DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 16-34 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,995. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761.
Limitations of the present invention and corresponding U.S. Patent No. 12,244,995 are listed in the following table.
Instant Application: 19/038,360
U.S. Patent No. 12,244,995
16. A headset comprising: an ear cup comprising a foam ring, wherein: the foam ring defines a hollow area extending between a perimeter of the foam ring and a center space, and the hollow area is configured to receive foam according to an analysis determining whether a user of the headset is wearing eyewear
1. A headset comprising: an ear cup comprising a foam ring, wherein: the foam ring comprises a hollow area that extends between a perimeter of the foam ring and a center space defined by the foam ring, and the hollow area receives foam according to an analysis of whether eyewear is worn by a user of the headset.
17. The headset of claim 16, comprising a processing unit.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the headset comprises a processing unit.
18. The headset of claim 17, wherein the processing unit is configured to perform the analysis according to an acoustic wave characteristic.
3. The headset of claim 1, wherein a processing unit performs the analysis according to an acoustic wave characteristic.
19. The headset of claim 17, wherein the processing unit is configured to apply a bass boost to an audio signal.
4. The headset of claim 1, wherein a processing unit is operable to apply a bass boost to an audio signal.
20. The headset of claim 17, wherein the processing unit is configured to apply a gain to an audio signal.
5. The headset of claim 1, wherein a processing unit is operable to apply a gain to an audio signal.
21. The headset of claim 17, wherein the processing unit is configured to determine whether the user is wearing eyewear according to acoustic waves captured by one or more microphones.
6. The headset of claim 1, wherein a processing unit is operable to determine whether eyewear is worn by a user of the headset according to acoustic waves captured by one or more microphones.
22. The headset of claim 17, wherein the processing unit is configured to adjust an audio signal received by the headset according to whether the hollow area receives foam.
7. The headset of claim 1, wherein the a processing unit is operable to adjust an audio signal received by the headset according whether the hollow area receives foam.
23. The headset of claim 16, comprising one or more microphones configured to capture acoustic waves within the center space defined by the foam ring.
8. The headset of claim 1, wherein the headset comprises one or more microphones configured to capture acoustic waves inside the center space defined by the foam ring.
24. The headset of claim 16, wherein the hollow area is configured to receive foam according to an amount of depression in the ear cup.
9. The headset of claim 1, wherein the hollow area receives foam according to on amount of depression in the ear cup.
25. The headset of claim 16, comprising memory configured to store a plurality of adjustments for application to an audio signal.
10. The headset of claim 1, wherein the headset comprises memory operable to store a plurality of adjustments for application to the audio signal.
26. The headset of claim 25, wherein the memory is FLASH memory.
11. The headset of claim 10, wherein the memory is FLASH memory.
27. The headset of claim 16, wherein an adjustment of an audio signal is user-controlled.
12. The headset of claim 1, wherein an adjustment of an audio signal is user controlled.
28. The headset of claim 16, wherein an audio signal is received wirelessly.
13. The headset of claim 1, wherein an audio signal is received wirelessly.
29. The headset of claim 16, wherein the foam ring is covered by a liner.
14. The headset of claim 1, wherein the foam ring is covered by a liner.
30. A system comprising: a headset comprising an ear cup, the ear cup comprising a foam ring, defining a hollow area extending between a perimeter of the foam ring and a center space; and non-transitory machine readable storage having code stored thereon, wherein: the code, when is executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to determine whether a user of the headset is wearing eyewear.
15. A system comprising: a headset comprising an ear cup; and non-transitory machine readable storage having code stored thereon, wherein: the ear cup comprises a foam ring, the foam ring comprises a hollow area that extends between a perimeter of the foam ring and a center space defined by the foam ring wherein when code is executed by a computing device, and the computing device is configured to determine whether eyewear is worn by a user of the headset, and the computing device is operable to determine, according to acoustic waves captured by one or more microphones, whether the hollow area receives foam.
31. The system of claim 30, wherein the computing device is configured to determine, according to acoustic waves captured by one or more microphones, whether the hollow area receives foam.
15. A system comprising: a headset comprising an ear cup; and non-transitory machine readable storage having code stored thereon, wherein: the ear cup comprises a foam ring, the foam ring comprises a hollow area that extends between a perimeter of the foam ring and a center space defined by the foam ring wherein when code is executed by a computing device, and the computing device is configured to determine whether eyewear is worn by a user of the headset, and the computing device is operable to determine, according to acoustic waves captured by one or more microphones, whether the hollow area receives foam.
32. The system of claim 30, wherein the computing device is configured to adjust an audio signal received by the headset according to a configuration of the headset determined by the computing device.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the computing device is operable to adjust an audio signal received by the headset according to a configuration of the headset determined by the computing device.
33. The system of claim 30, wherein the headset comprises one or more microphones configured to capture acoustic waves within the center space defined by the foam ring.
17. The system of claim 15, wherein the headset comprises one or more microphones configured to capture acoustic waves inside the center space defined by the foam ring.
34. The system of claim 30, wherein a configuration of the headset is based on an amount of depression in the ear cup.
18. The system of claim 15, wherein a configuration of the headset is based on amount of depression in the ear cup.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 30 and 32-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khandekar, U.S. Patent No. 5,706,360 (hereinafter Khandekar) in view of Grone et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0078570 (hereinafter Grone).
Regarding claim 30, Khandekar discloses a system (from Figure 1, see 10) comprising:
a headset comprising an ear cup, the ear cup comprising a foam ring, defining a hollow area extending between a perimeter of the foam ring and a center space (from lines 20 through 45 of column 3, see Referring to FIG. 2A, an inner view of the right ear cup 14 is shown. The ear cup 14 has a concave inner surface 15, which conforms to the ear of the user. This view also shows that the padded insert 16 extends peripherally around the ear cup 14. The padded insert 16 is preferably attached to the ear cup 14 by an adhesive. However, any other suitable attaching method known in the art can be used.
(10) Referring to FIG. 2B, there is shown a cross sectional view through the ear cup 20. As can be seen the spectacle temple accommodating opening 24 includes a first aperture 24A extending through a front facing portion 22 of the padded insert 16 and a second aperture 24B extending through a rear facing portion 23 of the padded insert 16. Both the first aperture 24A and the second aperture 24B extend through the padded insert 16 in a substantially horizontal orientation, which allows the apertures 24A,24B to receive the temple 32. The second aperture 24B is made substantially larger than the first aperture 24A, in order to receive the curved end portion of the temple 32. Additionally, both apertures 24A,24B are positioned within the padded insert 16 as shown so that the temple 32 can be readily inserted into both apertures 24A,24B and positioned behind the ear 28
).
Still on the issue of claim 30, Khandekar does not teach non-transitory machine readable storage having code stored thereon, wherein the code, when is executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to determine whether a user of the headset is wearing eyewear. All the same, Grone discloses non-transitory machine readable storage having code stored thereon, wherein the code, when is executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to determine whether a user of the headset is wearing eyewear (from paragraph 0030, the headphone or the headset optionally has a sensor 180. The sensor 180 is adapted to detect whether placement of the earcup with the ear cushion 160 against the head of a user provides a closed volume or a volume which is open towards the exterior (that is to say having a spectacles side arm recess 161). Optionally the control unit 170 can switch over between the first and second operating Modes in dependence on the output signals of the sensor 180, if therefore the sensor 180 detects that the volume is closed (that is to say there is no spectacles side arm recess 161) then the second operating mode is selected, If however the sensor 180 detects that the volume is not closed (that is to say the ear cushion 160 has the spectacles side arm recess 161) then the first operating mode is selected). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khandekar with non-transitory machine readable storage having code stored thereon, wherein the code, when is executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to determine whether a user of the headset is wearing eyewear as taught by Grone. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for switching between different first and second operating modes as suggested by Grone.
Regarding claim 32, Khandekar as modified by Grone discloses the computing device is operable to adjust an audio signal received by the headset according to a configuration of the headset determined by the computing device (from paragraph 0017 of Grone, see In a first operating mode the active noise compensation unit 100 is adapted to implement active noise compensation based on the signals from the internal and external microphones 120, 130, wherein active noise compensation takes account of the recess 161 in the ear cushion 160).
Regarding claim 33, Khandekar as modified by Grone discloses the headset comprises one or more microphones (from Figure 1 of Grone, see 130) configured to capture acoustic waves inside the center spaced defined by the foam ring.
Regarding claim 34, Khandekar as modified by Grone discloses a configuration of the headset is based on amount of depression in the ear cup (from paragraph 0030 of Grone, see the headphone or the headset optionally has a sensor 180. The sensor 180 is adapted to detect whether placement of the earcup with the ear cushion 160 against the head of a user provides a closed volume or a volume which is open towards the exterior (that is to say having a spectacles side arm recess 161). Optionally the control unit 170 can switch over between the first and second operating Modes in dependence on the output signals of the sensor 180, if therefore the sensor 180 detects that the volume is closed (that is to say there is no spectacles side arm recess 161) then the second operating mode is selected, If however the sensor 180 detects that the volume is not closed (that is to say the ear cushion 160 has the spectacles side arm recess 161) then the first operating mode is selected).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 16-29 are allowed while claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Olisa Anwah whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
July 30, 2026
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights