[jdriver]

The thrust of the patent seems to be using 2 high frequency drivers that are carefully tuned to be phase matched followed by a mechanical damper of some kind. Also the method of routing the low and mid drivers through one tube and the hf on the other tube. Was Harvey the first one to do that, dual ports?

 

[Brooko]

I'm pretty sure it's the patent for freqphase specifically guys - as it mentions the JH13Pro, JH16Pro, Roxanne - all of which have freqphase.  I doubt that it would ever apply or be upheld against any IEM having standard dual high freq drivers.
 
Here : http://www.jhaudio.com/collection/freqphase
 
Compare that to the patent.

 

[ellevoid]

Jerry has many patents and I didn't see any impact on CIEM or UIEM industry or his competitors.
 
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Harvey%3B+Jerry&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

 

[vwinter]

Jerry has many patents and I didn't see any impact on CIEM or UIEM industry or his competitors.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Harvey%3B+Jerry&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

That might be because all the ones before these are owned by Ultimate Ears and subsequently Logitech as the parent company.

 

[thune]

This JH patent is a terrible read. I can still only guess what is patented: seems to be calling first on using two separate high-frequency drivers that are tuned together (damper/tube), but don't use the same tuning (damper/tube) as the mid/bass drivers. It is unclear if this patent applies only to duals operating exclusively in the 12kHz-18kHz range, or applies to any high frequency (crossed-over) dual that happens to cover the 12kHz-18kHz range. I'm assuming this patent doesn't affect co-housed (single port) duals, but that is also unclear.
 
Clarification from the inventor would be helpful.
 
What other dual-high frequency drivers IEMS are out there? It might be interesting to see how they compare in construction.

 

[fiascogarcia]

My only question would be why JH Audio saw fit to even make an announcement in the first place, for a patent.  Is this the first one they've ever applied for? (not trademark, but patent).

 

[just-a-test]

The problem is that only JH and UE are big enough to make an application worthwhile, considering it costs roughly $25,000 (at least for software patents). Personally I hope they won't use this broadly and troll every startup with this patent, most of them can't afford a court case, in addition, proving prior art is actually not that easy.

 

[Gilly87]

 
I'm also curious; this is what sparked my suspicions to ask the original question.
 
Quote:

  My only question would be why JH Audio saw fit to even make an announcement in the first place, for a patent.  Is this the first one they've ever applied for? (not trademark, but patent).

 

[Ivabign]

  who did  Xaiomi steal their design for the Pistons from? LOL 

​Not sure - has to be someone since it seems to be endemic in their corporate culture - they blatantly rip off anything Apple - even down to the CEO wearing the same black turtleneck and jeans introducing "One More Thing" - Low Information Consumers (those who think Xiaomi is an original company with original ideas) could easily mistake their products for those originated in Cupertino.
 



 


Patents are needed to protect the work (including ideas) that often takes years of research and investment, from those who would steal those ideas/designs.

 

[Gilly87]

Totally agree, on all fronts.
 
But the trouble is this: where do we draw the line between revolutionary invention, and evolutionary progress? It seems like it was only a matter of time for SOMEONE to start sticking multiple BAs in a shell; Jerry Harvey happened to be the first guy to do it. It's an awesome design, and Jerry Harvey still leads the pack in the world of IEMs IMO (TF10 is my favorite earphone I've ever owned, JH16 is still the best I've ever heard, and I know folks with ears more golden than mine are blown away by the Roxannes), and it's undeniable that the results of his work have changed the industry, but *IF* (big if!) he is attempting to patent the use of multiple high frequency drivers, that's about as legitimate as patenting a smartphone that uses two gigs of ram instead of one, or, infamously, a square with rounded corners.
 
*IF* that is what he is trying to do, it's a bit narcissistic and incredibly anti-competitive, and thereby a regressive move for the industry.
 
I hope that's not the case. My other hope is that someone with a better legal eye than mine can swing through, read the patent and set the record straight, because it doesn't seem like that's what this is about, and the thread seems to be degenerating, but the fact that it's being announced so conspicuously made me worry that it might be a possibility.
 
Quote:

 
​Not sure - has to be someone since it seems to be endemic in their corporate culture - they blatantly rip off anything Apple - even down to the CEO wearing the same black turtleneck and jeans introducing "One More Thing" - Low Information Consumers (those who think Xiaomi is an original company with original ideas) could easily mistake their products for those originated in Cupertino.
 



 


Patents are needed to protect the work (including ideas) that often takes years of research and investment, from those who would steal those ideas/designs.

 

[Bansaku]

  superior numbers.
 
This is why I will never own an Xiaomi Piston. They are the worst kind of thieves - copying designs exactly and mass producing them - often fooling buyers into thinking they are the real thing (phones, tablets, etc...) Sales of Xiaomi products have been banned in India recently as the counterfeiting was so blatant, no amount of bribery could keep the products on the shelves.
 

 
 
This made me laugh. Not one what you said, but the fact of the matter, which is China. In the west we have very strict penalties for violating patents (when brought to light and enforced), but this is China we are talking about. The courts will not touch them. Heck, the courts will not even attempt to do anything about it outside of banning sales in their respective Countries. China can, and will, do whatever they want and literally nobody can do anything about it. What makes it worse is the fact that China will gleefully export anything by anyone who is willing to do the shipping.
 
Oh, and lets not forget the biggest factor in the China game. Xiaomi, much like OCZ or Hasee, are merely names given to a 'front'. There is no private ownership of industry or business in China. None, zip, zero! Everything that is produced in China is owned by China and all profits go to China. That is why myself I always refer to these 'front' companies as merely China brand. 
 
So ya, patents mean squat when 99.9999% of everything comes out of China. Not my 2cents, sadly fact.....
 

 

[Joe Bloggs]

This JH patent is a terrible read. I can still only guess what is patented: seems to be calling first on using two separate high-frequency drivers that are tuned together (damper/tube), but don't use the same tuning (damper/tube) as the mid/bass drivers. It is unclear if this patent applies only to duals operating exclusively in the 12kHz-18kHz range, or applies to any high frequency (crossed-over) dual that happens to cover the 12kHz-18kHz range. I'm assuming this patent doesn't affect co-housed (single port) duals, but that is also unclear.

Clarification from the inventor would be helpful.

What other dual-high frequency drivers IEMS are out there? It might be interesting to see how they compare in construction.

Quick start guide to reading patents:

1. Only the Claims define the scope of protection. The description and drawings are only there to aid comprehension.
2. First look at the independent claims (in this patent, Claims 1, 9 and 14), those define the broadest scope of protection the patent can offer the applicant. A product that carries all features of one of these claims is infringing.
3. The dependent claims (e.g. 2. The system of claim 1 further comprising...) define a more specific product with more features. These provide fallback positions in case the broader claim(s) are invalidated. Otherwise a product does not need to carry the features described in these claims in order to be considered infringing.
4. "Comprises" means "includes, but not limited to..."

I'm only posting in this thread because I work in a patent agency by day, not because of anything to do with FiiO

 

[thune]

Thanks for the guidance Joe, esp pointing out the later independent claims. Also probably good to look at the granted patent instead of the patent application

.
 
Claim 1 in the granted patent is more broad than that of the application as regards high frequency drivers: the "tuned with" language of the application is replaced by the "oscillation of one interacts with the oscillation of the other to reduce harmonic distortion", which is simply what happens when you put two drivers together. But claim 1 of the granted patent restricts this to the three-way-all-duals configuration, unlike the application.
 
So on its face it appears claim 1 encompasses nearly any three-way-all-duals configuration. Can that be right?
 
I'm still confused about the exclusiveness of the high-frequency range and about single-port duals (used in a three-way-all-duals configuration).

 

[vwinter]

Thanks for the guidance Joe, esp pointing out the later independent claims. Also probably good to look at the granted patent instead of the patent application .

Claim 1 in the granted patent is more broad than that of the application as regards high frequency drivers: the "tuned with" language of the application is replaced by the "oscillation of one interacts with the oscillation of the other to reduce harmonic distortion", which is simply what happens when you put two drivers together. But claim 1 of the granted patent restricts this to the three-way-all-duals configuration, unlike the application.

So on its face it appears claim 1 encompasses nearly any three-way-all-duals configuration. Can that be right?

I'm still confused about the exclusiveness of the high-frequency range and about single-port duals (used in a three-way-all-duals configuration).

That's why patent attorneys make the big bucks

 

[miceblue]

I would suggest reading through this article before trying to read through the patent, it can help:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/how-balanced-armature-receiversdrivers-work


[rule]
I read through most of the patent and indeed the wording is absolutely terribad. For the numbered claims, sometimes the same things are copied twice.

3. The system of claim 2 wherein the first high frequency driver and second high frequency driver are externally damped by an external damper within the canalphone housing.

4. The claim 3 wherein the first high frequency driver and the second high frequency driver are tuned by at least one of the length of the second sound tube, the external damper, and the positioning of each high frequency driver with respect to the other high frequency driver.

is totally not the same as:

11. The system of claim 10 wherein the first high frequency driver and second high frequency driver are externally damped by an external damper within the canalphone housing, and the first high frequency driver and the second high frequency driver are tuned by at least one of the length of the second sound tube, the external damper, and the positioning of each high frequency driver with respect to the other high frequency driver.

which is totally not the same as:

16. The system of claim 14 wherein the first high frequency driver and second high frequency driver are externally damped by an external damper within the canalphone housing, the first high frequency driver and the second high frequency driver are tuned by at least one of the length of the second sound tube, the external damper, and the positioning of each high frequency driver with respect to the other high frequency driver.

But yeah, it basically sounds like the patent includes:

• two high-frequency balanced armature drivers that are tuned to have similar frequency responses
• oscillations from one high-frequency driver interact with the oscillations from the second driver to reduce the harmonic distortion
• separate sound tube within the housing for the paired high-frequency drivers (#20b on the diagram)
• high-frequency sound tube is externally dampened within the housing (#24 on the diagram)
• high-frequency drivers are tuned by either: the position of the two drivers with respect to one another, the external dampener, or the length of the sound tube
• (this is where the Innerfidelity article is nice to reference to) the paired high-frequency drivers' combined mass is lighter (than normal I'm guessing) such that it requires less power for the system and increases the drivers' transient response (driver's quickness)
• 3-way crossover design for: low-low drivers, mid-mid drivers, and high-high drivers

Joe Bloggs might be able to clarify a few things since he seems to know more about the wording of patents than I do.













Too long, didn't read:
Freqphase
http://www.jhaudio.com/content/jh13-pro

U.S. Patent No. 8,897,463. Freqphase Patent Pending.

Here : http://www.jhaudio.com/collection/freqphase

Compare that to the patent.

Nothing in the patent describes what's said on the Freqphase page there because neither time nor phase are mentioned in the patent, and the Freqphase page doesn't describe the use of dual high-frequency drivers as described by the patent. XD