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 .
Notice of Reply
This communication is responsive the amendment(s) and/or arguments filed 11/13/25. The previous ground(s) of objection/rejection is/are withdrawn and the following new and/or reiterated grounds of rejection is/are set forth hereinbelow.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s attention towards IDS submission detailing information of which Applicant is aware containing information material to patentability, particularly those similar in nature to the accompanying PTO-892 citation(s). Applicant is respectfully reminded of their duty to disclose per MPEP 2001.01.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 19-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Originally examined and newly presented apparatus claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-18 (Group I) and newly presented process claims 19-20 (Group II) are related as process and apparatus for its practice, having distinct and divergent classifications such as A61F 11/00 and G10L 25/66, respectively. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process including for example at least: treating amblyaudia, auditory rehabilitation, hearing aid assistance, and/or noise cancellation and amplification.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); (d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or (e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moncrieff et al. (PTO-892 citation V, Moncrieff et al., J of Audiology, 56: 8, 580-588, "Evidence of binaural integration benefits following ARIA training for children and adolescents diagnosed with amblyaudia". (Year: 2017), hereinafter Moncrieff).
For claim 1, Moncrieff discloses a system for assessing and treating amblyaudia (580-588, particularly 580-582), comprising inter alia:
a sound output device (580-588, particularly 580-582) adapted for over-the-ear or in-the-canal placement for both ears of a user (580-588, particularly 580-582);
a computing device (580-588, particularly 580-582) comprising a microprocessor (580-588, particularly 580-582) in electronic communication with a computer memory (580-588, particularly 580-582) and a computer digital storage device (580-588, particularly 580-582);
a voice input device configured to receive oral input from the user (580-588, particularly 580-582); and
one or more computer program applications (580-588, particularly 580-582) loaded in said computer memory and operable to automatically process and/or produce auditory rehabilitation for interaural asymmetry (ARIA) files, (580-588, particularly 580-582) and electronically reproduce sound associated with one of said ARIA files through said sound output device (580-588, particularly 580-582);
wherein the voice input device is configured to receive a vocal response from the user in response to the user hearing the sounds associated with at least a portion of the ARIA file (580-588, particularly 580-582), and to transmit said vocal response to the one or more computer program applications (580-588, particularly 580-582);
wherein the one or more computer program applications are operable to modify a subsequent sound associated with at least a portion of one of said ARIA files based at least in part on said transmitted vocal response (580-588, particularly 580-582),
wherein the subsequent sound associated with at least a portion of one of said ARIA files is modified by changing an intensity level, a timing delay, or both, in the signal to one ear of the user through the sound output device (580-588, particularly 580-582); and
wherein one or more of the ARIA filed are adapted to treat amblyaudia in the user (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 2, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the sound output device is a pair of earphones, a pair of headphones, or a pair of earbuds (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 3, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the sound output device is noise-cancelling (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 4, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the voice input device comprises a microphone (580-588, particularly 580-582)).
For claim 5, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the voice input device is integrated with the sound output device (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 6, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is integrated with the sound output device (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 7, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the voice input device and the computing device are integrated with the sound output device (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 9, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 1, further wherein the subsequent sound associated with at least a portion of one of said ARIA files is modified only after an interaural asymmetry bas been detected (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 10, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the user has a dominant ear and a non-dominant ear, and the subsequent sound associated with at least a portion of one of said ARIA files is modified by increasing the intensity level and/or modifying the timing delay in the signal to the non-dominant ear of the user through said sound output device (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 11, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more ARIA files comprise dichotic speech material (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 12, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more ARIA files are converted from free- field treatment sound files to modified head-related transfer function versions for use with the sound output device (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 13, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the one or more ARIA files comprise speech material recorded onto binaural tracks (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 16, , Moncrieff discloses a system for auditory rehabilitation, comprising inter alia:
a sound output device (580-588, particularly 580-582);
a computing device (580-588, particularly 580-582) comprising a microprocessor (580-588, particularly 580-582) in electronic communication with a computer memory (580-588, particularly 580-582) and a computer digital storage device (580-588, particularly 580-582);
an input device (580-588, particularly 580-582) configured to receive feedback from the user (580-588, particularly 580-582); and
one or more computer program applications (580-588, particularly 580-582) loaded in said computer memory (580-588, particularly 580-582) and operable to process one or more auditory rehabilitation for interaural asymmetry (ARIA) files and to electronically reproduce sound associated with at least one of said ARIA files through said sound output device (580-588, particularly 580-582);
wherein the input device is configured to receive feedback from the user in response to the user hearing the sound associated with at least one of said ARIA files reproduced through said sound output device, and to transmit said feedback to the one or more computer program applications (580-588, particularly 580-582);
wherein the one or more computer program applications are operable to modify a subsequent sound transmitted through said sound output device and associated with at last one of said ARIA files based at least in part on said feedback from the user (580-588, particularly 580-582), wherein the subsequent sound is modified by changing an intensity level, a timing delay, or both (580-588, particularly 580-582); and
wherein one or more of the ARIA files are adapted to treat amblyaudia in the user (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 17, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the feedback includes a vocal response from the user (580-588, particularly 580-582).
For claim 18, Moncrieff discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the modified subsequent sound is delivered to only one ear of the user (580-588, particularly 580-582).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the accompanying PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, relating to means for auditory rehabilitation and/or treating amblyaudia.
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 Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm 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, Charles A. Marmor II can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791