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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. These claims are inconsistent in their recitations of the positioning of a microphone within a hearing test probe apparatus. Some claims are directed to a microphone being disposed directly within an eartip itself while other claims are directed to a microphone being disposed within a mounting stem that is configured to detachably couple to an eartip. The following claims have been addressed and linked to their corresponding figures:
Claims 1 and 10-11 are drawn to Figures 11 and 12 wherein the microphone is disposed directly within the eartip itself and not at the end of a mounting stem.
Claims 2 and 9 are drawn to Figures 4-6 wherein the microphone is disposed within a mounting stem that is configured to detachably couple to an eartip.
The discrepancy of microphone placement across the claims and figures that share an independent claim, Claim 1, would leave a person of ordinary skill in the art unable to properly position a microphone appropriately in order to make and/or use the hearing probe apparatus as claimed by the applicant in claims 2 and 9.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-17 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.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “wherein the eartip comprises the microphone embedded in a front half of the eartip” is unclear. The limitation “embedded in the front half of the eartip” makes the limitation unclear as to whether the microphone is part of the eartip or if the microphone is part of the system and is thought to be "embedded in a front half of the eartip" whenever the eartip is “detachably coupled” to the rest of the system as recited in Claim 1. It is unclear what part of the system recited in Claim 1 contains the “embedded microphone” recited in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, this limitation as a whole is unclear. It is unclear if the microphone is part of the eartip or if the microphone is part of the system and is thought to be "comprised within the eartip" whenever the eartip is “detachably coupled” to the rest of the system as recited in Claim 1. Based on its dependency to Claim 1, this limitation is being interpreted to mean that whenever the eartip is detachably coupled to the mounting stem, the eartip comprises the microphone.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation “microphone contacts” recited in line 3 of the claim is unclear. It is unclear what “microphone contacts” includes or what kind of structure this element would take on. Are “microphone contacts” a specific type of device or does it mean that the electrical connection involves being in contact with a microphone? This is being interpreted to mean that the electrical connection involves being in contact with a microphone.
Additionally, the limitation “probe contacts” recited in line 4 of the claim is unclear. It is unclear what “probe contacts” includes or what kind of structure this element would take on. Are “probe contacts” a specific type of device or does it mean that the electrical connection involves being in contact with a probe? This is being interpreted to mean that the electrical connection involves being in contact with a probe.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on the above claims.
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 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iseberg et. al.'079 (WO Patent Application 2012103079 – previously cited) in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 (WO Patent Application 2017147545 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Iseberg et. al.’079 discloses a hearing test probe apparatus (Paragraph [0005] - hearing testing probes) comprising:
a hearing test probe comprising: a probe body (Paragraph [0043] - The end cap 120 and probe body 40 may house various components of the probe 10, including but not limited to drivers 80, driver tubes 60 or stimulus channels 65, sealing and mating surface 104, flex circuit 110, and one or more microphones 100),
a speaker disposed within the probe body and operable to generate acoustic test stimulus from received electrical test signals (Paragraph [0044] - Drivers 80 are sound transducers that generate acoustic signals from the electrical test signals received via cable 150), and
a mounting stem extending from the probe body and comprising a speaker sound channel operable to carry the generated acoustic test stimulus from the speaker (Paragraph [0044] - The stimulus channels 65 or driver tubes 60 are operable to carry the acoustic stimulus generated by drivers 80 to probe tube 30, which carries the acoustic stimulus into an ear canal),
an eartip detachably coupled to the mounting stem (Paragraph [0065] - The ear tip 20 may be removed from the probe body 40 without removing the probe tube 30), wherein:
the eartip comprises an eartip body having an ear insertion end and a probe insertion end opposite the ear insertion end (Paragraph [0057] - Certain embodiments provide that the probe tube 30 aligns flush with, or extends slightly beyond (e.g., two to three millimeters), the ear canal end of ear tip 20; Figure 2),
the eartip body defines a central opening extending from the ear insertion end to the probe insertion end (Paragraph [0042] - FIG. 14 illustrates a view of an exemplary hearing testing probe 10 and probe tube 30 used with an elastomeric ear tip 20; Figures 5 and 14),
the central opening comprises an eartip sound channel at the ear insertion end and an eartip mounting portion at the probe insertion end (Paragraph [0044] - carry the acoustic stimulus generated by drivers 80 to probe tube 30, which carries the acoustic stimulus into an ear canal), and
the eartip mounting portion is configured to receive and hold the mounting stem of the hearing test probe within the central opening (Paragraph [0056] - The probe tube 30 has an outer diameter. In various embodiment, the outer diameter of the probe tube 30 is appropriate to mate and seal with the central channel found on industry- standard elastomeric ear tips 20).
Iseberg et. al.’079 discloses the microphone operable to receive an acoustic response via the eartip sound channel (Paragraph [0063] - Referring again to FIGS. 3-6, one or more microphones 100 may be housed within end cap 120 and/or probe body 40 for receiving the acoustic response from the ear canal via probe tube 30; Figure 5), but fails to disclose a microphone disposed within the eartip when the eartip is detachably coupled to the mounting stem. Wurtz et. al.'545 teaches a microphone disposed within an eartip wherein the eartip is detachably coupled to a mounting stem (Page 6 Lines 23-24 - In operation, microphone 115 provides a summation of the total acoustic energy within the ear canal or cavity 103 to ANR processing circuitry 130; Page 7 Lines 2-6 - Notably, placement of feedback error microphone 115 within nozzle 111 E, the ear-insertion port, allows the microphone to more closely measure or sense acoustic energy (sound pressure) in the ear canal compared to conventional ITE ANR devices that put the microphone in the driver front acoustic volume outside their nozzles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Iseberg et. al.’079 to include an additional microphone that is positioned within an eartip that communicates with a microphone outside of the eartip in order to allow for a more closely measured acoustic energy within an ear canal that contains the microphone within the eartip as seen in Wurtz et. al.’545.
Regarding Claim 2, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1. Iseberg et. al.’079 further discloses the microphone is positioned directly in contact with a distal end of the mounting stem (Paragraph [0063] - both of the microphones 100 receive the acoustic response from both of the microphone lumens 31 of the probe tube 30; Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the device outlined in Claim 1 above. Iseberg et. al.’079 fails to disclose the microphone is one or more micro-electromechanical systems (MEMs) microphones. Wurtz et. al.'545 teaches a microphone as a type of micro-electromechanical system (MEMs) (Page 8, Lines 6-8 - Front portion 550A includes an angled ear nozzle portion 552, analogous to nozzle 111E, with ear nozzle portion 552 includes a MEMS form of feedback error microphone 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified a microphone of Iseberg et. al.’079 to include be a part of a MEMs as seen in Wurtz et. al.’545 in order to best fit the size of the device as it fits into a subject’s ear canal.
Regarding Claim 4, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1. Iseberg et. al.’079 further discloses the eartip comprises an elastomer material (Paragraph [0042] - used with an elastomeric ear tip 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1. Iseberg et. al.’079 further discloses the eartip comprises one or more flanges extending from the eartip body at an angle away from the eartip body and toward the probe insertion end (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1. Iseberg et. al.’079 further discloses the eartip sound channel is configured to receive the generated acoustic test stimulus from the speaker sound channel for output at the ear insertion end (Paragraph [0044] - The stimulus channels 65 or driver tubes 60 are operable to carry the acoustic stimulus generated by drivers 80 to probe tube 30, which carries the acoustic stimulus into an ear canal).
Regarding Claim 7, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1. Iseberg et. al.’079 further discloses an entire length of a microphone acoustic path is defined by the eartip sound channel (Paragraph [0057] - the probe tube 30 aligns flush with, or extends slightly beyond (e.g., two to three millimeters), the ear canal end of ear tip 20 to increase the accuracy of calibration of the hearing testing probe).
Regarding Claim 11, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1. Iseberg et. al.’079 further discloses the eartip comprises the microphone (Figure 14).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iseberg et. al.'079 (WO Patent Application 2012103079 – previously cited) in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 (WO Patent Application 2017147545 – previously cited), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 (U.S. Patent Application 20190069105 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 8, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the device outlined in Claim 1. Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 fails to disclose the eartip sound channel is 1.5-2.5 millimeters in diameter. Erik Lindberg’105 teaches an eartip sound channel can be two millimeters in diameter (Paragraph [0044] - arranged in the earpiece. The first audio channel part may have a diameter in the range from 0.5 mm to 5 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the sound channel diameter of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 (WO Patent Application 2017147545) to be in the range of 0.5mm to 5mm as seen in Erik Lindberg’105 in order to best suit the need and application of the device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iseberg et. al.'079 (WO Patent Application 2012103079 – previously cited) in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 (WO Patent Application 2017147545 – previously cited), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng et. al.’701 (U.S. Patent Application 20170041701).
Regarding Claim 9, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the device outlined in Claim 1 above. Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 fails to disclose a microphone positioned in a front half of an eartip toward an ear insertion end when the eartip is detachably coupled to the mounting stem. Cheng et. al.’701 teaches a microphone positioned in at a position furthest into the ear canal and as close to an eardrum as possible (Paragraph [0035] - A microphone 224 may be positioned in front of the transducer 222, for example, as part of an active noise reduction feedback system. The microphone 224 may be positioned in or near the opening 227, or may be positioned in front of the opening 227 if the transducer fills the opening, placing the microphone at the end of the body 102 farthest into the ear canal, which we refer to as the “distal” end. A coupling element 105, for example, a rigid hoop or the like, may be positioned near a top region of the transducer, and the microphone 224 may be attached to the coupling element 105 for separating the microphone 224 from the transducer 222 by a predetermined distance; [0031] - it is important that a direct uninterrupted path exist between the eardrum and the sound source for improved active noise reduction (ANR) performance; [0032] - the microphone and transducer, to be constructed and arranged to be as close to the eardrum as possible while isolating the ear canal from surrounding environmental noise). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 to include positioning a microphone that is within an eartip when detachably coupled to the rest of the hearing device as close to a subject’s eardrum as possible in order to create as direct a path as possible between an eardrum and a sound source while also minimizing environmental noise as seen in Cheng et. al.’701.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iseberg et. al.'079 (WO Patent Application 2012103079 – previously cited) in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 (WO Patent Application 2017147545 – previously cited), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Paul Jenn’609 (U.S. Patent Application 20070183609), and further in view of Cheng et. al.’701 (U.S. Patent Application 20170041701).
Regarding Claim 10, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1. Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 fails to disclose the eartip comprises the microphone embedded in a front half of the eartip toward the ear insertion end. Paul Jenn’609 teaches a microphone embedded within an eartip (Paragraph [0019] - the microphone earpiece 10 is simply replaced with the second receiver earpiece 30 when the hearing aid is used as a playback device; Paragraph [0028] - microphone embedded in the earpiece 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Iseberg et. al.’079 to include an embedded microphone inside an earbud/eartip in order to enable a user to exchange the type of microphone or replace a current microphone without exchanging the rest of the device as seen in Paul Jenn’609.
Cheng et. al.’701 teaches a microphone positioned at a position furthest into the ear canal and as close to an eardrum as possible (Paragraph [0035] - A microphone 224 may be positioned in front of the transducer 222, for example, as part of an active noise reduction feedback system. The microphone 224 may be positioned in or near the opening 227, or may be positioned in front of the opening 227 if the transducer fills the opening, placing the microphone at the end of the body 102 farthest into the ear canal, which we refer to as the “distal” end. A coupling element 105, for example, a rigid hoop or the like, may be positioned near a top region of the transducer, and the microphone 224 may be attached to the coupling element 105 for separating the microphone 224 from the transducer 222 by a predetermined distance; [0031] - it is important that a direct uninterrupted path exist between the eardrum and the sound source for improved active noise reduction (ANR) performance; [0032] - the microphone and transducer, to be constructed and arranged to be as close to the eardrum as possible while isolating the ear canal from surrounding environmental noise). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.’545 and further in view of Paul Jenn’609 to include positioning a microphone that is embedded within an eartip as close to a subject’s eardrum as possible in order to create as direct a path as possible between an eardrum and a sound source while also minimizing environmental noise as seen in Cheng et. al.’701.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iseberg et. al.'079 (WO Patent Application 2012103079 – previously cited) in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 (WO Patent Application 2017147545 – previously cited), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Mark Blanchard'897 (U.S. Patent Application 20150049897 – previously cited), further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 (U.S. Patent Application 20190069105 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 12, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1. Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 fails to disclose the eartip mounting portion comprises: an eartip acoustic connection detachably coupled to a probe acoustic connection of the mounting stem, an eartip mechanical connection detachably coupled to a probe mechanical connection of the mounting stem, and an eartip electrical connection detachably coupled to a probe electrical connection of the mounting stem.
Mark Blanchard'897 teaches an eartip mounting portion (Paragraph [0011] - secure the transducer 90 – mounting portion - to the inner body 60 of the earbud 10), comprising
an eartip acoustic connection detachably coupled to a probe acoustic connection of the mounting portion (Paragraph [0011] - an inner diameter 110 of the acoustic channel 80 is sized to secure an acoustic connection from a sound source or transducer 90), and
an eartip mechanical connection detachably coupled to a mechanical connection of the mounting portion (Paragraph [0011] - the inner body 60 includes a horizontal locking member or portion 82 that is used to help secure the transducer 90 – mounting portion - to the inner body 60 of the earbud).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the connection between the eartip and probe of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 to include an eartip acoustic connection and an eartip mechanical connection as seen in Mark Blanchard’897 in order to better secure the components of the eartip to the components of the mounting portion of the device.
Erik Lindberg’105 teaches an eartip electrical connection detachably coupled to a probe electrical connection of a mounting stem (Paragraph [0045] - The cable may comprise one or more wires for electrically connecting parts of the earpiece, such as a receiver (loudspeaker) and one or more microphones, to a processor part of the hearing device – mounting stem). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified an eartip of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 in view of Mark Blanchard'897 to include an electrical connection to a mounting stem as seen in Erik Lindberg’105 in order to better connect multiple parts of the device.
Regarding Claim 13, Iseberg et. al.’079, in view of Wurtz et. al.'545, in view of Mark Blanchard'897, further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 discloses the device outlined in Claim 12, but fails to disclose the eartip acoustic connection is an eartip speaker sound channel; and the probe acoustic connection is the speaker sound channel. Mark Blanchard’897 further teaches an eartip acoustic connection as an eartip sound transducer channel and a probe acoustic connection as a sound transducer (Paragraph [0011] - an inner diameter 110 of the acoustic channel 80 is sized to secure an acoustic connection from a sound source or transducer 90). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified a sound channel of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 in view of Mark Blanchard'897 further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 to include an eartip with an acoustic sound channel connection to a sound transducer as seen in Mark Blanchard’897 in order to effect a more secure acoustic connection in the device.
Regarding Claim 14, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 in view of Mark Blanchard'897 further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 discloses the device outlined in Claim 12. Additionally, Iseberg et. al.’079 discloses an eartip flex connection electrically coupling the microphone to the eartip electrical connection, and wherein: the eartip electrical connection is microphone contacts; and the probe electrical connection is probe contacts (Paragraph [0063] - A flex circuit 110 coupled to the one or more microphones 100 may communicate the electrical output from the one or more microphones 100 from the probe 10 via cable 150).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iseberg et. al.'079 (WO Patent Application 2012103079 – previously cited) in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 (WO Patent Application 2017147545 – previously cited), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Mark Blanchard'897 (U.S. Patent Application 20150049897 – previously cited), further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 (U.S. Patent Application 20190069105 – previously cited) as applied to Claim 12 above, further in view of Thomas Geertsen'850 (U.S. Patent Application 20160183850 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 15, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 in view of Mark Blanchard'897 further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 discloses the device outlined in Claim 12, but fails to disclose the eartip mechanical connection is an eartip body mating mechanism; and the probe mechanical connection is a locking mechanism. Thomas Geertsen’850 teaches an eartip mechanical connection as an eartip body mating mechanism and a probe mechanical connection as a locking mechanism (Paragraph [0088] - The coupling part 56 may have a plurality of coupling elements 58 for engagement with a plurality of engagement elements 30, 32 of the locking mechanism 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the apparatus of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 in view of Mark Blanchard'897 further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 to include a locking mechanism of an eartip as a form of a body mating mechanism as seen in Thomas Geertsen’850. Thomas Geertsen’850 teaches advantages to a locking mechanism is to ensure a reliable form of securing an eartip to a probe (Paragraph [0012] - provides a reliable, accurate and careful securing of the component, such as securing a filter device or a probe tip in a hearing test probe).
Regarding Claim 16, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 in view of Mark Blanchard'897 further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 further in view of Thomas Geertsen’850 discloses the device outlined in Claim 15, but fails to disclose the eartip body mating mechanism comprises a groove, an indentation, and/or a protrusion and the locking mechanism comprises a latch operable to engage with the groove, the indentation, and/or the protrusion of the eartip body mating mechanism. Thomas Geertsen’850 further teaches an eartip body mating mechanism comprising a protrusion and a locking mechanism operable to engage with a protrusion of an eartip body mating mechanism (Paragraph [0088] - The coupling part 56 may have a plurality of coupling elements 58 for engagement with a plurality of engagement elements 30, 32 of the locking mechanism 10; Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the apparatus of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 in view of Mark Blanchard'897 further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 to include a locking mechanism of an eartip as a form of a body mating mechanism as seen in Thomas Geertsen’850. Thomas Geertsen’850 teaches advantages to a locking mechanism is to ensure a reliable form of securing an eartip to a probe (Paragraph [0012] - provides a reliable, accurate and careful securing of the component, such as securing a filter device or a probe tip in a hearing test probe).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iseberg et. al.'079 (WO Patent Application 2012103079 – previously cited) in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 (WO Patent Application 2017147545 – previously cited), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Mark Blanchard'897 (U.S. Patent Application 20150049897 – previously cited), further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 (U.S. Patent Application 20190069105 – previously cited) further in view of Thomas Geertsen'850 (U.S. Patent Application 20160183850 – previously cited) as applied to Claim 16 above, further in view of Lin et. al.'703 (U.S. Patent Application 20180098703 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 17, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 in view of Mark Blanchard'897 further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 further in view of Thomas Geertsen’850 the device outlined in Claim 16, but fails to disclose the hearing test probe comprises a mechanical push button operable to swivel the latch inward to release the eartip from the hearing test probe by disengaging the latch from the groove, the indentation, and/or the protrusion of the eartip body mating mechanism. Lin et. al.’703 teaches a hearing test probe comprising a mechanical push button operable to move a clasp to release an eartip from a probe head by disengaging the clasp from a protrusion of an eartip (Paragraph [0032] - The first slide part 441 is connected to the operation part 500 (e.g., push button or push lever); Paragraph [0036] - to wear a clean disposable ear probe cover 201 from the superimposed-cover structure 120, as shown in FIG. 6A, the user first moves the operation part 500 (FIG. 4) to correspondingly move the first slide part 441 in a first direction D1 so as to push the clasping parts 445 of the second slide parts 443 away from the probe head 420 along two opposite directions D2, D3, respectively). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the apparatus of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 in view of Mark Blanchard'897 further in view of Erik Lindberg'105 to include a push button that releases an eartip from a probe head as seen in Lin et. al.’703 in order for a subject to have a clean eartip while utilizing the apparatus.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iseberg et. al.'079 (WO Patent Application 2012103079 – previously cited) in view of Paul Jenn’609 (U.S. Patent Application 20070183609).
Regarding Claim 18, Iseberg et. al.’079 discloses an eartip (Paragraph [0057] - Ear tip 20), comprising
an eartip body having an ear insertion end and a probe insertion end opposite the ear insertion end (Paragraph [0057] - Certain embodiments provide that the probe tube 30 aligns flush with, or extends slightly beyond (e.g., two to three millimeters), the ear canal end of ear tip 20; Figures 2 and 14).
a central opening extending through the eartip body from the ear insertion end to the probe insertion end, wherein the central opening comprises an eartip sound channel at the ear insertion end and an eartip mounting portion at the probe insertion end (Paragraph [0043] - FIG. 14 illustrates a view of an exemplary hearing testing probe 10 and probe tube 30 used with an elastomeric ear tip 20; Figures 5 and 14), and
the eartip mounting portion is configured to detachably couple to a hearing test probe (Paragraph [0065] - The ear tip 20 may be removed from the probe body 40 without removing the probe tube 30), and
a microphone inlet exposed to the eartip sound channel, the microphone operable to receive an acoustic response via the eartip sound channel (Paragraph [0063] - Referring again to FIGS. 3-6, one or more microphones 100 may be housed within end cap 120 and/or probe body 40 for receiving the acoustic response from the ear canal via probe tube 30; Figure 5).
Iseberg et. al.’079 fails to disclose a microphone embedded within the eartip. Paul Jenn’609 teaches a microphone embedded within an eartip (Paragraph [0019] - the microphone earpiece 10 is simply replaced with the second receiver earpiece 30 when the hearing aid is used as a playback device; Paragraph [0028] - microphone embedded in the earpiece 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Iseberg et. al.’079 to include an embedded microphone inside an earbud/eartip in order to enable a user to exchange the type of microphone or replace a current microphone without exchanging the rest of the device as seen in Paul Jenn’609.
Regarding Claim 20, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Paul Jenn’609 discloses the device outlined in Claim 18 above. Iseberg et. al.’079 also discloses an eartip speaker sound channel (Paragraph [0010] - an eartip containing one or more internal sound channels for conducting sound to and from the end of the probe to the ear; Paragraph [0052] - In certain embodiments, four adjoining stimulus lumens 32 are used to form two acoustic stimulus sound channels for receiving stimulus from the corresponding two stimulus channels 65). Iseberg et. al.’079 further discloses probe contacts electrically coupled to the microphone via a flex connection (Paragraph [0063] - A flex circuit 110 coupled to the one or more microphones 100 may communicate the electrical output from the one or more microphones 100 from the probe 10 via cable 150). Iseberg et. al.’079 further discloses an eartip body mating mechanism (Paragraph [0053] - FIGS. 12-13 illustrate views of an exemplary sealing and mating surface 104 of a hearing testing probe 10 and probe tube 30 used in accordance with an embodiment of the present technology).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iseberg et. al.'079 (WO Patent Application 2012103079 – previously cited) in view of Paul Jenn’609 (U.S. Patent Application 20070183609), as applied to Claim 18 above, further in view of Wurtz et. al.'545 (WO Patent Application 2017147545 – previously cited), and further in view of Cheng et. al.’701 (U.S. Patent Application 20170041701).
Regarding Claim 19, Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Paul Jenn’609 discloses the device outlined in Claim 18 above. Iseberg et. al.’079 fails to disclose the microphone is one or more micro-electromechanical systems (MEMs) microphones embedded in a front half of the eartip toward the ear insertion end. Wurtz et. al.'545 teaches a microphone as a type of micro-electromechanical system (MEMs) (Page 8, Lines 6-8 - Front portion 550A includes an angled ear nozzle portion 552, analogous to nozzle 111E, with ear nozzle portion 552 includes a MEMS form of feedback error microphone 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified a microphone of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Paul Jenn’609 to include be a part of a MEMs as seen in Wurtz et. al.’545 in order to best fit the size of the device as it fits into a subject’s ear canal.
Cheng et. al.’701 teaches a microphone positioned in at a position furthest into the ear canal and as close to an eardrum as possible (Paragraph [0035] - A microphone 224 may be positioned in front of the transducer 222, for example, as part of an active noise reduction feedback system. The microphone 224 may be positioned in or near the opening 227, or may be positioned in front of the opening 227 if the transducer fills the opening, placing the microphone at the end of the body 102 farthest into the ear canal, which we refer to as the “distal” end. A coupling element 105, for example, a rigid hoop or the like, may be positioned near a top region of the transducer, and the microphone 224 may be attached to the coupling element 105 for separating the microphone 224 from the transducer 222 by a predetermined distance; [0031] - it is important that a direct uninterrupted path exist between the eardrum and the sound source for improved active noise reduction (ANR) performance; [0032] - the microphone and transducer, to be constructed and arranged to be as close to the eardrum as possible while isolating the ear canal from surrounding environmental noise). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Iseberg et. al.’079 in view of Paul Jenn’609 to include positioning an embedded microphone within an eartip as close to a subject’s eardrum as possible in order to create as direct a path as possible between an eardrum and a sound source while also minimizing environmental noise as seen in Cheng et. al.’701.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 20 August 2025 have been fully considered. The following observations have been made by the examiner:
Regarding the claim objections made for Claims 1 and 4-20, the examiner notes that the arguments regarding use of the verbiage “ear tip” rather than “eartip” have been found persuasive. The examiner agrees that the applicant’s specification uses consistent language for the term “ear tip” and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art should be able to distinguish its intended application. Therefore, the objections have been removed from the OA above.
Regarding the 112b rejections for Claim 8, the rejections were removed based on amendments made by the applicant. The examiner notes that additional 112b issues have been addressed in Paragraph 3 above.
Regarding the U.S.C. 102 rejections, the examiner notes that the applicant’s rationales for the primary reference Iseberg et. al.’079 not directly teaching all elements of the instant application’s claims such as “a microphone disposed within the eartip” and “a microphone embedded within the eartip” have been found partially persuasive. However, the examiner notes that the primary application Iseberg et. al.’079 discloses a system that is able to be modified by previously cited references such as Wurtz et. al.'545 as well as some additional references in a way that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create a device that contains elements addressed in the instant application’s claims. The examiner has noted that because of the reasonings stated in the above Paragraphs 5-14, Claims 1-20 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding the U.S.C. 103 rejections, the examiner notes that the applicant’s rationales are found to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Therefore, due to the above reasons, Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McIntosh et. al.'374 (WO Patent Application 2020069374 – previously cited) and Austen Simon'885 (U.S. Patent Application 20210006885 – previously cited) are references that recite earpieces with coupling mechanisms, speakers, microphones, and MEMs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH ANN WESTFALL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4:30pm 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.
/SARAH ANN WESTFALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791