DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 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, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silfvast et al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 10,816,812 B2), hereafter referenced as Silfvast.
Regarding Claim 1, Silfvast discloses “A wearable device (Figures 1, 2, and Column 3, Lines 58 – 65 (Notice that a wearable device is shown in Figures 1 and 2), “comprising a device body” (Figure 1, Column 8, Line 17, Item 104 (Notice that a support 104 provides at least a portion of the total device body.)), “and a headset” (Figure 1, Column 8, Lines 37, Item 112 (Notice that audio component 112 provides a headset as part of the total device body.)), “wherein the device body is provided with a sound guide channel, and the sound guide channel has a first sound outlet and a docking port” (Figures 3, 6, and Column 9, Lines 30 – 31 (Notice that the total device body is provided with a sound guide channel via the path 326A having a first sound outlet in the area of illustrated arrow linked to reference numeral 326A and docking port at the interface between driver unit 122 and the described first sound outlet.)), “wherein the headset is movably disposed on the device body, and is configured to switch between a first position and a second position relative to the device body” (Figures 1 and 2 (Notice that headset 112 is movably disposed relative to other portions of the total device body to be in a first position shown in Figure 1 and second position shown in Figure 2.)), “and the headset is provided with a second sound outlet” (Figures 3 and 6, Column 9, Lines 31, Item 324A (Notice in at least Figure 3 that headset 112 is provided with sound outlet 324A.)), “when the headset is at the first position, the second sound outlet is connected to the docking port, and the headset outputs sound through the first sound outlet at first power” (Figures 1, 3, and Column 11, Lines 57 – 59 (Notice that when the headset is moved to the first position shown in Figure 1, the second sound outlet is acoustically connected to the above described docking port, and sound is transmitted through the above described first sound outlet at a first power.)), “and when the headset is at the second position, the second sound outlet is separated from the docking port, and the headset outputs sound through the second sound outlet at second power” (Figures 2 and 6 (Notice that when the headset is in the second position shown in Figure 2, the second outlet 324A is separated form the above described docking port via gate 344 to output sound through the second outlet 324A at a lesser power.)), “wherein the first power is greater than the second power” (Figures 3 and 6 (Notice that the location of the gate at the first position of 112 allows greater acoustical power through the above described first sound outlet to the second sound outlet and the location of the gate at the second position of 112 allows lesser acoustical power to the second sound outlet.)).
Regarding Claim 4, Silfvast discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Silfvast discloses “further comprising a detection apparatus and a control component” (Column 12, Lines 17 – 32 (Notice that the controller 342 provides a detection apparatus with control component.)), “wherein the detection apparatus is connected to at least one of the device body or the headset” (Figure 3 (Notice that detection apparatus 342 is connect to at least headset 112.)), “the detection apparatus is configured to detect a position of the headset” (Column 12, Lines 25 – 26), “the control component is connected to the detection apparatus and the headset” (Figure 3 (Notice that the control component of 342 is connectively intertwined with the detection apparatus of 342 and headset 112 through said intertwined connection.)), “the control component is configured to: when the headset is at the first position, control the headset to output sound at the first power” (Column 12, Lines 27 – 32), “and when the headset is at the second position, control the headset to output sound at the second power” (Column 12, Lines 22 – 27).
Regarding Claim 8, Silfvast discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Silfvast discloses “wherein the wearable device is smart glasses” (Figure 1 (Notice the wearable device is of spectacle form with additional intelligent elements.)), “the device body comprises a glasses temple” (Figure 1, Item 104, and Column 8, Lines 23 – 25), “and the sound guide channel is disposed on the glasses temple” (Figure 1 (Notice the sound guide channel inside the headset 112 is disposed on the glasses temple 104 via the connection of headset 112.)).
Regarding Claim 10, Silfvast discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claims 1 and 4). Specifically, refer back the rejections of Claims 1 and 4 while noticing that the wearable device of Claim 4 performs the method of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Silfvast discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 10). Specifically, refer back the rejections of Claim 10 (and Claims 1 and 4) while noticing that operation is carried out by controller 342 disclosed as a processor, where processor operation necessitates access to stored operation instructions or programming to carry out the method of Claim 10.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silfvast.
Regarding Claim 2, Silfvast discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Silfvast discloses “further comprising a connecting rod” (Figures 1 and 3, Column 11, Lines 22 – 24, Item 130 (Notice that a connecting rod is shown in Figure 3.)), “wherein a first end of the connecting rod is [ ] connected to the device body” (Figure 3 (Notice a first end of the connecting rod not shown requires connection to the device body, however “rotatable” connection is not disclosed by Silfvast.)), “a second end of the connecting rod is connected to the headset” (Figure 3 (Notice that a second end of connecting rod 130 is connected to the headset 112.)), “and the headset is configured to switch between the first position and the second position [about] the connecting rod [ ]” (Figures 1 and 2 (Notice that the headset switching between the first and second position occurs via the rotation of headset 112 about connect rod 130, however “rotation” of the connecting rod is not disclosed.)).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide rotation of the connection rod via a rotatable connection at the body due to the concept of duality (i.e. relative rotation, shaft solidified with object or object moving around fixed shaft) and the desire of one having ordinary skill in the art to lighten a headset by moving the mass of spring 134/334 into support 104.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silfvast in view of Warren (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0030946 A1), hereinafter referenced as Warren.
Regarding Claim 5, Silfvast discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 4). In addition, Silfvast fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the detection apparatus
comprises a Hall component and a first magnetic member, one of the Hall component or
the first magnetic member is disposed on the device body, the other is connected to the headset, and the Hall component determines the position of the headset by detecting a
magnetic field of the first magnetic member”.
In a similar field of endeavor, Warren teaches the utilization of a Hall effect sensor 502 and magnet 504 to detect relative positional differences with a controller 508 (Paragraph [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “wherein the detection apparatus comprises a Hall component and a first magnetic member, one of the Hall component or the first magnetic member is disposed on the device body, the other is connected to the headset, and the Hall component determines the position of the headset by detecting a magnetic field of the first magnetic member” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to detect more positional states than a reed switch (Warren, Paragraph [0090]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, and 9 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.
In the prior art of record, it has been shown to provide for the limitations of Claim 1 from which Claim 7 is dependent, provide for the limitations of 2 from which Claim 3 is dependent, and provide for the limitations of Claim 8 from which Claim 9 is dependent. However, it has not been shown in the prior art of record to provide for the combination of the limitations of Claims 1 and 7, Claims 2 and 3, and Claims 8 and 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5575. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ke Xiao, can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRIAN M BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627 March 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights