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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 4th, 2026 has been entered.
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on May 20th, 2026, amended claims 1 and 13 are entered. Claims 16 and 20 are canceled. Claims 1-11, 13-15, 17-19, and 21 are currently under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, 17-19, and 21 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 1 recites the limitation "the act of obtaining" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “a primary microphone” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “microphone” from Claim 1, or a separate element. Clarification is requested.
Claim 11 recites “a primary microphone” and “secondary microphone” in lines 2-3. It is unclear as to whether these limitations are referring to the previously introduced “microphone” from Claim 1, or a separate element. Clarification is requested.
Claim 13 recites “configured to provide the input signal” in lines 17-18. It is unclear as to whether “provid[ing] the input signal” is different from the previous recitation of “obtain[ing] an input signal”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the act of performing" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the act of obtaining" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites “an input signal” in line 3. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “input signal” from Claim 13, or a separate element. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13-15, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rix et al (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0358745; previously cited) in view of Wasden et al (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0033193; previously cited) and Dijkstra et al (EP1640972A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rix teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a self-fitting hearing test performed via a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Figure 1, hearing test kit 10), the set of hearing devices comprising a first hearing device configured to be worn at a first ear of a user (Figure 1, earpiece 20, Paragraph 0048 lines 1-3) and a second hearing device configured to be worn at a second ear of the user (Figure 1, earpiece 22, Paragraph 0048 lines 1-3), the method comprising:
performing, via the first hearing device, a first hearing test on the first ear of the user (Paragraph 0056) while the user is wearing the first hearing device (user must wear device to use it);
obtaining, via the second hearing device, an input signal while the first hearing test is being performed and while the user is wearing the second hearing device (user wears both hearing devices simultaneously), wherein the input signal is indicative of ambient noise (Paragraph 0061 “earpiece 22 may have a microphone provided therein for detection of the ambient noise”, thus earpiece 22 may also detect ambient noise during testing by earpiece 20 since Rix states “ambient noise present in either earpiece 20, 22 is essentially the same”; Paragraph 0061; “Once the earpieces 20, 22 are properly secured, a sweep ambient noise test…is done to determine the ambient noise level”; Paragraph 0049-0050).
However, Rix fails to teach informing the user about the ambient noise, or stopping the first hearing test, based on a first ambient noise level associated with the ambient noise.
In a similar technical field, Wasden teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test (Abstract), comprising determining an ambient noise level (Paragraph 0032, Figure 3, via ambient noise monitoring module 300) and informing the user about the ambient noise based on a first ambient noise level associated with the ambient noise (Paragraph 0032, Figure 4, via ambient noise screen 400).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix to include outputting the first ambient noise level as taught by Wasden in order to allow the user to better understand the intensity of the noise present in their surrounding environment.
Both Rix and Wasden fail to specifically teach wherein the act of obtaining the input signal indicative of the ambient noise is performed using a microphone facing away from the user.
In a similar technical field, Dijkstra teaches a system for separation of a user's voice from ambient sound (Abstract), wherein the act of obtaining the input signal indicative of the ambient noise is performed using a microphone facing away from the user (“a device (10) to be worn at the user's ear or at least partly in the user's ear canal (12) comprising a first microphone (M1) oriented outwardly towards the environment”; Abstract; “The earplug 10 comprises an outer microphone M1, which is located at the outer part of the earplug 10 and which is open to the outer end 14 of the earplug 10 via a sound channel 16”; Paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an outwardly facing microphone as taught by Dijkstra, the motivation being to separate the user’s voice from ambient noise in order to improve the intelligibility of the person’s speech to the listener, who may be one of the other persons exposed to the noisy environment or who may be a remote person (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 2, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches comparing the first ambient noise level to a first noise threshold (Rix, Paragraph 0050); and if the first ambient noise level exceeds the first noise threshold, outputting a user notification (Rix, Paragraph 0050 “If ambient noise level is >40 dB the user is informed the environment is not suitable”).
Regarding Claim 4, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches subsequent to performing the first hearing test, performing via the second hearing device a second hearing test on the second ear of the user (Rix, Paragraph 0061 lines 1-3); while performing the second hearing test, obtaining via the first hearing device another input signal, wherein the other input signal is indicative of ambient noise (Rix, Paragraph 0061 lines 3-7); determining a second ambient noise level based on the other input signal (Rix, Paragraph 0061 lines 3-7); and outputting the second ambient noise level (Wasden, Paragraph 0032, Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches comparing the second ambient noise level to a second noise threshold (Rix, Paragraph 0050); if the second ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold, stopping the second hearing test (Rix, Paragraph 0050 “If ambient noise level is >40 dB the user is informed the environment is not suitable”).
Regarding Claim 7, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches re-starting the second hearing test on the second ear of the user, if the user reinitiates the second hearing test after the second hearing test has been stopped (Rix, Paragraph 0050 “Another sweep ambient noise test is done to determine the ambient noise level. This is continued until the proper testing conditions are achieved”, this indicates that the test is restarted each time after it’s stopped due to high ambient noise levels).
Regarding Claim 8, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches determining a hearing profile based on a result of the first hearing test and a result of the second hearing test (Rix, Paragraph 0062).
Regarding Claim 9, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches wherein each of the first and second hearing devices comprises a receiver (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0030), a wireless communication interface (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0033), a processing unit (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0029) and a memory unit (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0029).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the devices of Rix such that each of the first and second hearing devices comprises an output transducer, an input transducer, a wireless communication interface, a processing unit, and a memory unit as taught by Dijkstra in order to reduce the number of additional components needed to conduct a test.
Regarding Claim 10, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches wherein the first and second hearing devices also comprise a primary microphone; wherein a microphone inlet of the primary microphone of the first hearing device is configured to receive sounds from an environment outside the first hearing device, and/or wherein a microphone inlet of the primary microphone of the second hearing device is configured to configured to receive sounds from an environment outside the second hearing device (Dijkstra: “a device (10) to be worn at the user's ear or at least partly in the user's ear canal (12) comprising a first microphone (M1) oriented outwardly towards the environment and a second microphone (M2) oriented inwardly towards the user's ear canal”; Abstract; “The earplug 10 comprises an outer microphone M1, which is located at the outer part of the earplug 10 and which is open to the outer end 14 of the earplug 10 via a sound channel 16, and an inner microphone M2, which is located at the inner part of the earplug 10 and which is open to the inner end 18 of the earplug 10 via a sound channel 20” Paragraph 0029; “earplugs 10 and 11”; Paragraph 0039-0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an outwardly facing microphone as taught by Dijkstra, the motivation being to separate the user’s voice from ambient noise in order to improve the intelligibility of the person’s speech to the listener, who may be one of the other persons exposed to the noisy environment or who may be a remote person (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 13, Rix teaches a set of hearing devices comprising: a first hearing device configured to be worn at a first ear of a user (Figure 1, earpiece 20); and a second hearing device configured to be worn at a second ear of the user (Figure 1, earpiece 22); wherein the first hearing device is configured to perform a first hearing test on the first ear of the user (Paragraph 0056); and wherein the second hearing device is configured to obtain an input signal while the first hearing test is being performed, wherein the input signal is indicative of ambient noise (Paragraph 0061 “earpiece 22 may have a microphone provided therein for detection of the ambient noise”, thus earpiece 22 may also detect ambient noise during testing by earpiece 20 since Rix states “ambient noise present in either earpiece 20, 22 is essentially the same”; Paragraph 0061; “Once the earpieces 20, 22 are properly secured, a sweep ambient noise test…is done to determine the ambient noise level”; Paragraph 0049-0050). However, Rix fails to teach informing the user about the ambient noise, or stopping the first hearing test, based on a first ambient noise level associated with the ambient noise.
In a similar technical field, Wasden teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test (Abstract), comprising determining an ambient noise level (Paragraph 0032, Figure 3, via ambient noise monitoring module 300) and informing the user about the ambient noise based on a first ambient noise level associated with the ambient noise (Paragraph 0032, Figure 4, via ambient noise screen 400).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rix to include outputting the first ambient noise level as taught by Wasden in order to allow the user to better understand the intensity of the noise present in their surrounding environment.
Both Rix and Wasden fail to specifically teach wherein each of the first and second hearing devices comprises: an output transducer, an input transducer, a wireless communication interface, a processing unit, and a memory unit; and wherein the second hearing device comprises a microphone configured to provide the input signal, wherein the microphone faces away from the user when the second hearing device is worn by the user.
In a similar technical field, Dijkstra teaches a system for separation of a user's voice from ambient sound (Abstract), wherein each of the first and second hearing devices comprises a receiver (Paragraph 0030), a wireless communication interface (Paragraph 0033), a processing unit (Paragraph 0029) and a memory unit (Paragraph 0029); and wherein the second hearing device comprises a microphone configured to provide the input signal, wherein the microphone faces away from the user when the second hearing device is worn by the user (“a device (10) to be worn at the user's ear or at least partly in the user's ear canal (12) comprising a first microphone (M1) oriented outwardly towards the environment”; Abstract; “The earplug 10 comprises an outer microphone M1, which is located at the outer part of the earplug 10 and which is open to the outer end 14 of the earplug 10 via a sound channel 16” Paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an outwardly facing microphone as taught by Dijkstra, the motivation being to separate the user’s voice from ambient noise in order to improve the intelligibility of the person’s speech to the listener, who may be one of the other persons exposed to the noisy environment or who may be a remote person (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 14, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches wherein the first hearing device is a first hearing aid, and wherein the second hearing device is a second hearing aid (Rix, Paragraph 0065).
Regarding Claim 15, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches wherein the first hearing device is a first earbud, and wherein the second hearing device is a second earbud (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the earplug teachings of Dijkstra, the motivation being to provide a generic soft shell which adapts to the shape of the user’s outer ear and ear canal due to its elasticity (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 17, Rix further teaches wherein the act of performing the first hearing test via the first hearing device and the act of obtaining the input signal via the second hearing device, together, reduce feedback and distribute usage of processing power (Examiner’s Note: Reducing ambient noise would inherently reduce feedback, and as a result, there would be a better test outcome, thereby reducing processing power).
Regarding Claim 18, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches wherein the first hearing device is a first hearing aid, and wherein the second hearing device is a second hearing aid (Rix, Paragraph 0065).
Regarding Claim 19, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches wherein the first hearing device is a first earbud, and wherein the second hearing device is a second earbud (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the earplug teachings of Dijkstra, the motivation being to provide a generic soft shell which adapts to the shape of the user’s outer ear and ear canal due to its elasticity (Dijkstra, Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 21, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra teaches wherein the act of performing the first hearing test via the first hearing device and the act of obtaining the input signal via the second hearing device, together, reduce feedback and distribute usage of processing power (Examiner’s Note: Reducing ambient noise would inherently reduce feedback, and as a result, there would be a better test outcome, thereby reducing processing power).
Claims 3, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rix et al, Wasden et al, and Dijkstra et al, as applied to claims 1-2, 5, and 9 above, and further in view of Henriksen et al (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0029383; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 3, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra fails to teach comparing the first ambient noise level to a second noise threshold; and if the first ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold, stopping the first hearing test.
In a similar technical field, Henriksen teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test performed via a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Paragraph 0012 lines 1-9), comprising comparing an ambient noise level to a first (Paragraph 0065 “a dangerous level of sound” indicates one threshold) and second threshold (Paragraph 0065 “background level of noise is too high” indicates another threshold), and stopping the hearing test if the ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold (Paragraph 0065 “prevent initiation of a test session”). Doing so can help ensure proper testing is able to take place.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra to include comparing the first ambient noise level to a second noise threshold; and if the first ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold, stopping the first hearing test as taught by Henriksen in order to ensure proper testing is able to take place.
Regarding Claim 6, Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra fails to teach storing a result of the first hearing test if the second ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold.
In a similar technical field, Henriksen teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test performed via a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Paragraph 0012 lines 1-9), comprising storing a result of a first hearing test (Paragraph 0066 lines 31-39) if a second ambient noise level exceeds a second noise threshold (“background level of noise is too high” indicates another threshold; Paragraph 0065; Examiner’s Note: Henriksen teaches storing results of a first hearing test regardless of if the ambient noise measured during a second hearing test exceeds a threshold, thus the results of the first hearing test would still be stored if the ambient noise measured during the second test exceeds the threshold. Doing so would provide results that could be used in future assessments to measure progress of a user’s hearing).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra to include storing a result of the first hearing test if the second ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold as taught by Henriksen in order to provide results that could be used in future assessments to measure progress of a user’s hearing.
Regarding Claim 11, although Rix teaches a microphone housed in an earpiece to detect ambient noise (Rix, Paragraph 0051) and a microphone opening (Rix, Paragraph 0036) and Dijkstra teaches microphones M1 and M2 (Dijkstra Paragraphs 0029-0042), Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra fails to specifically teach wherein each of the first and second hearing devices comprises a primary microphone and a secondary microphone; wherein a microphone inlet of the secondary microphone of the first hearing device is configured to receive sounds from a first ear canal of the user, and/or wherein a microphone inlet of the secondary microphone of the second hearing device is configured to receive sounds from a second ear canal of the user.
Henriksen teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test performed via a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Paragraph 0012 lines 1-9), wherein the hearing devices comprise a primary (Paragraph 0063 lines 1-6) and secondary microphone (Paragraph 0062 lines 16-31); wherein the secondary microphone is configured to receive sounds from an ear canal of the user (Paragraph 0062 lines 16-31). Henriksen also teaches that including such a component would help determine if ambient noise penetration is too high (Paragraph 0062 lines 16-31).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix as modified by Wasden and Dijkstra such that each of the first and second hearing devices comprises a primary microphone and a secondary microphone; wherein a microphone inlet of the secondary microphone of the first hearing device is configured to receive sounds from a first ear canal of the user, and/or wherein a microphone inlet of the secondary microphone of the second hearing device is configured to receive sounds from a second ear canal of the user as taught by Henriksen in order to help determine if ambient noise penetration is too high (Henriksen, Paragraph 0062 lines 16-31).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 on 571-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights