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 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.
Claims 25-31 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 25 contains a “determination that the audio content includes a threshold of one or more transitions, one or more decays, or one or more pauses”. It is unclear how audio content can include a threshold. A threshold may be met or satisfied, but the audio content cannot contain a threshold.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected because they depend from claims rejected above as indefinite.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirnemann (US 20140321657 A1) in view of Abdallah (US 20210227338 A1 - previously cited).
In regards to claim 1, Stirnemann teaches a method performed by a headset ([0074] “The hearing instrument schematically represented in FIG. 1 may be of the behind-the-ear (BTE) type, of the in-the-ear (ITE) type, (of the completely-in-the-canal (CIC) type or not) or of any other type”) that includes a speaker ([0074] “(loudspeaker) 5”) and an in-ear microphone ([0074] “It comprises an input microphone 1”), the method comprising:
performing a calibration on the headset to obtain a baseline measurement ([0018] “determining, from the acoustic signal and from a frequency dependent reference characteristics of the hearing instrument, an ear canal impedance”, [0023-0027] reference characteristics are obtained by calibration);
using, while the headset is being worn by a user, an audio signal to drive the speaker to project sound into a canal of a user's ear ([0029] “In accordance with a possibility, in the step of measuring the ear canal impedance, the ear canal impedance is measured by means of a test signal emitted by the receiver and measured by the ear canal microphone”);
capturing as a microphone signal, from the in-ear microphone, sound from within the canal of the user's ear ([0029] “In accordance with a possibility, in the step of measuring the ear canal impedance, the ear canal impedance is measured by means of a test signal emitted by the receiver and measured by the ear canal microphone”);
determining acoustic input impedance of the user's ear based on the microphone signal and the baseline measurement ([0018] “determining, from the acoustic signal and from a frequency dependent reference characteristics of the hearing instrument, an ear canal impedance”, [0029] “In accordance with a possibility, in the step of measuring the ear canal impedance, the ear canal impedance is measured by means of a test signal emitted by the receiver and measured by the ear canal microphone”);
determining a model parameter
identifying one or more characteristics of the one or more hearing elements of the user's ear using the acousto-mechanical model ([0091] model determines ear drum impedance).
Stirnemann fails to teach transmitting, via a wireless connection and to an electronic device, or outputting through the speaker a notification alerting the user of the one or more characteristics of the one or more hearing elements of the user's ear or suggesting that the user consult a medical provider Abdallah teaches transmitting a notification relating to one or more characteristics of one or more hearing elements of the user's ear in order to notify a user of their hearing abilities ([0039] “In some embodiments, controller 202 is also configured to operate a user interface 210 (e.g., a display screen, a display device, a combiner, a speaker, an audio output device, etc.) to provide a notification to the user that the user suffers from some degree of hearing loss”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stirnemann to include a notification on a device relating to the users eardrum impedance in order to notify a user of their hearing abilities in order to notify a user of their hearing abilities like the method of Abdallah.
In regards to claim 4, Modified Stirnemann teaches the method of claim 1, the model parameter is one of a plurality of model parameters that are part of the acousto-mechanical model in which each of the plurality of model parameters represents an electrical component or a mechanical component that is equivalent to the one or more hearing elements that include at least one of a middle ear or an outer ear of the user ([0089] “Complete model of the outer ear and the middle ear. The network model depicted in FIG. 5 is fitted to the measured ear canal impedance Z.sub.ec. In the diagram of FIG. 5, the ear is modeled by a circuit of impedances, namely resistors 31, 34, 38, capacitors 33, 36, 39, and inductors 32, 35, 37. In this model, the inductors represent masses, the capacitors the elastic coupling of the masses to each other and to the skull, and the resistors represent acoustic dampers, especially losses in sound transmission”).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirnemann (US 20140321657 A1) in view of Abdallah (US 20210227338 A1 - previously cited) as applied to claim 1, in view of Goldstein (US 20140044275 A1 - previously cited).
In regards to claim 2, Modified Stirnemann teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Stirnemann fails to teach a method further comprising using the microphone signal to determine a secondary path ("S-path") transfer function that represents a response between the speaker and the in-ear microphone, wherein determining the acoustic input impedance comprises measuring, using the S-path transfer function, the acoustic input impedance of the user's ear with respect to the baseline measurement. Goldstein teaches using the microphone signal to determine a secondary path ("S-path") transfer function that represents a response between the speaker and the in-ear microphone, wherein the determined parameter is based on the S-path transfer function wherein determining the acoustic input impedance comprises measuring, using the S-path transfer function, the acoustic input impedance of the user's ear with respect to the baseline measurement ([0028][0043][0036] S-path used to determine parameters in the form of a relationship between ear canal parameters L and d and ear acoustic input impedance or ear canal input impedance). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the input impedance calculation method of Modified Stirnemann with the method Goldstein to determine the input impedance. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known input impedance detection method for another to obtain predictable results.
In regards to claim 3 Modified Stirnemann teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the S-path transfer function is determined as part of an active-noise cancellation process that is performed by the headset to generate an anti-noise signal for driving the speaker (Goldstein [0039]).
In regards to claim 5, Modified Stirnemann teaches the method of claim 4, including determining one or more impedance calibration parameters for an impedance model, wherein measuring the acoustic input impedance comprises estimating the acoustic input impedance by applying the determined one or more impedance calibration parameters and the S-path transfer function to the impedance model (Goldstein [0043]).
Claims 6-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirnemann (US 20140321657 A1) in view of Abdallah (US 20210227338 A1 - previously cited) in view of Frederiksen (US 20170289704 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 6, Modified Stirnemann teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Stirnemann fails to teach a method wherein the acoustic input impedance is measured determined over a period of time, wherein the method further comprises determining the one or more characteristics are identified based on a change between the model parameter and a corresponding model parameter of another acousto-mechanical model over the period of time. Frederiksen teaches determining the one or more characteristics based on a change between the parameter and a corresponding parameter of the acousto-mechanical model over the period of time ([0199]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stirnemann to determine input impedance over a period of time and compare the eardrum impedances of the user measured using the models fitted to the different input impedances to determine a change in impedance over time. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of determining long-term deviations in impedance.
In regards to claim 7, Modified Stirnemann teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Stirnemann fails to teach a method wherein identifying the one or more characteristics comprises further comprising: comparing the model parameter to a corresponding model parameter of another acousto- mechanical model; and identifying determining the one or more characteristics based on the comparison comparing of the model parameter to the corresponding model parameter. Frederiksen teaches determining the one or more characteristics based on a change between the parameter and a corresponding parameter of the acousto-mechanical model over the period of time ([0199]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stirnemann to determine input impedance over a period of time and compare the eardrum impedances of the user measured using the models fitted to the different input impedances to determine a change in impedance over time. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of determining long-term deviations in impedance.
In regards to claim 9, Stirnemann teaches a headset ([0074] “The hearing instrument schematically represented in FIG. 1 may be of the behind-the-ear (BTE) type, of the in-the-ear (ITE) type, (of the completely-in-the-canal (CIC) type or not) or of any other type”), comprising:
a speaker ([0074] “(loudspeaker) 5”);
a microphone ([0074] “It comprises an input microphone 1”);
a processor ([0014] “The shell may comprise active components, such as the microphones and the receiver as well as the signal processor”);
and memory ([0022] device has memory) having instructions stored therein which when executed by the processor causes the headset to:
perform a calibration on the headset to obtain a baseline measurement[0018] “determining, from the acoustic signal and from a frequency dependent reference characteristics of the hearing instrument, an ear canal impedance”, [0023-0027] reference characteristics are obtained by calibration),
use, while the headset is being worn by a user, an audio signal to drive the speaker to project sound into a canal of a user's ear ([0029] “In accordance with a possibility, in the step of measuring the ear canal impedance, the ear canal impedance is measured by means of a test signal emitted by the receiver and measured by the ear canal microphone”),
capture as a microphone signal, from the microphone, sound from within the canal of the user's ear ([0029] “In accordance with a possibility, in the step of measuring the ear canal impedance, the ear canal impedance is measured by means of a test signal emitted by the receiver and measured by the ear canal microphone”),
determining acoustic input impedance of the user's ear based on the microphone signal and the baseline measurement, over a period of time ([0018] “determining, from the acoustic signal and from a frequency dependent reference characteristics of the hearing instrument, an ear canal impedance”, [0029] “In accordance with a possibility, in the step of measuring the ear canal impedance, the ear canal impedance is measured by means of a test signal emitted by the receiver and measured by the ear canal microphone”),
determine a model parameter of an acousto-mechanical model that is equivalent to one or more hearing elements of the user's ear using the acoustic input impedance ([0089] model is fitted to the measured ear canal impedance);
identify one or more characteristics of the one or more hearing elements of the user's ear using the acousto-mechanical model ([0091] model determines ear drum impedance).
Stirnemann fails to teach determining acoustic input impedance over a period of time, and determining one or more characteristics of the one or more hearing elements of the user's ear based on the change of the model parameter with respect to a corresponding model parameter of another model over the period of time. Frederiksen teaches determining the one or more characteristics based on a change between the parameter and a corresponding parameter of the acousto-mechanical model over the period of time ([0199]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stirnemann to determine input impedance over a period of time and compare the eardrum impedances of the user measured using the models fitted to the different input impedances to determine a change in impedance over time. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of determining long-term deviations in impedance.
Modified Stirnemann fails to teach transmitting, via a wireless connection and to an electronic device, or outputting through the speaker a notification alerting the user of the one or more characteristics of the one or more hearing elements of the user's ear or suggesting that the user consult a medical provider Abdallah teaches transmitting a notification relating to one or more characteristics of one or more hearing elements of the user's ear in order to notify a user of their hearing abilities ([0039] “In some embodiments, controller 202 is also configured to operate a user interface 210 (e.g., a display screen, a display device, a combiner, a speaker, an audio output device, etc.) to provide a notification to the user that the user suffers from some degree of hearing loss”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stirnemann to include a notification on a device relating to the users eardrum impedance in order to notify a user of their hearing abilities in order to notify a user of their hearing abilities like the method of Abdallah.
In regards to claim 12, Modified Stirnemann teaches the headset of claim 9, the model parameter is one of a plurality of model parameters that are part of the acousto-mechanical model in which each of the plurality of model parameters represents an electrical component or a mechanical component that is equivalent to the one or more hearing elements that include at least one of a middle ear or an outer ear of the user ([0089] “Complete model of the outer ear and the middle ear. The network model depicted in FIG. 5 is fitted to the measured ear canal impedance Z.sub.ec. In the diagram of FIG. 5, the ear is modeled by a circuit of impedances, namely resistors 31, 34, 38, capacitors 33, 36, 39, and inductors 32, 35, 37. In this model, the inductors represent masses, the capacitors the elastic coupling of the masses to each other and to the skull, and the resistors represent acoustic dampers, especially losses in sound transmission”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirnemann (US 20140321657 A1) in view of Abdallah (US 20210227338 A1 - previously cited) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Harvey (US 20210134318 A1- cited by applicant).
In regards to claim 8, modified Stirnemann teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Stirnemann fails to teach a method wherein the calibration is performed while the headset is in a holding case that is arranged to house the headset while it is not worn by the user. Harvey teaches a method wherein calibration is performed while a headset is in a holding case that is arranged to house the headset while it is not worn by a user ([0076]) in order to determine if the device is located within the ear or out of it. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Stirnemann to include calibrating the device when it is in a holding case like the method of Harvey in order to allow for the determination of if the device is in the user’s ear or in the case.
Claims 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirnemann (US 20140321657 A1) in view of Abdallah (US 20210227338 A1 - previously cited) in view of Frederiksen (US 20170289704 A1 – previously cited) as applied to claim 9, further in view of Goldstein (US 20140044275 A1 - previously cited).
In regards to claim 10, Modified Stirnemann teaches the headset of claim 9. Modified Stirnemann fails to teach a method further comprising using the microphone signal to determine a secondary path ("S-path") transfer function that represents a response between the speaker and the in-ear microphone, wherein determining the acoustic input impedance comprises measuring, using the S-path transfer function, the acoustic input impedance of the user's ear with respect to the baseline measurement. Goldstein teaches using the microphone signal to determine a secondary path ("S-path") transfer function that represents a response between the speaker and the in-ear microphone, wherein the determined parameter is based on the S-path transfer function wherein determining the acoustic input impedance comprises measuring, using the S-path transfer function, the acoustic input impedance of the user's ear with respect to the baseline measurement ([0028][0043][0036] S-path used to determine parameters in the form of a relationship between ear canal parameters L and d and ear acoustic input impedance or ear canal input impedance). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the input impedance calculation method of Modified Stirnemann with the method Goldstein to determine the input impedance. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known input impedance detection method for another to obtain predictable results.
In regards to claim 11 Modified Stirnemann teaches the headset of claim 9, wherein the S-path transfer function is determined as part of an active-noise cancellation process that is performed by the headset to generate an anti-noise signal for driving the speaker (Goldstein [0039]).
In regards to claim 13, Modified Stirnemann teaches the headset of claim 9, including determining one or more impedance calibration parameters for an impedance model, wherein measuring the acoustic input impedance comprises estimating the acoustic input impedance by applying the determined one or more impedance calibration parameters and the S-path transfer function to the impedance model (Goldstein [0043]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirnemann (US 20140321657 A1) in view of Abdallah (US 20210227338 A1 - previously cited) in view of Frederiksen (US 20170289704 A1) – previously cited as applied to claim 9, further in view of Harvey (US 20210134318 A1- cited by applicant).
In regards to claim 16, modified Stirnemann teaches the headset of claim 9. Modified Stirnemann fails to teach a headset wherein the calibration is performed while the headset is in a holding case that is arranged to house the headset while it is not worn by the user. Harvey teaches a method wherein calibration is performed while a headset is in a holding case that is arranged to house the headset while it is not worn by a user ([0076]) in order to determine if the device is located within the ear or out of it. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processor of modified Stirnemann to include a step of calibrating the device when it is in a holding case like the method of Harvey in order to allow for the determination of if the device is in the user’s ear or in the case.
Examiner’s Note
In regards to claim 15, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a device comprising a second acousto-mechanical model of a user's ear that is a predefined acousto-mechanical model, in combination with the other claimed elements.
In regards to claims 25-31, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, method comprising performing an acoustic analysis of an audio signal to determine whether audio content of the audio signal includes at least one of a transition, a decay, or a pause; and responsive to a determination that the audio content includes a threshold of one or more transitions, one or more decays, or one or more pauses, transmit, via a wireless connection to an electronic device, or output through the speaker a notification alerting the user of related to one or more characteristics of the one or more hearing elements of the user's ear based on the model parameter or suggesting that the user consult a medical provider, in combination with the other claimed steps.
In regards to claims 33-34, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a method comprising using, while a headset is being worn by a user and after a first sound was projected, an audio signal or another audio signal to drive a speaker to project a second sound into the canal of the user's ear at a second loudness level that is different than a first loudness level; capturing as a subsequent microphone signal, from the in-ear microphone, the second sound; and determining a second acoustic input impedance associated with the user's ear based on the second captured sound and a baseline measurement, wherein a model parameter is determined based on changes between the first input acoustic impedance and the second input acoustic impedance, in combination with the other claimed steps.
Claims 15 and 33-34 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.
Claims 25-31 contain no prior art rejections, however they are not in condition for allowance due to their rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 4-7, 12-15, and 28- 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 4-7, 12-15, and 28- 31 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-6, 10-14, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 2-6, 10-14, and 26-30 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims1-16 and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C.101 rejections of claims 1-16 and 25-32 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stirnemann (US 20140321657 A1) in view of Abdallah (US 20210227338 A1 - previously cited).
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stirnemann (US 20140321657 A1) in view of Abdallah (US 20210227338 A1 - previously cited) in view of Frederiksen (US 20170289704 A1 – previously cited). The applicant contends that paragraph [0019] of Frederiksen teaches determining hearing parameters over time in order to determine short-term and long-term deviations of the hearing parameters.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C.103 rejections of claim 25 and it’s dependent claims has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/LUCY EPPERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights