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
Claims 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 9, the acronym “GUI” is recited. The acronym’s full name, Graphical User Interface, should be described, at least once, before the acronym can be used to avoid ambiguity.
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, 4-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schobert et al. (US 20210306780 A1) in view of Fletcher et al. (US 20200178012 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schobert teaches:
An apparatus for testing headphone functionality, the apparatus comprising (a headphone
testing apparatus, see [0001]: “Some example embodiments may generally relate to testing audio output devices.”; also see [0022] : “Audio output devices (e.g., headphones, speakers, and/or the like) may be tested…“):
“at least one speaker…wherein the at least one speaker is operably coupled to a computer” (Element 108 includes at least one speaker, which is coupled to a computer, i.e. Element 102, see [0029]: “The speaker device 108 may include one or more devices capable of outputting audio in association with a test… the speaker device 108 may receive a set of commands and/or data from the client device 102” , also see Fig. 1);
“at least one microphone…wherein the at least one microphone is operably coupled to the computer” (Element 112 contains at least one microphone and is operable coupled to the computer, Element 102, see [0052]: “…the client device 102 may process the data related to the audio received by the microphones 112..” , also see Fig. 1);
a wireless transceiver operably coupled to the computer (transceiver 114 can be wireless since it can connect to a Bluetooth device 100, and is operably coupled to the computer 102, see [0025]: “…the DUT 100 (or a component thereof) may be connected to NFC device 106 to provide client device 102 with, for example, a Bluetooth address of the DUT 100 so that client device 102 can instruct transceiver 114 to connect to the DUT 100…”, also see Fig. 1);
“a scanner operably coupled to the computer…” (reader device is a scanner and is connected, i.e. operably coupled, to the computer, Element 102, see [0024]: “the system may include, connected to the client device 102, a reader device 104…”, also see [0027]: “ the reader device 104 may include a barcode reader…”, further see Fig. 1).
Schobert does not teach a cabinet with a first compartment, the components are located within the compartment, and a scanner is removably attached to the cabinet.
Fletcher teaches a cabinet with a first compartment, and the components can be located within the compartment (the testing chamber is a cabinet and the sound proof enclosure is a first compartment for different components, see “A sound testing chamber comprises a sound proof enclosure”, Abstract, also see Fig. 2).
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 devices as taught by Schobert in the cabinet and compartment as taught by Fletcher. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “take advantage of the testing” and evaluate capabilities of sound simulating system (Fletcher: [0031]).
Schobert in view of Fletcher does not specifically teach a scanner is removably attached to the cabinet.
However, official notice is taken wherein, at the time of invention was effectively filed, it was a well-known routine that a scanner can be removably attached to a structure. It would have been the designer’s choice to attach the scanner to a cabinet, and would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved apparatus as taught by Schobert in view of Fletcher. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on applications and needs.
Regarding claim 4, Schobert in view of Fletcher teaches all the claim elements previously stated
in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Fletcher further teaches “…the first compartment has an interior lining of noise cancelling materials” ( sound absorbing or attenuating material is noise cancelling material(s); walls, floor, and ceiling are an interior lining, see [0024] : “Sound proof booth 11 comprises a sound proof… enclosure… walls 14A-14D, floor 16 and ceiling 18 can include sound absorbing or attenuating material”).
Regarding claim 5, Schobert in view of Fletcher teaches all the claim elements previously stated
in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Fletcher further teaches “…a platform located within the first compartment” (Element 26B is the platform, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Schobert in view of Fletcher teaches all the claim elements previously stated
in claim 5’s 103 rejection.
Fletcher further teaches “…a charging device is located on the platform” (The connector panel can include a charging port, i.e. a charging device, see “In FIG. 5, 11 includes connector panel 26B”, also see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Schobert in view of Fletcher teaches all the claim elements previously stated
in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Schobert further teaches “…a display operably coupled with the computer” (the computer, Element 102, operates a display for displaying purpose, see [0026]: “…the client device 102 may provide, for display, information related to the DUT 100, a result of the array of tests”, also see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Schobert in view of Fletcher teaches all the claim elements previously stated
in claim 8’s 103 rejection.
Schobert further teaches “…the display shows a GUI” ( The display shows a user interface, [0063]: “…populate a user interface provided for display via the client device 102…”, the user interface can be a graphical user interface, i.e. GUI, see [0069] : “…apparatus 20 may further include a user interface, such as a graphical user interface or touchscreen”, also see Fig. 1 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Schobert in view of Fletcher teaches all the claim elements previously stated
in claim 9’s 103 rejection.
Schobert further teaches “…the GUI displays headphone test results”( test results of DUT 100, i.e. a headphone, is shown on a user interface, which can be a GUI, see [0063] : “the client device 102 may determine the score based on whether the results satisfied certain thresholds, data values obtained as results …may output the report and/or the score for display via the client device (e.g., by sending a message to the client device 102, by updating a record in a database that is used to populate a user interface provided for display via the client device 102, and/or the like)”, see [0069] : “…apparatus 20 may further include a user interface, such as a graphical user interface or touchscreen”, also see Fig. 1 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Schobert in view of Fletcher teaches all the claim elements previously stated
in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Schobert further teaches “…the wireless transceiver is configured to support BlueTooth” (DUT 100 supports Bluetooth and connects to the transceiver, therefore the transceiver is wireless and supports Bluetooth, see [0025]: “a Bluetooth address of the DUT 100 so that client device 102 can instruct transceiver 114 to connect to the DUT 100, as described elsewhere herein”, also see Fig. 1).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schobert et al. (US 20210306780 A1) in view of Fletcher et al. (US 20200178012 A1) in further view of McCloskey (US 8336761 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Schobert in view of Fletcher teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Schobert in view of Fletcher does not teach “…one barcode is secured to the cabinet”.
McCloskey teaches it is well known that a barcode can be attached to an object (e.g., McCloskey teaches attaching a barcode (UPC) to a package which is an object, see : “…a universal product code (UPC)… extracting the UPC located on the packaging”, col 4, ln. 40-44). Thus, at the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one skill in the art to apply the teaching of McCloskey to the system of Schobert to attach a barcode to any objects such as the cabinet for the same desirable purpose of making the cabinet of Schobert to be identified/tracked easily related to its location or for inventory purpose.
Regarding claim 3, Schobert in view of Fletcher in further view of McCloskey teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 2’s 103 rejection.
Fletcher further teaches “…at least one barcode corresponds to a test input when scanned” (the reader device can scan a barcode, based on which the computer determines tests, i.e. barcode information corresponds to a test input, see [0026]: “…the client device 102 may determine an array of tests for the DUT 100 based on information from the reader device 104…”, also see Fig. 1)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schobert et al. (US 20210306780 A1) in view of Fletcher et al. (US 20200178012 A1) in further view of Inagaki (US 9807520 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Schobert in view of Fletcher teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Schobert in view of Fletcher does not teach “…at least one microphone is housed within a model ear”
Inagaki teaches “…at least one microphone is housed within a model ear” ( a microphone is located in an ear model, see “transmitting sound to a user through vibration conduction by contacting a vibrating body (10a) to a human auricle…provided with an ear model (50) including an artificial auricle (51) and an artificial external ear canal (53) and with a microphone (62) ”, Abstract, also see Fig. 1)
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have placed at least one microphone in a model ear as taught by Inagaki and integrated this structure to the apparatus as taught by Schobert in view of Fletcher. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for “a high degree of accuracy” (Inagaki: col.11, ln. 66).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alderson et al. (US 20200005759 A1) teaches a platform in a compartment (Element 407, Fig. 4).
Yang et al. (US 20250317682 A1) teaches a sound insulation box (See Fig. 3)
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
Prosecution Insights