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 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.
Claims 1-10 and 15-20 are 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 1 is rejected because it recites the limitation "an outlet disposed within the housing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim later recites “the outlet of the microphone port,” which is unclear if it is referring back to "an outlet disposed within the housing."
Claim 15 is rejected because it recites the limitation "an outlet disposed at an outer surface of the housing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim later recites “the outlet of the acoustic port,” which is unclear if it is referring back to "an outlet disposed at an outer surface of the housing."
Claim 12 is rejected because the term “irregular internal structure” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “irregular” 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. It is unclear what is considered a regular internal structure, and what is considered an irregular internal structure, therefore the ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
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) 1-8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiefenau hereinafter as Tie (US 2022/0150651) in view of Copt (US 2020/0404441).
Regarding claim 1, Tie teaches An ear-wearable device comprising: a housing (Tie figure 3, housing 4); a microphone port disposed in the housing and extending between an inlet disposed at an outer surface of the housing and an outlet disposed within the housing (Tie figure 1B, through going opening 22 extends between the top of opening 22/outer recess 14 and the port of microphone 30. Figure 4, through going opening 22 extends between outer opening 6, and port of microphone 30 ); a microphone disposed within the housing (Tie figure 3 and ¶0079, “microphone 30 arranged within the housing 4”) and acoustically coupled to the outlet of the microphone port (Tie figures 3-6c and ¶0079, “microphone 30 arranged within the housing 4 for receiving audio via the microphone inlet 20”); and a filter disposed over the inlet of the microphone port (Tie figure 1B, filter 50 is over part of the hole 22) or at least partially within the microphone port (Tie figures 3-4, filter 50 is within through-going opening 22), wherein the filter comprises an open cell material (Tie ¶0054, “The second filter device may in other words be an inlay of open cell foam and/or a protective foam inlay, surrounding the microphone inlet” ¶0059, “The second filter material may for example be a reticulated foam material. Reticulated foam material may be understood as a foam material being very porous, e.g. a low density solid foam. In other words, reticulated foam material may be denoted a foam net material. Further, reticulated foam may be understood as a very open foam with few intact bubbles or cell windows in the foam structure”), however does not explicitly teach a filter disposed over the inlet of the microphone port.
Copt teaches a filter disposed over the inlet of the microphone port (Copt figure 2 and 11, ¶0114, “the windscreen structure 418 comprising the open-cell foam 421 can be disposed to partially or fully cover the antihelix structure 101, the tragus structure 102, and the microphone aperture 409”).
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 Copt to improve the known ear-wearable device of Tie to achieve the predictable result of reduced noise disturbance (Copt ¶0114).
Regarding claim 2, Tie in view of Copt teaches wherein the filter is configured to reduce wind noise received by the microphone through the microphone port (Copt figure 2 and 11, ¶0114, “the windscreen structure 418”).
Regarding claim 3, Tie in view of Copt teaches wherein the filter is configured to at least partially block ingress of debris into the microphone port (Tie ¶0091, “The second filter device 50 is configured to collect one or more of dirt, dust, earwax, water, moist, sweat, cerumen, and dead skin. In other words, the second filter device 50 may be configured to stop particles or liquid with high viscosity from landing on the first filter device”).
Regarding claim 4, Tie in view of Copt teaches wherein the filter further comprises a frame connected to the open cell material (Tie figure 5 and ¶0045, “The second filter device may comprise a second attachment device. The second attachment device may comprise one or more adhesive portions for attaching the second filter device to the hearing device,” or the housing portion 10 surrounding the filter 50).
Regarding claim 5, Tie in view of Copt teaches wherein the open cell material comprises a foam (Tie ¶0054, “The second filter device may in other words be an inlay of open cell foam”).
Regarding claim 6, Tie in view of Copt teaches wherein the open cell material comprises an average pore diameter of no greater than 200 microns (Tie ¶0082, “The second filter device 50 comprises a second filter material being a reticulated foam material having an average pore size of 150 um”).
Regarding claim 7, Tie in view of Copt teaches wherein the open cell material comprises a porosity of at least 90% (Tie ¶0059, “The second filter device, e.g. the second filter material may have a porosity in the range of 80% to 100%, 85% to 98%, and/or 90% to 95%”).
Regarding claim 8, Tie in view of Copt teaches wherein the filter further comprises at least one of a hydrophobic material or an oleophobic material (Tie ¶0068, “the second filter material is hydrophilic or hydrophobic”).
Regarding claim 13, Tie teaches A method comprising: acoustically coupling, via an inlet of a microphone port (Tie figure 1B and 4, the top of opening 22/outer recess 14), air outside of a housing of an ear-wearable device (Tie ¶0021-0022 “hearing aid”) with an outlet of the microphone port within the housing (Tie figure 3 and ¶0079, “microphone 30 arranged within the housing 4”); disposing a filter over the inlet of the microphone port (Tie figure 1B, filter 50 is over part of the hole 22) or at least partially within the microphone port (Tie figures 3-4, filter 50 is within through-going opening 22), wherein the filter comprises an open cell material (Tie ¶0054, “The second filter device may in other words be an inlay of open cell foam and/or a protective foam inlay, surrounding the microphone inlet” ¶0059, “The second filter material may for example be a reticulated foam material. Reticulated foam material may be understood as a foam material being very porous, e.g. a low density solid foam. In other words, reticulated foam material may be denoted a foam net material. Further, reticulated foam may be understood as a very open foam with few intact bubbles or cell windows in the foam structure”); acoustically coupling a microphone with the outlet of the microphone port (Tie figures 3-6c and ¶0079, “microphone 30 arranged within the housing 4 for receiving audio via the microphone inlet 20”); and using signals from the microphone to reproduce sound into an ear canal of a wearer of the ear-wearable device (Tie ¶0021-0022 “hearing aid”), however does not explicitly teach disposing a filter over the inlet of the microphone port.
Copt teaches disposing a filter over the inlet of the microphone port (Copt figure 2 and 11, ¶0114, “the windscreen structure 418 comprising the open-cell foam 421 can be disposed to partially or fully cover the antihelix structure 101, the tragus structure 102, and the microphone aperture 409”).
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 Copt to improve the known ear-wearable device of Tie to achieve the predictable result of reduced noise disturbance (Copt ¶0114).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiefenau hereinafter as Tie (US 2022/0150651) in view of Copt (US 2020/0404441) in further view of Parish (US 2011/0031059).
Regarding claim 9, Tie in view of Copt does not explicitly teach wherein the filter is configured to attenuate sound waves received into the microphone port by no greater than 4 dB SPL.
Parish teaches wherein the filter is configured to attenuate sound waves received into the microphone port by no greater than 4 dB SPL (Parish ¶0047-0050 teaches the different attenuation according to the different pore size and ¶0139, “sound attenuation by 3 dB”).
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 Parish to improve the known ear-wearable device of Tie in view of Copt to achieve the predictable result of achieving the desired sound attenuation.
Regarding claim 12, Tie in view of Copt in further view of Parish teaches wherein the open cell material of the filter defines an irregular internal structure of the filter, wherein the irregular internal structure is predefined (Parish figure 1).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiefenau hereinafter as Tie (US 2022/0150651) in view of Copt (US 2020/0404441) in further view of Dominijanni hereinafter as Dom (US 2022/0191626).
Regarding claim 10, Tie in view of Copt does not explicitly teach an earpiece that is coupled to the housing by a cable, wherein the earpiece comprises an earpiece housing and a receiver disposed at least partially within the housing, wherein the receiver is configured to direct sound waves into a wearer's ear through an acoustic port that extends between an outlet disposed at an outer surface of the earpiece housing and an inlet disposed within the earpiece housing that is acoustically coupled to the receiver; and a second filter disposed over the outlet of the acoustic port or at least partially within the acoustic port, wherein the second filter comprises an open cell material.
Dom teaches an earpiece that is coupled to the housing by a cable (Dom figure 1, earpiece 108 coupled to casing 104 via wire 106), wherein the earpiece comprises an earpiece housing and a receiver disposed at least partially within the housing (Dom figure 3, earpiece 300, transducer 306 and ¶0048, “The earpiece 108 carries a speaker, also known as the “receiver” or “driver.”), wherein the receiver is configured to direct sound waves into a wearer's ear through an acoustic port (Dom ¶0054, “the first acoustic volume 308 is acoustically coupled to an acoustic passage 322 in the nozzle 320 such that the transducer 306 is acoustically coupled to the user's ear canal when the earpiece 300 is worn”) that extends between an outlet disposed at an outer surface of the earpiece housing and an inlet disposed within the earpiece housing that is acoustically coupled to the receiver (Dom figure 3 and ¶0057, volume 308 is between outlet 314 and the opening adjacent to first radiating surface 312 formed by wall 330 and housing 304); and a second filter disposed over the outlet of the acoustic port or at least partially within the acoustic port, wherein the second filter comprises an open cell material (Dom figure 3 and ¶0055, “the outlet 314 is at least partially covered by a protective material 326. In certain cases, the protective material 326 is part of an ear tip (e.g., ear tip 324), however, in other cases, the protective material 326 is coupled with the housing 304 proximate the outlet 314. Examples of protective material 326 can include one or more of: a screen, a mesh material, a wax guard, a thin foam, a reticulated foam, an open-cell foam, or an expanded polymer (e.g., ePTFE)”).
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 Dom to improve the known ear-wearable device of Tie in view of Copt to achieve the predictable result of achieving the desired sound attenuation and reducing debris getting to the receiver.
Regarding claim 11, Tie in view of Copt in further view of Dom teaches wherein the ear-wearable device is configured to be disposed at least partially within an ear canal of a wearer (Dom ¶0054, “nozzle 320 such that the transducer 306 is acoustically coupled to the user's ear canal when the earpiece 300 is worn”), wherein the ear-wearable device further comprises: a receiver disposed at least partially within the housing (Dom figure 3, earpiece 300, transducer 306 and ¶0048, “The earpiece 108 carries a speaker, also known as the “receiver” or “driver.”), wherein the receiver is configured to direct sound waves to the ear canal through an acoustic port (Dom ¶0054, “the first acoustic volume 308 is acoustically coupled to an acoustic passage 322 in the nozzle 320 such that the transducer 306 is acoustically coupled to the user's ear canal when the earpiece 300 is worn”) that extends between an outlet disposed at the outer surface of the housing and an inlet disposed within the housing and acoustically coupled to the receiver (Dom figure 3 and ¶0057, volume 308 is between outlet 314 and the opening adjacent to first radiating surface 312 formed by wall 330 and housing 304); and a second filter disposed over the outlet of the acoustic port or at least partially within the acoustic port, wherein the second filter comprises an open cell material (Dom figure 3 and ¶0055, “the outlet 314 is at least partially covered by a protective material 326. In certain cases, the protective material 326 is part of an ear tip (e.g., ear tip 324), however, in other cases, the protective material 326 is coupled with the housing 304 proximate the outlet 314. Examples of protective material 326 can include one or more of: a screen, a mesh material, a wax guard, a thin foam, a reticulated foam, an open-cell foam, or an expanded polymer (e.g., ePTFE)”).
Regarding claim 14, Tie in view of Copt in further view of Dom teaches connecting the housing with an earpiece utilizing a cable (Dom figure 1, earpiece 108 coupled to casing 104 via wire 106); disposing the earpiece at least partially within the ear canal of the wearer (Dom ¶0054, “nozzle 320 such that the transducer 306 is acoustically coupled to the user's ear canal when the earpiece 300 is worn”), wherein the sound is reproduced into the ear canal (Dom ¶0054, “the first acoustic volume 308 is acoustically coupled to an acoustic passage 322 in the nozzle 320 such that the transducer 306 is acoustically coupled to the user's ear canal when the earpiece 300 is worn”) by a receiver disposed at least partially within the earpiece (Dom figure 3, earpiece 300, transducer 306 and ¶0048, “The earpiece 108 carries a speaker, also known as the “receiver” or “driver.”); and disposing a second filter over an outlet of an acoustic port of the earpiece or at least partially within the acoustic port, wherein the second filter comprises an open cell material (Dom figure 3 and ¶0055, “the outlet 314 is at least partially covered by a protective material 326. In certain cases, the protective material 326 is part of an ear tip (e.g., ear tip 324), however, in other cases, the protective material 326 is coupled with the housing 304 proximate the outlet 314. Examples of protective material 326 can include one or more of: a screen, a mesh material, a wax guard, a thin foam, a reticulated foam, an open-cell foam, or an expanded polymer (e.g., ePTFE)”), wherein the acoustic port (Dom ¶0054, “the first acoustic volume 308 is acoustically coupled to an acoustic passage 322 in the nozzle 320 such that the transducer 306 is acoustically coupled to the user's ear canal when the earpiece 300 is worn”) extends between the outlet that is disposed at an outer surface of a housing of the earpiece and an inlet disposed within the housing of the earpiece, wherein the inlet is acoustically coupled to the receiver (Dom figure 3 and ¶0057, volume 308 is between outlet 314 and the opening adjacent to first radiating surface 312 formed by wall 330 and housing 304).
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dom (US 2022/0191626) in view of Tie (US 2022/0150651).
Regarding claim 15, Dom teaches An ear-wearable device comprising: a housing (Dom figure 1, earpiece 108 coupled to casing 104); a receiver disposed at least partially within the housing (Dom figure 3, earpiece 300, transducer 306 and ¶0048, “The earpiece 108 carries a speaker, also known as the “receiver” or “driver.”) and configured to direct sound waves into a wearer's ear through an acoustic port (Dom ¶0054, “the first acoustic volume 308 is acoustically coupled to an acoustic passage 322 in the nozzle 320 such that the transducer 306 is acoustically coupled to the user's ear canal when the earpiece 300 is worn”) that extends between an outlet disposed at an outer surface of the housing and an inlet disposed within the housing that is acoustically coupled to the receiver (Dom figure 3 and ¶0057, volume 308 is between outlet 314 and the opening adjacent to first radiating surface 312 formed by wall 330 and housing 304); and a filter disposed over the outlet of the acoustic port or at least partially within the acoustic port, wherein the filter comprises an open cell material (Dom figure 3 and ¶0055, “the outlet 314 is at least partially covered by a protective material 326. In certain cases, the protective material 326 is part of an ear tip (e.g., ear tip 324), however, in other cases, the protective material 326 is coupled with the housing 304 proximate the outlet 314. Examples of protective material 326 can include one or more of: a screen, a mesh material, a wax guard, a thin foam, a reticulated foam, an open-cell foam, or an expanded polymer (e.g., ePTFE)”), however does not teach a filter disposed at least partially within the acoustic port.
Tie teaches a filter disposed at least partially within the acoustic port (Tie figures 3-4, filter 50 is within through-going opening 22).
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 Tie to improve the known ear-wearable device of Dom to achieve the predictable result of a more water resistant device (Tie ¶0068).
Regarding claim 16, Dom in view of Tie teaches wherein the open cell material of the filter comprises a foam (Tie ¶0054, “The second filter device may in other words be an inlay of open cell foam”).
Regarding claim 17, Dom in view of Tie teaches wherein the filter comprises a porosity of at least 90% (Tie ¶0059, “The second filter device, e.g. the second filter material may have a porosity in the range of 80% to 100%, 85% to 98%, and/or 90% to 95%”).
Regarding claim 19, Dom in view of Tie teaches wherein the filter further comprises at least one of a hydrophobic material or an olcophobic material (Tie ¶0068, “the second filter material is hydrophilic or hydrophobic”).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dom (US 2022/0191626) in view of Tie (US 2022/0150651) in further view of Doty (US 8054985).
Regarding claim 18, Dom in view of Tie teaches wherein the filter is friction-fit at least partially within the acoustic port.
Doty teaches wherein the filter is friction-fit at least partially within the acoustic port (Doty figure 2A, Col 5 lines 35-59, “The filter 18 is preferably secured upon the tube 16 and held within the channel 14 by a friction fit”).
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 Doty to improve the known ear-wearable device to achieve the predictable result of a securely mounted filter.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dom (US 2022/0191626) in view of Tie (US 2022/0150651) in further view of Parish (US 2011/0031059).
Regarding claim 20, Dom in view of Tie does not explicitly teach wherein the filter is configured to attenuate sound waves received into the microphone port by no greater than 4 dB SPL.
Parish teaches wherein the filter is configured to attenuate sound waves received into the microphone port by no greater than 4 dB SPL (Parish ¶0047-0050 teaches the different attenuation according to the different pore size and ¶0139, “sound attenuation by 3 dB”).
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 Parish to improve the known ear-wearable device of Dom in view of Tie to achieve the predictable result of achieving the desired sound attenuation.
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