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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 05 May 2026. Claims 1-4, 7, 10-14, and 16-21 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 11, and 16-21.
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.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19, it recites the limitation "the apnea". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3, 7, 10, 11, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Norris et al. (US 20170171677 A1) (hereon referred as Norris) in view of Burton (US 20210169417 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Norris teaches a method for treating a user in a bed (“ultrasonic audio treatment can be delivered to and provide therapy toa listener in bed”, paragraph [0008]) for hearing impairment; tinnitus (“a tinnitus treatment device”, abstract), the method comprising:
Aiming a parametric array speaker (“ultrasonic emitters can be used in combination with conventional audio speakers,”, paragraph [0108]) in a direction of a head of a user in a bed (“one mechanism that may be utilized to orient an emitter in a desired position, e.g., relative to a user’s ear/ear canal”, paragraph [0114]; ultrasonic headphone housing 146a, Fig. 12);
Detecting ambient sound using a microphone (“a microphone can be provided to capture sounds and provide those sounds as input”, paragraph [0132]);
Filtering the ambient sound detected by the microphone to remove a frequency notch corresponding to the user’s tinnitus frequencies to produce filtered ambient sound (“microphone can be configured to pick up sounds such as speech, music, or other sounds and provide those sounds to an ultrasonic audio system…ultrasonic audio system modulates the captured sound energy…directed toward the listener’s ear…to improve his or her hearing as well as to alleviate tinnitus symptoms”, paragraph [0132]);
Delivering a focused acoustic beam from the parametric array speaker to the user’s head (“the audio content is carried in an air beam of silent ultrasound energy”, paragraph [0039]) while the parametric array speaker is driven by the filtered ambient sound until the user falls asleep (“audio processing block 828 receives audio content…processes the received audio content to generate the desired ultrasonic signal…audio processing block 828 can be configured to…filtering”, paragraph [0145])
Norris does not teach a method of treating a user in a bed for a breathing disorder and monitoring an output from a microphone to detect or predict an instance of a breathing disorder and delivering an audio stimulus to prevent or terminate the instance of the breathing disorder.
However, Burton teaches a method for treating a user in a bed for at least one breathing disorder (“sound monitoring or environmental monitoring devices…tracking of wake or sleep and associated breathing disorders”, paragraph [0129]) selected from the group consisting of apnea (“sleep-related breathing disorders including central sleep apnea”, claim 9), hypopnea and snoring, (“monitoring…breathing sounds (i.e. snoring)”, paragraph [0143]) the method comprising:
Aiming a parametric array speaker (“invention can include one or more separate and/or the standard speaker transducer(s) used for generating sound”, paragraph [0837]) in a direction of a head of a user in a bed (“multiple spatially distributed speakers within earbuds”, paragraph [0830]);
Detecting ambient sound using a microphone (“one or more microphone sensors…to detect breathing sounds of one or more subject(s)”, paragraph [0301]);
Delivering a focused acoustic beam from the parametric array speaker to the user’s head (“a series of tones can be generated via the speaker”, paragraph [0841]);
After the user has fallen asleep, monitoring an output from a microphone to detect or predict an instance of the breathing disorder (“sleep related breathing disorders such as snoring…by way of a microphone…provide…monitoring and tracking solution for an individual”, paragraph [3792]); and
Delivering an audio stimulus via a focused acoustic beam from the parametric array speaker to the user’s head to prevent or terminate the instance of the breathing disorder (“system capable of detecting snoring…subject/patient can be alerted or awoken…sound alarm device”, paragraph [0476]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of treating patients with hearing impairment and/or tinnitus of Norris, with the method of treating patients with a breathing disorder of Burton in order to produce filtered ambient sounds based off the detection of the patients’ tinnitus frequencies, as well as deliver an audio stimulus to prevent or alleviate the instance of breathing disorders in a patient and provide better sleep for the patient.
Regarding claim 3, Norris in view of Burton teaches manually aiming the parametric array speaker (“emitter may be configured to be adjustable in one or more directions…in any desired position or orientation”, paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 7, Norris in view of Burton teaches further comprising the step of inputting an indication of the user's tinnitus frequencies from the user, wherein the frequency notch corresponds to the indication of the user's tinnitus frequencies from the user ("the adjustments in step 625 for the patient's hearing response profile can be in addition to adjusting the tinnitus treatment parameters of the system based on the tinnitus treatment profile and the preferences of the intended tinnitus patient", paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 10, Norris in view of Burton teaches driving the parametric array speaker with a noise signal ("ultrasonic signals can be unmodulated ultrasonic signals or ultrasonic signals modulated with audio content audio content can include one or more tones, white noise, brown noise, gray noise, pink noise, or other audio artifacts ultrasonic signals can have a range of carrier frequencies", paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Norris in view of Burton teaches the noise signal not including noise in a frequency notch corresponding to the tinnitus frequencies. The noise signal does not include noise in a frequency notch (paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Norris in view of Burton teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Norris teaches a microphone being used for detecting ambient sounds (“a microphone can be provided to capture sounds and provide those sounds as input”, paragraph [0132]). Burton also teaches the microphone whose output is monitored to detect or predict an instance of the breathing disorder (“one or more microphone sensors…to detect breathing sounds of one or more subject(s)”, paragraph [0301]). The microphone of Norris in view of Burton that is used for detecting ambient sound is capable of being the same/different microphone whose output is monitored to detect or predict an instance of breathing disorder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Norris in view of Burton and provide a microphone used for detecting ambient sound, be the same microphone whose output is monitored to detect or predict an instance of a breathing disorder, as the microphone is capable of performing both tasks. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have separate microphones for detecting ambient sounds, and for detecting or predicting an instance of a breathing disorder.
Regarding claim 18, Norris in view of Burton teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Burton teaches the breathing disorder being an apnea (“sleep-related breathing disorders including central sleep apnea”, claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Norris in view of Burton and detecting breathing disorders such as sleep apnea, as it is a type of sleep related breathing disorder.
Regarding claim 19, Norris in view of Burton teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
Furthermore, Burton teaches further comprising the step of monitoring a plethysmograph in addition to monitoring an output of a microphone to detect the apnea (“invention can incorporate one or more attached photo-plethysmography (PPG) sensors”, paragraph [0297]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Norris in view of Burton and add a step of monitoring a plethysmograph in addition to monitoring an output of a microphone in order to further accurately detect or predict apneas and other sleep related breathing disorders.
Regarding claim 20, Norris in view of Burton teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Burton teaches the breathing disorder being snoring (“monitoring…breathing sounds (i.e. snoring)”, paragraph [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Norris in view of Burton and detecting breathing disorders such as snoring, as it is a type of sleep related breathing disorder.
Regarding claim 21, Norris in view of Burton teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Burton teaches detecting radiation from the user’s head using a plurality of sensors (“environmental monitoring can include…radiation measures”, paragraph [1003]); determining a position of the user’s head using information from the sensors (“means of cognitive evaluation…such as testing an individual’s behavioral responsiveness…head position”, paragraph [0985]); and steering an output of the parametric array speaker toward the position of the user’s head (“monitoring system incorporates an array sensor capable of electronic focus and/or beam steering capabilities”, paragraph [1809]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Norris in view of Burton and provide sensors that are capable of determining the radiation from the user’s head, as well as the position of the user’s head in order to steer the output of the parametric array speaker wherever the user moves their head.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Norris in view of Burton and further in view of Malchano et al. (US 20180133507 A1) (hereon referred as Malchano).
Regarding claim 2, Norris in view of Burton teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as well as electronically steering the focused acoustic beam ("the adjustment mechanism to allow the orientation of the emitter to be changed can be controlled electronically using external signaling", paragraph [0115], Norris), but does not teach tracking a movement of the user's head and steering the focused acoustic beam accordingly.
However, Malchano teaches tracking a movement of the user's head ("monitoring an orientation of at least one of a head or a body of the subject", paragraph [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device with electronic steering of the focused acoustic beam of Norris in view of Burton with the device with tracking a movement of the user's head of Malchano in order to electronically steer the focused acoustic beam to compensate for the movement of the user's head, ensuring that the user retrieves stimulation by the acoustic beam during their sleep despite movement ("attentiveness parameter including…a head position", paragraph [0133], Malchano).
Regarding claim 4, Norris in view of Burton teaches all the limitations of claim 3, but does not teach the parametric array being manually aimed using a laser diode.
However, Malchano teaches the parametric array being manually aimed using a visual indicator output by a laser diode mounted to the parametric array speaker ("the light source includes a laser, or a laser diode", paragraph [0261]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Norris in view of Burton with the laser diode mounted to the parametric array speaker of Malchano in order to assist the user in aiming the array of the parametric array speaker ("diodes configured to drive the power supply to provide electricity to drive the electrodes to output or discharge an electric current with desired characteristics", paragraph [0514], Malchano).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 05 May 2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 05 May 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 7, 10, 11, and 16-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The rejection of all pending claims 1-4, 7, 10, 11, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been updated accordingly.
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 LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3598. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm M-F.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/L.L.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights