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 .
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (See Figs. 1 and 2 of same-filed US patent application 16/132303, published as US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0089469). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4 and 12 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 4 recites the term “the antenna” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis
for this term in the claim, as it is unclear whether the antenna is meant to refer to the first or second helical antenna.
For examination purposes, “the antenna” will be read as “the first or second helical antenna.”
Claim 12 recites the term "the bone conductor speakers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim.
For examination purposes Claim 12 will be read as dependent upon Claim 11, which recites a first instance of “bone conductor speakers.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (hereinafter Guo), US-PG-PUB No. 2020/0068288 in view of Shcherbatko et al (hereinafter Shcherbatko), US-PG-PUB No. 2015/0117687.
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches a wireless audio receiver device (Bluetooth earphone.....¶[0076], lines 1-2) comprising:
a first receive antenna (Shown in Fig. 1, a cable antennae (30) disposed in the left arm of the earphone housing.....¶[0069], lines 5-11) and
a second receive antenna (A second cable antennae (30) disposed in the right arm of the earphone housing.....¶[0069], lines 5-11);
a printed circuit board (The cable antennae are connected to a main circuit board, which, based on the circumstantial evidence of the disclosure (Figs. 6-11), is clearly guided towards a printed circuit board.....¶[0054], lines 28-29) comprising receiver circuitry (The circuit board couples the antenna to a Bluetooth receiver module, such coupling being receiver circuity.....¶[0054], lines 24-26) coupled to the first receive antenna and the second receive antenna (Both antennae are coupled to the circuit board.....¶[0054], lines 28-29);
a first audio driver and a second audio driver (Shown in Fig. 1, left and right earphones (11) and (12).....¶[0054], lines 19-20);
a first audio lead wire connected to the PCB (Left wire (13) is connected to the control board.....¶[0054], lines 17-18) and to the first audio driver (Left earphone is controlled by the control board via the left wire.....¶[0054], lines 17-21) and upon which the first antenna is mounted (¶[0056], ¶[0100]);
a second audio lead wire connected to the PCB (Right wire (14) is connected to the control board.....¶[0054], lines 17-18) and to the second audio driver (Right earphone is controlled by the control board via the right wire.....¶[0054], lines 17-21) and upon which the second antenna is mounted (¶[0056], ¶[0100]).
Guo fails to teach wherein the antennae are helical, and wherein the audio lead wires pass through the windings of the antennae, instead teaching wherein generic antennae are mounted on their respective wires.
Shcherbatko teaches a wireless audio receiver device (a hearing aid device as shown in Fig. 1) wherein the receiving antenna is helical (Shown in Fig. 4A and Fig. 2, the coaxial radiator of the antenna is helical.....¶[0074], lines 1-3), and wherein an audio lead wire connected to an audio driver passes through the windings of the antenna (Shown in Fig. 2, lead wires (213) pass within the windings of helical antenna (211) to drive speaker (216).....¶[0054], full text).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guo by Shcherbatko to provide the benefits of reduced influence of the external environment on EM wave propagation (Shcherbatko, ¶[0076]) and increased protection for the lead wires from the environment (Shcherbatko, ¶[0057], lines 4-5). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the antennae are helical, and wherein the audio lead wires pass through the windings of the antennae.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Guo and Shcherbatko, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 1.
Guo additionally teaches further comprising a battery attached to the PCB (¶[0054], lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Guo and Shcherbatko, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 1.
Shcherbatko additionally teaches insulating material between an audio lead wire and a helical antenna (Shown in Fig. 2, dielectric (215).....¶[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guo and Shcherbatko further by Shcherbatko to provide the benefit of increased protection for the lead wires from the environment (Shcherbatko, ¶[0057]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of insulating material between the first audio lead wire and the first helical antenna and between the second audio lead wire and the second helical antenna.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Guo and Shcherbatko, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 7, wherein the insulating material is a dielectric tube (Shcherbatko, ¶[0057] teaches the dielectric taught in claim 7, which, as it is provided inside the helical antenna, would be the shape of a tube).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Guo and Shcherbatko, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 1.
Shcherbatko additionally teaches insulating wherein an audio lead wire is positioned within 80% of the cross-sectional area of a helix of a helical antenna (Shown in Fig. 2, dielectric (215) is used to maintain the lead wires within the helix of the antenna).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guo and Shcherbatko further by Shcherbatko to provide the benefit of increased protection for the lead wires from the environment (Shcherbatko, ¶[0057]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of where the first audio lead wire is positioned within 80% cross sectional area of the helix of the first helical antenna, and the second audio lead wire is positioned within 80% cross sectional area of the helix of the second helical antenna.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Guo and Shcherbatko, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 1.
Guo additionally teaches wherein the PCB contains an audio processor configured to extract an audio signal within a wireless signal received by the first helical antenna and the second helical antenna (As the antennae receive a Bluetooth (wireless) signal via the antennae at the PCB, and output audio via wires which connect the audio drivers to the PCB as explained in the rejection of claim 1 and detailed in ¶[0054], processing of the wireless signal to extract an audio signal must occur between receipt of the wireless signal at the PCB and output of the audio signal from the PCB).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Shcherbatko in further view of Sinnett et al (hereinafter Sinnett), US-PG-PUB No. 2011/0032174.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Guo and Shcherbatko, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 1.
Guo additionally teaches wherein the first helical antenna and the second helical antenna are on opposing sides of the PCB (The cable antennae extend from the main circuit board towards the left and right ends of the device (opposite sides).....¶[0025]).
This further combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the antennae are attached to opposing sides of the PCB.
Sinnett teaches, as shown in Fig. 1A, a PCB (102) with helical antennae (110, 112) attached to and extending from opposing sides of the PCB.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guo and Shcherbatko by Sinnett to provide the benefit of mounting guides for the antennae (Sinnett, ¶[0012], lines 6-9). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) where the first helical antenna and the second helical antenna are attached to and on opposing sides of the PCB.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Shcherbatko in further view of Wong et al (hereinafter Wong), US Patent No. 4,169,267.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Guo and Shcherbatko, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 1, but fail to teach where the first helical antenna and the second helical antenna are each tapered in diameter of the helix.
Wong teaches a helical antenna taped in the diameter of the helix (shown in Figs. 1, 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guo and Shcherbatko by Wong to provide the benefit of specific broadband frequency responses (Wong, Col. 1, lines 61-64). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) where the first helical antenna and the second helical antenna are each tapered in diameter of the helix.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Shcherbatko and Wong in further view of “Design of helical antenna using 4NEC2” [online]. Kumar et al, 2015 (hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in light of the pending rejection under 112(b), the combination of Guo, Shcherbatko, and Wong, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 3, but fail to teach where the helix of the first or second antenna is tapered where the coil at its base is 10 mm outer diameter and the coil at its opposite end is 6 mm outer diameter.
Kumar teaches wherein the circumference (and therefore the diameter) of a helical antenna (in a broadside/normal operation mode) may be designed according to the desired signal frequency response of the antenna, at a ratio of the signal wavelength divided by pi (Pg. 1395, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guo, Shcherbatko, and Wong by Kumar to provide alternate design choices for specific antenna frequency responses (over a broader band using the tapered structure as previously taught by Wong in the rejection of claim 3). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) where the helix of the first or second antenna is tapered where the coil at its base is 10 mm outer diameter and the coil at its opposite end is 6 mm outer diameter.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Shcherbatko in further view of Liao et al (hereinafter Liao), CN Patent Pub No. CN102496786A.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Guo and Shcherbatko, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 1, but fail to teach where the first helical antenna and the second helical antenna coils are uniform 8 mm diameter.
Liao teaches a helical antenna of 8 mm diameter (¶[0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guo and Shcherbatko by Liao to provide alternate design choices for specific antenna resonant frequency responses, specifically in the MHz range (Liao, ¶[0020], lines 3-5, ¶[0015]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) where the first helical antenna and the second helical antenna coils are uniform 8 mm diameter.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Shcherbatko in further view of Wessels, US-PG-PUB No. 2009/0119901.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Guo and Shcherbatko, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 7, wherein the insulating material is a dielectric tube, but fail to teach wherein the dielectric is a foam.
Wessels teaches a method of wire insulation using a foam tube (Shown in Fig. 10, foam tube (15) surrounds wire (13)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guo and Shcherbatko by Wessels for the benefit of improved crush resistance, further protecting the wire (Wessels, ¶[0016], lines 6-9). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) where the insulating material (of Shcherbatko) is a foam tube.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Shcherbatko in further view of Duk, US-PG-PUB No. 2009/0301185.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Guo and Shcherbatko, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 1, but fail to teach where the first audio driver and the second audio driver are bone conductor speakers.
Duk teaches a sport headphone for swimming, wherein the audio drivers are bone conductor speakers (¶[0034], lines 11-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guo and Shcherbatko by Duk for the benefit of waterproofing (Duk, ¶[0034], lines 11-14). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) where the first audio driver and the second audio driver are bone conductor speakers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Shcherbatko and Duk, in further view of Qi et al (Hereinafter Qi), US-PG-PUB No. 2013/0163791.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Guo, Shcherbatko, and Duk, as explained above, teach the wireless audio device of claim 11, but fail to teach where the bone conductor speakers have an F0 (understood by the examiner to be resonant frequency) of 300 Hz.
Qi teaches a bone conductor speaker which may have a resonant frequency of 300 Hz (The low frequency resonance oscillation peak (resonant frequency) of the bone conduction speaker is located between 300 and 900 Hz.....¶[0032], lines 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guo, Shcherbatko and Duk by Qi for the benefit of a flatter frequency response over a wider frequency range (Qi, ¶[0005]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) where the bone conductor speakers have an F0 of 300 Hz.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adriola et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2023/0405290 and Ponce de Leon et al, US-PG-PUB no. 2003/0234743 each teach a wireless communication device with data lead wires conducted through a helical antenna.
Rauhala, US-PG-PUB No. 2023/0269531 teaches an underwater Bluetooth headphone apparatus with bone conducting headphones.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, 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.
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.
/SEAN RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights