 S21 S20) in further view of Han (KR 20140051569).
Regarding claim 2, Kelley in view of Azpen does not explicitly teach wherein the user interface comprises a touch screen.
Han teaches wherein the user interface comprises a touch screen (Han figure 6, ¶0081, “when the second touchscreen (210) receives a user command from a user for the execution of a specific application”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Han to improve the known dock of Kelley in view of Azpen to achieve the predictable result of reduced number of buttons to control a device.
Regarding claim 3, Kelley in view of Azpen in further view of Han teaches wherein the user interface comprises a display (Han figure 6, ¶0081, “when the second touchscreen (210) receives a user command from a user for the execution of a specific application”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley (US 2022/0386013) in view of Azpen (Amazon page : Wireless Charging Audio Dock by Azpen with Dual 8 watts Bluetooth Speakers, Upgraded Microphone for Handsfree Call, Wireless Charger for iPhone 15 14 13 12 11 and Samsung S23 S22 S21 S20) in further view of Wang (WO 2016/131261).
Regarding claim 4, Kelley in view of Azpen does not explicitly teach wherein the earbuds are configured to be connected via Bluetooth to known devices, and wherein the display is configured for displaying the Bluetooth name of the known devices(s) for the earbuds, and wherein the user interface is configured for enabling the user to switch the Bluetooth connection between the known device(s).
Wang teaches wherein the earbuds are configured to be connected via Bluetooth to known devices, and wherein the display is configured for displaying the Bluetooth name of the known devices(s) for the earbuds, and wherein the user interface is configured for enabling the user to switch the Bluetooth connection between the known device(s) (Wang Summary of invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Wang to improve the known dock of Kelley in view of Azpen to achieve the predictable result of using earphones with multiple devices.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley (US 2022/0386013) in view of Azpen (Amazon page : Wireless Charging Audio Dock by Azpen with Dual 8 watts Bluetooth Speakers, Upgraded Microphone for Handsfree Call, Wireless Charger for iPhone 15 14 13 12 11 and Samsung S23 S22 S21 S20) in further view of Minoo (US 2018/0091884).
Regarding claim 8, Kelley in view of Azpen does not explicitly teach wherein the fixation means comprises a plug, and wherein the plug is configured to attach in/to a corresponding socket of the cradle.
Minoo teaches wherein the fixation means comprises a plug, and wherein the plug is configured to attach in/to a corresponding socket of the cradle (Minoo figure 3, ¶0051-0052 connector 310 and output interface 135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Minoo to improve the known dock of Kelley in view of Azpen to achieve the predictable result of reducing tangling of wires by directly connecting to the plug.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley (US 2022/0386013) in view of Azpen (Amazon page : Wireless Charging Audio Dock by Azpen with Dual 8 watts Bluetooth Speakers, Upgraded Microphone for Handsfree Call, Wireless Charger for iPhone 15 14 13 12 11 and Samsung S23 S22 S21 S20) in further view of Hollabaugh (US 2024/0107218).
Regarding claim 14, Kelley in view of Azpen does not explicitly teach wherein the dock provides that when the cradle is fixated in the dock and the earbuds are in the cradle, the earbuds are configured to wirelessly connect with one or more electronic devices associated with the user.
Hollabaugh teaches wherein the dock provides that when the cradle is fixated in the dock and the earbuds are in the cradle (Hollabaugh ¶0028, “The interface 134 may include an interface integrated circuit designed to communicate information and/or power to the earbuds 108a and 108b when the earbuds 108a and 108b are located in the case 102. Additionally, the interface 134 can receive information from each of the earbuds 108a and 108b”), the earbuds are configured to wirelessly connect with one or more electronic devices associated with the user (Hollabaugh ¶0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Hollabaugh to improve the known dock of Kelley in view of Azpen to achieve the predictable result of bi directional communication between earphone and electronic devices.
Regarding claim 15, Kelley in view of Azpen in further view of Hollabaugh teaches wherein the dock is configured to be connected with the one or more electronic device associated with the user (Hollabaugh ¶0028, “the communication circuit 138 may include a BLUETOOTH® radio circuit capable of communication with both the device 122 as well as the earbuds 108a and 108b”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights