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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is response to Applicant’s amendment filed on August 07, 2026.
Claims 5-7 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-4, and 8-11 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 has overcome the objection in previous Office Action. The objection to the claim is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the rejections for claims 1-4, and 8-11 under 35
U.S.C § 103, the arguments have been fully considered but are deemed moot, in view of new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 4, 8-9 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US 20240216959 A1) in view of Darlington et al. (US 20190037324 A1) further in view of Ting et al. (US 20210024112 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ross teaches all the claim elements except where underlined:
An apparatus for testing headphone functionality, the apparatus comprising (see Fig. 9I, see
[0087]:”…various embodiments herein may be disclosed to clean and test wireless earbuds…”):
a cabinet having a first compartment located therein (the enclosure 972 is a cabinet having an interior space, i.e. a first compartment, see [0211]: “FIGS. 9I and 9J illustrate an example of a testing station 160 in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. In the embodiment of FIGS. 9I and 9J the testing station 160 includes an enclosure 972. A handle 974 may be attached to or integrated into the exterior of the enclosure 972. The handle 974 may allow a user or robotic arm 116 to lift the enclosure 972”, see Fig. 9I);
wherein the cabinet is configured to test a single pair of headphones (a pair of the earbuds, i.e. a single pare of the headphones can be placed inside the testing station 160, i.e. in the cabinet for testing, see [0277]-[0278]: “the testing station 160 may position the microphone at a specified distance…a sensor array of a microphone array including a plurality of microphones may be in a fixed position such that an…pair of earbuds may be placed into position for testing”):
at least one speaker located within the first compartment, wherein the at least one speaker is operably coupled to a computer (speakers are at least one speaker included in the test station, therefore located in the first compartment, the test station includes a computing device, i.e. a computer to control the functionality, therefore, the at least one speaker is operably coupled to a computer,
see [0276]: “The test station 160 may include one or more sensors that may be used to conduct one or more tests (e.g., microphones, speakers, or the like)”, see [0095]: “…each station may include its own computing device 180 that may control or operate the station…the computing device(s) may control the functionality of the various system components described herein…”);
at least one microphone located within the first compartment, wherein the at least one microphone is operably coupled to the computer (microphones are at least one microphone included in the test station, therefore located in the first compartment, the test station includes a computing device, i.e. a computer to control the functionality, therefore, the at least one microphone is operably coupled to a computer, see [0276]: “The test station 160 may include one or more sensors that may be used to conduct one or more tests (e.g., microphones, speakers, or the like)”, see [0095]: “…each station may include its own computing device 180 that may control or operate the station…the computing device(s) may control the functionality of the various system components described herein…”);
a wireless transceiver operably coupled to the computer (a wireless receiver is a wireless transceiver, the computing device is the computer, therefore a wireless transceiver operably coupled to the computer, see [0102]: “The computing device 180 may then have a wireless receiver (e.g., a Bluetooth® receiver) configured to pair with the device(s)…”);
a platform configured to support a headphone carrying case, wherein a charging device is disposed on the platform (the index table or other handling platform is a platform configured to support a charging case, i.e. a headphone carrying case, the charging cradle 200 is a charging device disposed on the platform, see [0125]:”the charging cradle 200 may be configured to be installed on the index table (e.g., index table 110A shown in FIG. 1A) or other handling platform…the device may be a pair of earbuds with…a charging case”):
a scanner operably coupled to the computer is removably secured to the cabinet (an optical reader is an optical reader coupled to the computing device, i.e. the computer, a scanning station including the scanner can be associated with a robotic arm, i.e. the scanner is removable, see [0106]: “A scanning station may use an optical reader 142 to read or scan the device identifier…the image captured by the optical reader 142 may be transmitted to the computing device 180 for decoding or optically recognizing the device identifier”, see [0095]: “…each station may include its own computing device 180 that may control or operate the station…the computing device(s) may control the functionality of the various system components described herein…”; see [0107]: “A scanning station 140 may be associated with a robotic arm 116. The robotic arm 116 may manipulate one or more device(s)”, see Fig. 1B)
Ross does not teach a pair of model ears disposed within the first compartment, wherein the at least one microphone is housed within the pair of model ears and configured to receive audio generated by the pair of headphones under test; and wherein the at least one speaker is configured to generate audio for receipt by a microphone of the headphone under test, and a scanner is removably secured to the cabinet.
Darlington teaches a pair of model ears disposed within the first compartment, wherein the at least one microphone is housed within the pair of model ears and configured to receive audio generated by the pair of headphones under test (artificial ears/ear simulators is a pair of model ears; the eardrum microphone is at least one microphone housed within the pair of the model ears, which is configured to receive audio generated by the earphone to be tested, i.e. the pair of headphones under test, see [0089]:“ The HATS device 30 is capable of being fitted with ear plates 50 which mount standard artificial ears/ear simulators”, see Figs 1-2; see [0092]:“ In addition to the eardrum microphone 46, the proximal end of the simplified artificial ear may also be equipped with an acoustic source in the form of internal HATS driver 48. Internal HATS driver 48 may be used to generate sound for the purpose of testing eardrum microphone 46 or for providing an acoustic test signal for other tests on a headphone under test…”, see Fig. 10; see [0048]: “…activating the pre-generated internal test pattern using the driver of the earphone apparatus to be tested; and measuring the response of the eardrum microphone”);
and wherein the at least one speaker is configured to generate audio for receipt by a microphone of the headphone under test (at least one external loudspeaker is the at lease on speaker, and the feedforward microphone of the earphone is a microphone of the headphone under test, the at least one speaker is configured to generate audio for receipt by a microphone of the headphone under test, see [0060]: “…activating the pre-generated external test pattern (e.g. using at least one external loudspeaker provided on the head simulator) and measuring the response of the feedforward microphone of the earphone apparatus under test”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated a pair of model ears as taught by Darlington in the first compartment as taught by Ross. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system with “the passageway and ear plate are configured to approximate the auditory canal and outer ear respectively of a user” (see [0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “to allow quick and predictable testing of earphone apparatus in a production line manufacturing process” (see [0007]).
Ross in view of Darlington does not teach a scanner is removably secured to the cabinet.
Ting teaches a scanner is removably secured to a structure (a barcode scanner is a scanner, see [0006]: “a barcode reader/scanner removably mounted to the upper portion of the frame”)
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have secured the removably securable structure attaching scanner as taught by Ting to the cabinet as taught by Ross in view of Darlington. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “be conveniently located near, or mounted to” the structure and to “…provides easy viewing of the screen of computer” (see [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Ross in view of Darlington further in view of Ting teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Ross further teaches “the apparatus for testing headphone functionality of claim 1 wherein at least one barcode…” (see [0226]: “ A device identifier may be located on a device and/or a device case. A device identifier may uniquely identify the device, such as with a serial number, or may contain such information in a coded format, such as a barcode”). Ross does not specifically mention the at least one barcode is secured to the cabinet. However, official notice is taken, It would have been the designer’s choice to secure the barcode to the cabinet, and the system would still function effectively. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on applications and needs.
Regarding claim 4, Ross in view of Darlington further in view of Ting teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Ross further teaches the apparatus for testing headphone functionality of claim 1
wherein the first compartment has an interior lining of noise cancelling materials (Sound proofing material included in the testing tray lid is an interior lining of noise cancelling materials for the first compartment, see [0213]: “ The testing tray lid 978 may include sound proofing material to dampen sound during one or more tests conducted by the testing station 160.”, see Fig . 9J).
Regarding claim 8, Ross in view of Darlington further in view of Ting teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Ross further teaches the apparatus for testing headphone functionality of claim 1, further comprising a display operably coupled with the computer (Computing device, i.e. the computer, for the apparatus for testing headphone functionality, comprise a display 1612, see [0304]: “Computing device 180 may include a display 1612 that may be in communication with the processor 1602 to display user interfaces (such as, but not limited to, control, progress, and/or results of one or more operations described herein)”).
Regarding claim 9, Ross in view of Darlington further in view of Ting teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 8’s 103 rejection.
Ross further teaches the apparatus for testing headphone functionality of claim 8 wherein the display shows a graphical user interface (GUI) (the displayed user interfaces is a graphical user interface (GUI), see [0304]: “Computing device 180 may include a display 1612 that may be in communication with the processor 1602 to display user interfaces (such as, but not limited to, control, progress, and/or results of one or more operations described herein)”).
Regarding claim 10, Ross in view of Darlington further in view of Ting teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 9’s 103 rejection.
Ross further teaches the apparatus for testing headphone functionality of claim 9, wherein the GUI displays headphone test results (results of one or more operations can include headphone test results, see [0304]: “Computing device 180 may include a display 1612 that may be in communication with the processor 1602 to display user interfaces (such as, but not limited to, control, progress, and/or results of one or more operations described herein)”).
Regarding claim 11, Ross in view of Darlington further in view of Ting teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Ross further teaches the apparatus for testing headphone functionality of claim 1, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to support BlueTooth (a Bluetooth receiver is the wireless transceiver configured to support BlueTooth, see [0102]: “The computing device 180 may then have a wireless receiver (e.g., a Bluetooth® receiver) configured to pair with the device(s)…”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US 20240216959 A1) in view of Darlington et al. (US 20190037324 A1) in view of Ting et al. (US 20210024112 A1) further in view of Bowen, III (US 9740907 B1)
Regarding claim 3, Ross in view of Darlington further in view of Ting teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 2’s 103 rejection.
Ross in view of Darlington further in view of Ting does not teach the at least one barcode
corresponds to a test input when scanned.
Bowen, III teaches the at least one barcode corresponds to a test input when scanned (
Scanning the barcode will trigger instructions that can include test commands, i.e. the at least one barcode corresponds to a test input when scanned, see: “the self-identifying barcode system 100 can be used for testing a product. To define test commands, for example, the Barcode Field ID can be set to indicate test commands, and the serial number can be a reference to an actual command, such as “Start”, “Pause”, “Cancel”, “End”, or “Re-Test”. To define test station positions, the Barcode Field ID can be set to indicate test positions, where the serial number can be a reference to the actual test position”, col. 11, ln. 5-13; see: “the request can be triggered automatically by scanning a self-identifying barcode with programmed instructions…”, col. 11, ln. 24-26)).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated the barcode triggering a test when scanned scheme as taught by Bowen, III to the apparatus as taught by Ross in view of Darlington further in view of Ting. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “enable a user to process a work order for a particular process application”(see col. 12, ln. 35-36).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 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, Vivian Chin 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.
/SHIN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
