DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-13, and 15-19 are rejected
Claims 4-5, 11, 14 and 20 are objected
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rye et al (US PUB 20160050474, hereinafter Rye).
Regarding Claim 1, Rye discloses a wearable electronic device (e.g. an ear worn device 1000), (see at least the abstract), comprising: a housing (e.g. a housing 1401) including a first surface facing an outside of the wearable electronic device (e.g. outer surface), a second surface opposite to the first surface (e.g. inner surface), (see figure 14), and a microphone hole (e.g. microphone hole 1402/1403) formed between the first surface and the second surface (see figure 14); a support (e.g. a support circuit board 102) disposed on the second surface and including a microphone chamber at least partially facing the microphone hole, and a microphone (e.g. microphone 310/311) disposed on the second surface and configured to obtain an external sound of the wearable electronic device through the microphone hole and the microphone chamber (e.g. microphone 310/311 are accommodated in a chamber formed beneath the support circuit board 102 and directly facing the microphone hole 1402/1403 in order to be able to pick up sound from the ambient environment), (see figure 14); an antenna structure (e.g. an antenna chip 202) positioned on the second surface (e.g. the antenna chip is positioned on the circuit board 102 below the second surface of the housing), (see figures 3 and 5); a connecting member disposed on the second surface and including a first connection area electrically connected to the antenna structure, and a second connection area extending from the first connection area and disposed on the support (inherently the antenna structure 202 is electrically connected to the support circuit board 102 at a first connection area, while a second connection area extends away from the first connection area on the circuit board), (see Rye, [0049], [0060]-[0062], and [0077]-[0079], also figures 3, 5, and 14).
Regarding Claim 3, Rye discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a touch pad (e.g. a capacitive sensor substrate 108) disposed on the second surface (see Rye, [0077], and figure 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Rye discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a circuit board (e.g. circuit board 101/102) positioned in the housing to accommodate an audio, wherein the second connection area includes a connector (e.g. flexible substrate 103) connected to the circuit board (see Rye, [0064], and figures 4 and 14).
Regarding Claim 7, Rye discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein a second width of the microphone chamber is larger than a first width of the microphone hole (e.g. the width of accommodation chamber for microphone 310 is larger than the width of the microphone 1402), (see figure 14).
Regarding Claim 13, Rye discloses an electronic device (e.g. electronic device 1000), (see at least the abstract), comprising: a housing (e.g. a housing 1401) including a wearing part (e.g. device 1000 is an ear worn device), (see figures 14-16); a microphone hole including a first microphone hole (e.g. first microphone hole 1402) and a second microphone hole (e.g. second microphone hole 1403) formed in the wearing part (see figure 14); an antenna structure (e.g. an antenna chip 202) positioned on an inner surface of the wearing part; a touch pad (e.g. a capacitive touch sensor substrate 108) positioned on the inner surface of the wearing part (see figure 12); a support (e.g. a support circuit board 102) positioned on the inner surface of the wearing part and including a first support and a second support, the first support including a first microphone chamber and the second support including a second microphone chamber; a connecting member including a first connecting member connected to the antenna structure and at least partially disposed on the first support and a second connecting member connected to the touch pad and at least partially disposed on the second support; and a microphone including: a first microphone configured to obtain sound passing through the first microphone hole and the first microphone chamber, and a second microphone configured to obtain sound passing through the second microphone hole and the second microphone chamber (e.g. a first microphone 310 and a second microphone 311 are respectively disposed on a first and second microphone chamber formed beneath the support circuit board 102, and are each electrically connected to the circuit board 102), (see Rye, [0049], [0060]-[0062], and [0076]-[0079], also figures 3, 5, and 14).
Regarding Claim 17, Rye discloses the electronic device of claim 13, wherein a second width of the first microphone chamber is larger than a first width of the first microphone hole (e.g. the width of accommodation chamber for microphone 310 is larger than the width of the microphone 1402), (see figure 14).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rye as applied to claim above in view of Dusan et al (US PUB 20180343514, hereinafter Dusan).
Regarding Claim 2, Rye discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the microphone hole includes a first microphone hole (1402), a second microphone hole (1403), and wherein the microphone includes a first microphone (310) configured to obtain sound passing through the first microphone hole, a second microphone (311) configured to obtain sound passing through the second microphone hole (see figure 14), but fails to explicitly disclose: a third microphone hole spaced apart from each other, and a third microphone configured to obtain sound passing through the third microphone hole.
However, Dusan in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a third microphone hole spaced apart from each other, and a third microphone configured to obtain sound passing through the third microphone hole as demonstrated in [0029], also figures 1-3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a third microphone and its associated hole on the housing as taught by Dusan in the teachings of Rye in order to increase the sound collection ability of the wearable device that may be needed for advance signal processing, and thereby further enhancing the efficiency of the device.
Regarding Claim 8, Rye as modified by Dusan discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, but further fails to teach wherein the support extends from the second surface and is formed as a single piece with the housing. However, configuring the support in an extended shape, and as a single piece would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art if such configuration is desirable, since it has been held that the configuration (shape) of an element in a device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)); see MPEP 2144.04 IV B. More so, making the support as a single piece with the housing would have been obvious as well if so desired, since it has been held "that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)); see MPEP 2144.04 V B.
Regarding Claim 16, Rye discloses the electronic device of claim 13, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the microphone hole further includes a third microphone hole, wherein the first microphone hole, the second microphone hole, and the third microphone hole are spaced apart from each other, and wherein the microphone further includes a third microphone configured to obtain sound passing through the third microphone hole.
However, Dusan in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a third microphone hole wherein the first microphone hole, the second microphone hole, and the third microphone hole are spaced apart from each other, and wherein the microphone further includes a third microphone configured to obtain sound passing through the third microphone hole as demonstrated in [0029], and figures 1-3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a third microphone and its associated hole on the housing as taught by Dusan in the teachings of Rye in order to increase the sound collection ability of the wearable device that may be needed for advance signal processing, and thereby further enhancing the efficiency of the device.
Regarding Claim 18, Rye as modified by Dusan discloses the electronic device of claim 13, but further fails to teach wherein the support extends from the inner surface and is formed as a single piece with the housing. However, configuring the support in an extended shape, and as a single piece would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art if such configuration is desirable, since it has been held that the configuration (shape) of an element in a device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)); see MPEP 2144.04 IV B. More so, making the support as a single piece with the housing would have been obvious as well if so desired, since it has been held "that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)); see MPEP 2144.04 V B.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rye as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kurihara (US PUB 20240292148, hereinafter Kurihara).
Regarding Claim 9, Rye discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the housing further includes a first wearing part (e.g. a right ear module), a second wearing part (e.g. a left ear module) spaced apart from the first wearing part (see Rye, figures 14 and 15). Rye fails to explicitly disclose a band part connecting the first wearing part and the second wearing part.
However, Kurihara in the same field of endeavor teaches a wearable electronic device (e.g. a headset 1), comprising a housing, having speakers (e.g. speakers 41, 42), and microphones (e.g. microphones 31-34) attached to the housing (see figure 3), wherein the housing further includes a first wearing part (e.g. a first wearing part 10), a second wearing part (e.g. a second wearing part 20) spaced apart from the first wearing part, and a band part (e.g. a headband 90) connecting the first wearing part and the second wearing part (see Kurihara, [0039]-[0041], and figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a housing comprising a first wearing part, a second wearing part and a band connecting the first and the second wearing parts as taught by Kurihara in the teachings of Rye, in order to further expand the housing space to accommodate additional electronic components that could improve the processing capability of the wearable device, while also improving the wearing comfort of the user.
Regarding Claim 10, Rye as modified by Kirihara discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 9, wherein the microphone hole is formed in at least one of the first wearing part or the second wearing part (see Kirihara, figure 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Rye discloses the electronic device of claim 13 wherein the housing further includes a first wearing part (e.g. a right ear module), a second wearing part (e.g. a left ear module) spaced apart from the first wearing part (see Rye, figures 14 and 15). Rye fails to explicitly disclose wherein the housing further includes a band part connecting the first wearing part and the second wearing part.
However, Kurihara in the same field of endeavor teaches an electronic device (e.g. a headset 1), comprising a housing, having speakers (e.g. speakers 41, 42), and microphones (e.g. microphones 31-34) attached to the housing (see figure 3), wherein the housing further includes a first wearing part (e.g. a right ear wearing part 10), a second wearing part (e.g. a left ear wearing part 20) spaced apart from the first wearing part, and a band part (e.g. a headband 90) connecting the first wearing part and the second wearing part (see Kurihara, [0039]-[0041], and figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a housing comprising a first wearing part, a second wearing part and a band connecting the first and the second wearing parts as taught by Kurihara in the teachings of Rye, in order to further expand the housing space to accommodate additional electronic components that could improve the processing capability of the wearable device, while also improving the wearing comfort of the user.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rye as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Auerbach (US PUB 20180287648, hereinafter Auerbach).
Regarding Claim 12, Rye discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: a sound absorbing member positioned in the microphone chamber.
However, Auerbach in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a sound absorber (e.g. a sound absorber 63,64) in a microphone chamber (e.g. microphone 60 in a recess or chamber 63a) as set forth in [0052] and figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a sound absorber in the chamber accommodating the microphone as taught by Auerbach in the teachings of Rye in order to prevent the microphone from being affected by interference within chamber, and thereby further improving the acoustic response of the microphone, and the overall efficiency of the wearable device.
Regarding Claim 19, Rye discloses the electronic device of claim 13, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: a sound absorbing member positioned in the first microphone chamber.
However, Auerbach in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a sound absorber (e.g. a sound absorber 63,64) in a microphone chamber (e.g. microphone 60 in a recess or chamber 63a) as set forth in [0052] and figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a sound absorber in the chamber accommodating the microphone as taught by Auerbach in the teachings of Rye in order to prevent the microphone from being affected by interference within chamber, and thereby further improving the acoustic response of the microphone, and the overall efficiency of the wearable device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 11, 14 and 20 are 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
The prior art made of record provided on PTO 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYESOLA C OJO whose telephone number is (571)272-0848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm Central Time.
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 571-272-7840. 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.
/OYESOLA C OJO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695.
Prosecution Insights