0Notice 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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is unclear whether the term “an ear of the user” as recited in line 2 of claim 10 refers to " an
ear of a user" as recited in claim 1. If that is the case, then Applicant should modify the term to "the ear of the user" to improve clarity of the scope of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-12, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Van Hook et al. (US 20210345036 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van Hook teaches:
A wearable device hearing accessory comprising (audio eyeglasses 300 is a wearable device hearing accessory including removable accessory 400, see [0064]: “When removable accessory 400 is attached or installed on open audio device such as audio eyeglasses 300, acoustic transmission line 402 is acoustically coupled to the first sound-emitting opening 310a…”, also see Figs 12A-12B):
an attachment portion configured to attach to an output port of an extra-aural audio unit of a wearable device (A sleeve portion 404 is an attachment portion; The acoustic radiator 306 is part of an extra-aural audio unit of a wearable device, one of the sound-emitting openings, e.g. 310a is an output port of an extra-aural audio unit of a wearable device; and A sleeve portion 404, i.e. an attachment portion, is configured to attach to an output port of an extra-aural audio unit of a wearable device,
see [0063]: “Removable accessory 400 also includes a sleeve portion 404 that defines a cavity 406 with an opening at each end, each sized to receive a temple piece 304 of audio eyeglasses 300”, also see Figs 13A-13E; see [0062]: “ The acoustic radiator 306 is built into a housing 308 of each temple portion 304, and the housing 308 directs the front-side acoustic radiation and rear-side acoustic radiation. One or more sound-emitting openings 310a, 310b (generally “310”) in the housing 308 allow sound to leave the housing 308”, see Fig. 12B);
a compliant guide portion configured to extend from the attachment portion to an ear of a user and transmit a sound wave to the ear (a transmission line/spout portion 402 is a compliant guide portion. It’s configured to extend from the removable accessory 400, i.e. the attachment portion to an ear of a user and deliver a sound wave to the expected location of a user’s ear, i.e. transmit a sound wave to the ear, see [0063]: “Removable accessory 400 includes a transmission line/spout portion 402 that extends from the temple piece 304 at an angle relative to a length of temple piece 304…Transmission line 402 in part functions to deliver front side sound farther from acoustic radiator 306, and with an outlet closer to the expected location of a user's ear”, also see Figs 13A-13E
); and
a sensor operable to detect a coupling or decoupling of the attachment portion to the extra-aural audio unit (The spout is the attachment portion. Various sensor(s ) can be used to detect whether the spout is on or off, i.e. to detect a coupling or decoupling of the attachment portion to the extra-aural audio unit. The sensor can be a microphone, a sensor for detecting the transducer electrical impedance, a hall effect sensor, a capacitive sensor, or an optical sensor etc. see [0060]: “Sensing of when the spout is coupled to the housing can be achieved in any desired manner. For example, an on-board microphone (not shown) either internal or external to the housing can be used to determine the transducer-to-microphone transfer function…the transducer electrical impedance could be determined…various sensors could be used to determine if the spout is installed or not. For instance, a Hall effect sensor could be used to detect magnetic material in the spout to determine whether the spout is on or off. A capacitive sensor could be used to detect capacitive coupling to material in the spout to determine whether the spout is on or off. An optical sensor could be blocked or unblocked by the presence of the spout to determine whether the spout is on or off… The housing could contain electrical contacts to form a circuit which is open when the spout is off and closed when the spout is on due to a conductive trace designed into the spout”, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 2, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook further teaches:
The hearing accessory of claim 1 wherein the extra-aural audio unit is a speaker and the output port is a first output port, the speaker further comprises a second output port, and the attachment portion is further configured to close the second output port when attached to the speaker (An acoustic driver or radiator 306 is the extra-aural audio unit, and is a speaker. One sound-emitting opening 310a, i.e. the output port, is a first output port; another sound-emitting opening 310b, is a second output port that emits sound from the speaker 306, therefore, the speaker 306 comprises a second output port; the second output port 310b can be fully covered, i.e. closed when the attachment portion 400 is attached to the speaker 306, see [0062]: ”Each temple portion 304 includes an acoustic driver or radiator 306 that emits front-side acoustic radiation…The acoustic radiator 306 is built into a housing 308 of each temple portion 304, and the housing 308 directs the front-side acoustic radiation and rear-side acoustic radiation. One or more sound-emitting openings 310a, 310b (generally “310”) in the housing 308 allow sound to leave the housing 308”, see [0064]:” the second opening 410b may be sized and/or shaped differently from the second sound-emitting opening 310b, such that a portion or all of sound-emitting opening 310b is covered when the removable accessory 400 is attached or installed on open audio device”, also see Figs 12A-12B)
Regarding claim 3, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 2’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook further teaches:
The hearing accessory of claim 2 wherein the second output port is a vent port
from a back volume chamber of the speaker (rear cavity 216 can be a back volume chamber of the speaker 212, opening 232 is a vent port from a back volume chamber of the speaker, and can be the second output port; the wearable device can use this acoustic topology as shown in Fig. 10, see [0058]: “FIG. 10 illustrates acoustic module 210 that includes transducer 212…second opening 232 that is covered by resistance element 234 is also open to rear cavity 216”, see Fig. 10, see [0062]:” For example, the topology for the acoustic radiator 306 and sound-emitting openings 310 in the audio eyeglasses 300 may be as shown in any of FIG. 2, 4-8 or 10”).
Regarding claim 4, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook further teaches:
The hearing accessory of claim 1 wherein the compliant guide portion comprises a tube that passively guides the sound wave emitted by the extra-aural audio unit from the output port to a sound output opening at an end of the tube (The transmission line 402, i.e. the compliant guide portion, is part of the hearing accessory and comprises a tube 408, a first opening 410a is a sound output opening at an end of the tube, the compliant guide is acoustically coupled to opening 310a, i.e. the output port, and passively delivers/guides the sound wave emitted by the extra-aural audio unit from the output port to a sound output opening at an end of the tube, see [0063]: ”The transmission line 402 includes a tube 408 with a first opening 410a at a distal end thereof”, see Fig. 13A, see [0064]: “Acoustic transmission line 402 may be a variety of sizes and shapes, and in some examples may be sized and shaped to substantially match a size and shape of the first sound-emitting opening 310a”).
Regarding claim 11, Van Hook teaches:
A wearable device hearing accessory system comprising (audio eyeglasses 300 is a wearable device hearing accessory including removable accessory 400, see [0064]: “When removable accessory 400 is attached or installed on open audio device such as audio eyeglasses 300, acoustic transmission line 402 is acoustically coupled to the first sound-emitting opening 310a…”, also see Figs 12A-12B):
a hearing assembly comprising an attachment portion configured to attach to an extra-aural audio unit of a wearable device, a compliant guide portion configured to extend from the attachment portion to an ear of a user and transmit a sound wave to the ear, and a sensor operable to detect a mode of the wearable device (At least the removable accessory 400 can be part of a hearing assembly, see [0064]: “When removable accessory 400 is attached or installed on open audio device such as audio eyeglasses 300, acoustic transmission line 402 is acoustically coupled to the first sound-emitting opening 310a…”, also see Figs 12A-12B; A sleeve portion 404 as part of the hearing assembly is an attachment portion; The acoustic radiator 306 is an extra-aural audio unit of a wearable device, one of the sound-emitting openings, e.g. 310a is an output port of an extra-aural audio unit of a wearable device; and A sleeve portion 404, i.e. an attachment portion, is configured to attach to the extra-aural audio unit of a wearable device, see [0063]: “Removable accessory 400 also includes a sleeve portion 404 that defines a cavity 406 with an opening at each end, each sized to receive a temple piece 304 of audio eyeglasses 300”, also see Figs 13A-13E; see [0062]: “ The acoustic radiator 306 is built into a housing 308 of each temple portion 304, and the housing 308 directs the front-side acoustic radiation and rear-side acoustic radiation. One or more sound-emitting openings 310a, 310b (generally “310”) in the housing 308 allow sound to leave the housing 308”, see Fig. 12B; a transmission line/spout portion 402 as part of the hearing assembly is a compliant guide portion. It’s configured to extend from the removable accessory 400, i.e. the attachment portion to an ear of a user and deliver a sound wave to the expected location of a user’s ear, i.e. transmit a sound wave to the ear, see [0063]: “Removable accessory 400 includes a transmission line/spout portion 402 that extends from the temple piece 304 at an angle relative to a length of temple piece 304…Transmission line 402 in part functions to deliver front side sound farther from acoustic radiator 306, and with an outlet closer to the expected location of a user's ear”, also see Figs 13A-13E; The acoustic module 210 can be part of the hearing assembly, various sensor(s) can be installed including a microphone internal to the housing of the acoustic module, i.e. the hearing assembly, for detection of attachment portion installed on the wearable device vs attachment portion not installed on the wearable device, i.e. operable to detect a mode of the wearable device; the microphone, i.e. the sensor can be part of the hearing assembly, see [0060]: “the open audio device could be enabled to sense whether the spout is installed and adjust the audio accordingly for appropriate playback response… Sensing of when the spout is coupled to the housing can be achieved in any desired manner. For example, an on-board microphone (not shown) either internal or external to the housing can be used to determine the transducer-to-microphone transfer function”, see Fig. 10); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the wearable device and operable to tune the sound wave based on the mode of the wearable device (Processor 256 is part of an audio signal control system 250. Audio signals from an open-audio device, i.e. the wearable device, can be provided wirelessly to the processor, i.e. the processor is communicatively coupled to the wearable device. Based on whether the spout is installed to the wearable device, i.e. the mode of the wearable device, the audio signals are operable tuned by the processor including changing equalization or other parameters. Therefore, the processor operably tunes the sound wave base on the mode of the wearable device, see [0061]:” FIG. 11 is a functional block diagram of an audio signal control system 250 that can be used for sensing when the spout is installed or not and adjusting the audio. Audio signals are provided by audio signal source 254. In an open-audio device the audio signals are typically (but not necessarily) provided from a source wirelessly (e.g., by Bluetooth or another wireless protocol)….Processor 256 (which may be but need not be a digital signal processor) is responsive to the audio signals and the transducer”, see Fig. 11, see [0060]: “the audio signals may be adjusted by changing audio equalization or limiting parameters based on whether or not the spout is installed”).
Regarding claim 12, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 11’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook further teaches:
The system of claim 11 wherein the hearing assembly comprises a passive hearing assembly that passively guides the sound wave through the compliant guide portion to the ear (The transmission line 402, i.e. the compliant guide portion, is part of a passive hearing assembly, which is part of the hearing assembly. The passive hearing assembly passively delivers/guides the sound wave through the compliant guide portion to its opening 410a located next to the ear, therefore the sound wave is passively guided through the compliant guide portion to the ear, see [0063]: ”The transmission line 402 includes a tube 408 with a first opening 410a at a distal end thereof…the first opening 410a at distal end of tube 408 is located proximate (but not in) a user's ear canal opening”, see Fig. 13A).
Regarding claim 14, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 11’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook further teaches:
The system of claim 11 wherein the mode of the wearable device detected by the sensor is an accessory mode in which the hearing assembly is attached to the wearable device (The spout is part of the compliant guide portion that is part of the hearing assembly. One of the various sensors, i.e. the sensor, can be used to determine if the spout, i.e. the hearing assembly. is attached to the wearable device, which is an accessory mode, see [0060-0061]:”…various sensors could be used to determine if the spout is installed or not… FIG. 11 is a functional block diagram of an audio signal control system 250 that can be used for sensing when the spout is installed or not and adjusting the audio”).
Regarding claim 15, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 14’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook further teaches:
The system of claim 14 wherein in the accessory mode, the sound wave is tuned to
compensate for a characteristic of the compliant guide portion (The presence of the spout i.e. the complaint guide portion, which is the accessory mode, can change the transducer-to-ear transfer function, i.e. a characteristic of the compliant guide portion. The sound wave in the form of audio signals can be adjusted, i.e. tuned to compensate for a characteristic of the compliant guide portion in response of the presence of the compliant guide portion, i.e. in the accessory mode, see [0060]:”the open audio device could be enabled to sense whether the spout is installed and adjust the audio accordingly for appropriate playback response; for example the audio signals may be adjusted by changing audio equalization or limiting parameters based on whether or not the spout is installed. Such adjustment may be necessary because the presence of the spout can change the transducer-to-ear transfer function and can load the transducer differently”).
Regarding claim 17, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 14’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook further teaches:
The system of claim 14 wherein in the accessory mode, a second output port from a back volume chamber of the extra-aural audio unit is closed (rear cavity 216 can be a back volume chamber of the speaker 212, opening 232 is a second output port from a back volume chamber of the transducer 212, which is part of the acoustic module 210. The acoustic module 210 can be the extra-aural audio unit. When the transmission line/spout 219 is attached, i.e. in the accessory mode, opening 232, i.e. a second output port is covered/closed, see [0058]: “FIG. 10 illustrates acoustic module 210 that includes transducer 212…second opening 232 that is covered by resistance element 234 is also open to rear cavity 216”, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 11’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook further teaches:
The system of claim 11 wherein the mode of the wearable device detected by the sensor is a non-accessory mode in which the hearing assembly is detached from the wearable device (The acoustic module 210 can be part of the wearable device, various sensor(s) can be installed including a microphone internal to the housing of the acoustic module in the wearable device, to detect whether the spout as part of the hearing assembly is installed/attached to the wearable device. Therefore, the microphone, i.e. the sensor can also detect if the hearing assembly is detached from the wearable device, i.e. a non-accessory mode for the wearable device mode detection, see [0060]: “the open audio device could be enabled to sense whether the spout is installed and adjust the audio accordingly for appropriate playback response… Sensing of when the spout is coupled to the housing can be achieved in any desired manner. For example, an on-board microphone (not shown) either internal or external to the housing can be used to determine the transducer-to-microphone transfer function”, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 20, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 19’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook further teaches:
The system of claim 19 wherein in the non-accessory mode, the sound wave is tuned to optimize transmission of the sound wave through open air to the ear (With the accessory 400 removed, i.e. in the non-accessory mode, the open audio device operates differently, e.g. different audio equalization could be applied, i.e. the sound wave is tuned to optimize transmission. When the accessory 400 is removed, the sound wave is transmitted through open air to the ear. Therefore, in the non-accessory mode, the sound wave is tuned to optimize transmission of the sound wave through open air to the ear, see [0063]: “with the accessory 400 removed, the open audio device 300 could operate like a dipole with the ear appearing more visual open, whereas with the accessory attached, the ear would not be as visually open, but would have improved bass, loudness and spillage”, see [0068]: “ the audio signals may be adjusted by changing audio equalization or limiting parameters based on whether or not the removable accessory is installed…different audio equalization could be applied for each variant”, see [0039]:” This disclosure describes a type of open audio device with one or more electro-acoustic transducers that are located off of the ear”, see Fig. 12A).
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.
Claims 5, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hook et al. (US 20210345036 A1) in view of Taenzer et al. (WO 9843567 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook does not teach the compliant guide portion further comprises a wire configured to transmit an audio signal from a microphone electrically coupled to an end of the wire to enable an active noise cancellation function.
Van Hook does not teach the compliant guide portion further comprises a wire configured to transmit an audio signal from a microphone electrically coupled to an end of the wire to enable an active noise cancellation function.
Taenzer teaches the compliant guide portion further comprises a wire configured to transmit an audio signal from a microphone electrically coupled to an end of the wire to enable an active noise cancellation function (the tube 90 can be the compliant guide portion, which is part of the hearing accessory and comprises a wire that electronically transmits outputs from the microphone 34, i.e. an audio signal from the microphone. The microphone is coupled to an end of the wire, the audio signal is fed to a noise cancellation controller, which filters, inverts, and amplifies the noise signal for cancellation, i.e. enable an active noise cancelation function, see: “in Figure 4, rather than using a tube to deliver the sound to an input of the microphone 34, the microphone is moved from the case 28 to the end of the ear canal tube 90 located in the ear canal. In this embodiment, outputs from the microphone are transferred electrically via a plurality of wires located in the ear canal tube 90 to the case 28 for processing”, p.7, ln. 22-26, see Fig. 4, see:” the Figure 2 microphone port 21 picks up noise in the open ear canal of the user. The sounds picked up by the microphone 21 are fed into a noise cancellation controller 27… the noise cancellation controller 27 filters the received signal, inverts the signal and amplifies the inverted signal in a known manner”, p.6, ln. 4-14).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the compliant guide portion further comprising a wire configured to transmit an audio signal from a microphone electrically coupled to an end of the wire to enable an active noise cancellation function as taught by Taenzer to the wearable device hearing accessory as taught by Van Hook. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “improve(s) the intelligibility” of sound “by canceling ambient noise” (see p.6, ln.21).
Regarding claim 13, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 11’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook does not teach the hearing assembly comprises an active hearing assembly that electrically transmits an audio signal to a speaker coupled to an end of the compliant guide portion positioned in the ear.
Taenzer teaches the hearing assembly comprises an active hearing assembly that electrically transmits an audio signal to a speaker coupled to an end of the compliant guide portion positioned in the ear (the tube 24 can be the compliant guide portion, the speaker 36 is coupled to the end of the tube 24, which is coupled to an end of the compliant guide portion in the ear canal, i.e. positioned in the ear. An audio signal is electrically transmitted to the speaker. The speaker is part of an active hearing assembly since it actively transmits electrical audio signal, and the active hearing assembly can be part of the hearing assembly, see: ”both the microphone and the speaker of the case 28 can be moved into the in-the-canal portion of the earpiece, wherein a plurality of wires (e.g., 3 for the microphone and 3 for the speaker) pass through one or more tubes to the electronic signal processing components located in the case 28, as illustrated in Figure 6…the microphone and speaker can also be located anywhere between the case 28 and the end of the ear canal tube(s).”, p. 7 col.28-30, p.8, ln.1-4, see Figs 5-6).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the hearing assembly comprising an active hearing assembly that electrically transmits an audio signal to a speaker coupled to an end of the compliant guide portion positioned in the ear as taught by Taenzer to the wearable device hearing accessory as taught by Van Hook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is one of the well-known alternative ways to position the speaker and the system would still function effectively (see: “It will be understood by those skilled in the art that the microphone and speaker can also be located anywhere between the case 28 and the end of the ear canal tube(s)”, p.8, ln.2-4).
Regarding claim 18, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 14’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook does not teach the system of claim 14 wherein a microphone is coupled to an end of the compliant guide portion positioned near the ear of the user, and the one or more processors are further operable to activate an active noise cancellation function based on detection of a noise near the ear.
Taenzer teaches the limitations except where underlined: a microphone is coupled to an end of the compliant guide portion positioned near the ear of the user, and the one or more processors are further operable to activate an active noise cancellation function based on detection of a noise near the ear (the tube 90 can be the compliant guide portion, the microphone 34 is coupled to the end of the tube 90, which is positioned in the ear canal, the microphone 34 in Fig. 4 or 21 in Fig. 2, is configured to pickup noise, which is fed to the noise cancellation controller for noise cancellation, i.e. to enable an active noise cancellation function. Because the noise cancellation is adaptive, the active noise cancellation function is activated based on detection of a noise. The noise cancellation controller can be one or more processors, therefore, the one or more processors are further operable to activate an active noise cancellation function based on detection of a noise, see: “in Figure 4, rather than using a tube to deliver the sound to an input of the microphone 34, the microphone is moved from the case 28 to the end of the ear canal tube 90 located in the ear canal. In this embodiment, outputs from the microphone are transferred electrically via a plurality of wires located in the ear canal tube 90 to the case 28 for processing”, p.7, ln. 22-26, see Fig. 4, see: ”the Figure 2 microphone port 21 picks up noise in the open ear canal of the user. The sounds picked up by the microphone 21 are fed into a noise cancellation controller 27… the noise cancellation controller 27 filters the received signal, inverts the signal and amplifies the inverted signal in a known manner”, p.6, ln. 4-14, see: ”The personal commendation device also includes an adaptive speech filtering and noise cancellation unit 146 which enhances signal quality by filtering and cancelling noise in the signal”, p.12, ln.13-15).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a microphone that is coupled to an end of the compliant guide portion, and the one or more processors that are further operable to activate an active noise cancellation function based on detection of a noise as taught by Taenzer to the wearable device hearing accessory as taught by Van Hook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “improve(s) the intelligibility” of sound “by canceling ambient noise” (see p.6, ln.21). Moreover, positioning the microphone near the ear of the user instead of in the ear canal is one of the well-known alternative ways for microphone arrangement and the system would still function effectively.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hook et al. (US 20210345036 A1) in view of Patel et al. (US 9980035 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook does not teach the hearing accessory of claim 1 wherein the compliant guide portion comprises a wire having a first end fixedly coupled to the attachment portion and a second end electrically coupled to a speaker that is operable to output sound to the ear.
Patel teaches the compliant guide portion comprises a wire having a first end fixedly coupled to the attachment portion and a second end electrically coupled to a speaker that is operable to output sound to the ear (at least the earbud wire 120 can be the compliant guide portion that is part of the hearing accessory, comprising a wire 120 with a second end portion 122b, i.e. a first end, fixed attached or coupled to the connector attachment region 140, which can be part of the attachment portion, and a first end portion 122a, i.e. a second end attached to the earbud 110, i.e. electrically coupled to a speaker. The earbud i.e. the speaker is operable to output sound to the ear, see: “The earbud wire 120 includes a first end portion 122a attached to the earbud 110 and a second end portion 122b attached to the connector attachment region 140”, col. 3, ln. 27-29, see Fig. 1A).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the compliant guide portion comprising a wire having a first end fixedly coupled to the attachment portion and a second end electrically coupled to a speaker that is operable to output sound to the ear as taught by Patel to the wearable device hearing accessory as taught by Van Hook based on designer’s needs. It would have yielded no unexpected results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is one of different types of compliant guide portion for outputting sound actively at its end (see col.2, ln. 61-67)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hook et al. (US 20210345036 A1) in view of Patel et al. (US 9980035 B1) further in view of Evans et al. (US 20210076120 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Van Hook in view of Patel teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 6’s 103 rejection.
Van Hook in view of Patel does not teach the hearing accessory of claim 6 wherein the extra-aural audio unit is disabled from outputting sound when the speaker outputs sound to the ear.
Evans teaches the extra-aural audio unit is disabled from outputting sound when the speaker outputs sound to the ear (Speaker 118 on one side is the extra-aural audio unit and can be part of the hearing accessory, and the speaker unit 132 on the same side is the speaker; Speaker 118’s (volume can be zero) emits no sound, i.e. disabled from outputting sound while the speaker unit 132 outputs sound, e.g. with increased volume, to the ear since the speaker unit 132 is at the ear position, see [0085]: “sound output from the detachable speaker units 132 increases to become the primary sound source (e.g., turning on), while sound output from the HMD speakers 118 may simultaneously or subsequently decrease substantially (e.g., to emit no sound)”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have disabled the extra-aural audio unit from outputting sound when the speaker outputs sound to the ear as taught by Evans to the wearable device hearing accessory as taught by Van Hook in view of Patel. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “allow the audio headset 130 to provide the aural content to the user…exclusive of the HMD speakers 118” (see [0043]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hook et al. (US 20210345036 A1) in view of Patel et al. (US 9980035 B1) further in view of Taenzer et al. (WO 9843567 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Van Hook in view of Patel teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 6’s 103 rejection.
Van Hook in view of Patel does not teach the hearing accessory of claim 6 further comprising a microphone coupled to an end the compliant guide portion positioned in the ear, and the microphone is configured to pickup noise near the ear to enable an active noise cancellation function.
Taenzer teaches the limitations except where underlined: a microphone coupled to an end the compliant guide portion positioned in the ear, and the microphone is configured to pickup noise near the ear to enable an active noise cancellation function (the tube 90 can be the compliant guide portion, the microphone 34 is coupled to the end of the tube 90, which is positioned in the ear canal, i.e. in the ear, the microphone 34 in Fig. 4 or 21 in Fig. 2, is configured to pickup noise, which is fed to the noise cancellation controller for noise cancellation, i.e. to enable an active noise cancellation function.
see: “in Figure 4, rather than using a tube to deliver the sound to an input of the microphone 34, the microphone is moved from the case 28 to the end of the ear canal tube 90 located in the ear canal. In this embodiment, outputs from the microphone are transferred electrically via a plurality of wires located in the ear canal tube 90 to the case 28 for processing”, p.7, ln. 22-26, see Fig. 4, see:” the Figure 2 microphone port 21 picks up noise in the open ear canal of the user. The sounds picked up by the microphone 21 are fed into a noise cancellation controller 27… the noise cancellation controller 27 filters the received signal, inverts the signal and amplifies the inverted signal in a known manner”, p.6, ln. 4-14).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a microphone that is coupled to an end the compliant guide portion positioned in the ear, and the microphone is configured to pickup noise to enable an active noise cancellation function as taught by Taenzer to the wearable device hearing accessory as taught by Van Hook in view of Patel. It would have been obvious for a designer to have configured the microphone near the ear based on the needs. This choice produces no unexpected results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “improve(s) the intelligibility” of sound “by canceling ambient noise” (see p.6, ln.21).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hook et al. (US 20210345036 A1) in view of Evans et al. (US 20210076120 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook does not teach the hearing accessory of claim 1 wherein the sensor comprises a proximity sensor coupled to the wearable device.
Evans teaches the sensor comprises a proximity sensor coupled to the wearable device (The sensing electronics 138d can include a proximity sensor and can be part of the hearing accessory. It is part of the speaker unit electronics 138 of the speaker unit 132, the speaker unit 132 can be connected to the head mounted display unit 110, i.e. the wearable device. Therefore the proximity sensor is coupled to the wearable device, see [0048]: “the electronics 138 of the speaker unit 132…The sensing electronics 138d may include one or more appropriate sensors for detecting such position, orientation, and/or motion, such as accelerometer(s), gyroscope(s), inertial measurement unit (IMU), proximity sensor(s), and/or cameras (e.g., for video recognition)”, see [0085]: “ Upon connecting the detachable speaker units 132 to the head-mounted display unit 110…”, see Figs 1A-1D).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the sensor comprising a proximity sensor coupled to the wearable device as taught by Evans to the wearable device hearing accessory as taught by Van Hook. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “sense various parameters… relative to another part of the display system” (see [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook does not teach the hearing accessory of claim 1 wherein the wearable device comprises a display connected to a band that extends over an ear of the user, and the extra-aural audio unit is mounted to the band.
Evans teaches a display connected to a band that extends over an ear of the user, and the extra-aural audio unit is mounted to the band (The head-mounted display unit 110 can be the wearable device hearing accessory, which comprises a display screen 114, i.e. a display. The display is connected to a support 112, i.e. a band that extends over an ear of the user, and a speaker 118, i.e. the extra-aural audio unit is mounted to the band, see [0039]: “The head-mounted display unit 110 generally includes a support 112 and a display screen 114”, Figs 1A-1B, see [0041]: “The head-mounted display unit 110 may additionally include speakers 118, which transmit or output aural content to ears of the user”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a display, a band, the display is connected to the band that extends over an ear of the user, and the extra-aural audio unit is mounted to the band as taught by Evans to the wearable device hearing accessory as taught by Van Hook. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “provide a mixed reality experience by providing a visual pass-through by which the user may view the real environment”(see [0042]), “The support is configured to be worn on a user's head H to thereby support the display screen 114 in a suitable position relative to eyes of the user”( see [0039]), and “the HMD speakers 118 may be positioned above and/or in front of the ears of the user, thereby not obstructing sound from the real environment from reaching the ears of the user” (see [0042]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hook et al. (US 20210345036 A1) in view of Willis (US 20040125963 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Van Hook teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 15’s 102 rejection.
Van Hook also teaches a length of the compliant guide portion (A length of a transmission line portion is a length of compliant guide portion, see [0065]:“removable accessory 400 could have a transmission line portion 402 of varying lengths”).
Van Hook does not teach the characteristic of the compliant guide portion is a length of the compliant guide portion.
Willis teaches the characteristic of the compliant guide portion is a length of the compliant guide portion (The equalization is a function of standing waves (frequencies), which is a function of the length of the sound tube. The sound tube can be the compliant guide portion. Therefore, a length of the compliant guide portion can be the characteristic of the compliant guide portion, i.e. the characteristic of the compliant guide portion is a length of the compliant guide portion,
see [0005]:“The equalization used to control acoustical standing waves in the earpiece tubing…The standing wave frequencies are a function of the combined length of the sound tube and accessory tube; and therefore, the equalization must be tuned to the particular delivery system used”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted that the characteristic of the compliant guide portion is a length of the compliant guide portion as taught by Willis to the wearable device hearing accessory as taught by Van Hook. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to get a system that can “be tuned to the particular delivery system used” (see [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/SHIN LEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
