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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 5, after “shield,”, --a magnet-- should be inserted (note “the magnet” on line 6). Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,262,166 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,210. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming an earphone, comprising a core module, the core module including a core housing, a core, and a core bracket, wherein the core and the core bracket are disposed in the core housing (claims 1 and 7 in U.S. Patent No. 12,262,166, and claims 1, 10 and 20 in U.S. Patent No. 12,382,210), and the core comprises a magnetic conduction shield, the magnetic conduction shield including a bottom plate and an annular side plate integrally connected with the bottom plate, and the magnet being disposed in the annular side plate and fixed on the bottom plate, a magnetic conduction plate, the magnetic conduction plate being fixed on one side of the magnet that is away from the bottom plate; and a coil, the coil being disposed in a magnetic gap between the magnet and the annular side plate and fixed on the core bracket (claims 1 and 7 in U.S. Patent No. 12,262,166, and claims 1 and 10 in U.S. Patent No. 12,382,210).
The limitations in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,262,166 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,210 cover the limitations in claims 1-20 of the present invention.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2021/0168484).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. teaches an earphone comprising a core module (figures 1, 2, paragraphs [0004] and [0030]), the core module including a core housing (20, 220, 224, 226, 2224, 2226, and see figures 2, 5, 6, 7, 8), a core (210, 202, 204, 206, 212, 2210, 2240, 2270 and see figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 15), and a core bracket (228, 2228, 2258, 2288), wherein the core and the core bracket are disposed in the core housing (figures 5, 6, 7, 8), and the core comprises a magnet (202, 2202, 2232, 2262, figures 5, 6, 7, 8, paragraphs [0066] and [0115]), a magnetic conduction shield (206, 2206, 2236, 2266, figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, and paragraphs [0066] and [0116]), the magnetic conduction shield (206, 2206, 2236, 2266) including a bottom plate and an annular side plate integrally connected with the bottom plate (figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 15), and the magnet (202, 2202, 2232, 2262, figures 5, 6, 7, 8, paragraphs [0066] and [0115]) being disposed in the annular side plate and fixed on the bottom plate, a magnetic conduction plate (204, 2204, 2234, 2264, figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, and paragraphs [0066] and [0116]), the magnetic conduction plate being fixed on one side of the magnet that is away from the bottom plate (figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 15), and a coil (212, figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 15), wherein the coil is disposed in a magnetic gap between the magnet and the annular side plate and fixed on the core bracket (figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and see paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Li et al. shows a diameter of the magnetic conduction plate that is equal to a diameter of the magnet (figures 5, 6, 7, 8).
Regarding claim 9, Li et al. teaches an ear hook assembly (10, 30, 50, figures 1, 2), wherein one end of the ear hook assembly is connected to the core module (20, 40, figures 1, 2).
Regarding claim 18, Li et al. teaches one or more sound guiding holes (3012) that are provided on a side wall of the earphone, and when a user wears the earphone, the side wall with the one or more sound guiding holes faces an ear canal of a user as claimed (figure 22, and see paragraphs [0165]-[0167]).
Regarding claim 19, Li et al. teaches one or more sound guiding holes (3012) that are arranged on different side walls of the earphone (figure 22 and see paragraphs [0165]-[0167]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2021/0168484).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Li et al. teaches the magnet (202, 2202, 2232, 2262, figures 5, 6, 7, 8, paragraphs [0066] and [0115]) that is a cylinder (paragraph [0120]). Li et al. does not specifically disclose a diameter and a thickness of the magnet as claimed. However, Li et al. does not restrict any size and/or any dimensions for the magnet in the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any size and/or any dimensions for the magnet in the system of Li et al. such as providing a diameter of the magnet being in the range of 10.5 mm-11.5 mm, and a thickness of the magnet being in the range of 3.0 mm-4.0 mm depending on the applications and/or for providing a better magnetic flux and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Li et al. does not specifically disclose a thickness of the magnetic conduction plate and the magnetic conduction shield as claimed. However, Li et al. does not restrict any size and/or any dimensions for the magnetic conduction plate and the magnetic conduction shield in the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any size and/or any dimensions for the magnetic conduction plate and the magnetic conduction shield in the system of Li et al. such as providing a thickness of the magnetic conduction plate that is equal to a thickness of the magnetic conduction shield, and providing the thickness of the magnetic conducting shield that is in the range of 0.4 mm-0.8 mm depending on the applications and/or for providing a better magnetic flux and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claim 7, Li et al. does not specifically disclose a height of the annular side plate of the magnetic conduction shield as claimed. However, Li et al. does not restrict any size and/or any dimensions for the annular side plate of the magnetic conduction shield.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any size and/or any dimensions for the annular side plate in the system of Li et al. such as providing the height of the annular side plate of the magnetic conduction shield being in the range of 3.4 mm-4.0mm depending on the applications and/or for providing a better magnetic flux and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claim 8, Li et al. does not specifically disclose the magnetic gap as claimed. However, Li et al. does not restrict any size and/or any dimensions for the magnetic gap and the magnetic circuit in the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any size and/or any dimensions for the magnetic gap and the magnetic circuit in the system of Li et al. such as providing the magnetic gap between the magnet and the annular side plate being in the range of 1.0 mm-1.5 mm depending on the applications and/or for providing a better magnetic flux and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claims 10-11, Li et al. teaches the ear hook assembly (10, 30, 50, figures 1, 2) comprising an ear hook housing (figures 1, 2), and an elastic metal wire is disposed in the ear hook housing (paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). Lie et al. does not specifically disclose that an elastic modulus of the core housing (20, 220, 224, 226, 2224 and/or 2226, figures 2, 5, 6, 7, 8) is larger than an elastic module of the ear hook housing. However, Li et al. does estimate and/or teach a soft material for the ear hook housing (paragraph [0033]) and a hard material for the core housing (paragraph [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any material for the core housing and the ear hook housing such as providing a material having an elastic modulus of the core housing that is larger than an elastic modulus of the ear hook housing for the desired purpose of better providing improved frequency characteristics in the system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2021/0168484) in view of Laffon de Mazieres et al. (US 8,891,798) or Lee et al. (US 2014/0140561).
Li et al. teaches the earphone including two core modules (figures 1, 2). Li et al. does not specifically disclose the magnets of the two core modules having different polarities as claimed. However, providing the magnets of two core modules of the earphone having different polarities on one side close to a bottom wall of the core housing is known in the art.
Laffon de Mazieres et al. or Lee et al. teaches the magnets of two core modules of the earphone having different polarities on one side close to a bottom wall of the core housing and the two core modules being attractable to each other (214, 224, 314, 324, 414, 424, figures 2, 3, 4 in Laffon de Mazieres et al.; and 24, figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in Lee et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the magnets of two core modules of the earphone having different polarities on one side close to a bottom wall of the core housing, and the two core modules being attractable to each other, as taught by Laffon de Mazieres et al. or Lee et al. in the system of Li et al. for better holding and securing the speakers or the audio transducers to each other when the earphone or the speakers are not in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harper (US 7,436,974) teaches a system for securing headphone transducers, wherein the system comprises a left ear-bud transducer device having a left mechanical housing (205) and a right ear-bud transducer having a right mechanical housing (204), wherein a magnet (305) with a positive polarity is attached to the left mechanical housing (205), and a magnet (304) with a negative polarity is attached to the right mechanical housing (204).
Fu (US 2024/0348971) teaches an earphone comprising a support element and a core module connected to the support element, wherein the core module includes a core housing, a transducer device and a vibration panel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7502. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am-6:00 pm.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-7503. 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.
/HUYEN D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694 HL
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights