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
1. The amendment filed December 02, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 5-22 are still pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 5-12, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0217464 A1, hereinafter "Xue") in view of Matlin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0329569 A1, hereinafter "Matlin"), and further in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0050446 Al, hereinafter "Anderson").
Regarding Claim 1, Xue teaches a hearing device (hearing device 100A and 100B, Figs. 1D and 1E, Para. [0070]) comprising:
an antenna (antenna 106a, 106b, and 810, Figs. 1D, 1E, and 8, Paras. [0074] and [115]);
a transmission line (transmission line 805, Fig. 8, Para. [0115]);
a wireless communication unit (wireless transceiver 104a, 104b, and TX, Figs. 1D, 1E and 8, Paras. [0074] and [115]), the wireless communication unit being coupled to the antenna via the transmission line (wireless transceiver 104a, 104b, and TX, is connected to antenna via transmission line 805, Fig. 8, Para. [0115]), the wireless communication unit and the antenna are configured for signal transmission and signal reception (wireless transceiver [TX, RX] and antenna 810 are configured for signal transmission [transmit channel 801] and signal reception [receive channel 803], Fig. 8, Paras. [0115] and [0116]).
Xue fails to explicitly teach a conductor element;
a detector coupled to the conductor element and configured to detect a reflected power signal via the conductor element, the reflected power signal indicating an amount of power reflected towards the wireless communication unit from the antenna, wherein the conductor element is galvanically isolated from the transmission line; and
a processing unit configured to place the hearing device in an idle mode if the reflected power signal indicates that the amount of power reflected meets a criterion.
However, Matlin teaches a conductor element (conductor element 824 [i.e. 324], Fig. 8, Paras. [0060]-[0063]);
a detector coupled to the conductor element (detector 814 is coupled to conductor element 824, Fig. 8, Paras. [0060]-[0063]) and configured to detect a reflected power signal via the conductor element, the reflected power signal indicating an amount of power reflected towards the wireless communication unit from the antenna (detector 814 is configured to detect reflected power signal through the conductor element 824 which indicates the amount of power reflected towards the wireless communication unit 802 from the antenna 810, Fig. 8, Para. [0063]), wherein the conductor element is galvanically isolated from the transmission line (the conductor element 824 is galvanically isolated from the transmission line 811, Fig. 8, Paras. [0060]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hearing device (as taught by Xue) to include the conductor element galvanically isolated from the transmission line and detector to detect reflected power signal from the antenna back to wireless communication unit (as taught by Matlin). Doing so will lead to a more optimal signal transmission (Matlin Paras. [0063] and [0064]).
However, Anderson teaches a processing unit (detection and control circuit 18 which turns on the foil sensor 1 [i.e. the proximity sensor], Para. [0026]) configured to place the device in an idle mode if the reflected power signal indicates that the amount of power reflected meets a criterion (the proximity sensor can be placed in a standby mode [idle mode] when the main electromagnetic signal is being properly transmitted or received again i.e. when the reflected power at a third port of the directional coupler falls below a set threshold, Para. [0026]; reflected power at the third port is reflected power transmitted from the antenna along the directional coupler 4 back to wireless communication unit 2, Paras. [0025]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hearing device (as taught by Xue in view of Matlin) to include the placing the hearing device in idle mode when the reflected power meets a criterion (as taught by Anderson). Doing so will conserve battery power and extend the battery life of the hearing device.
Regarding Claim 5, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach wherein the wireless communication unit and the antenna are coupled to each other via at least one microwave coupler that comprises the transmission line, the at least one microwave coupler being configured to couple power reflected from the antenna towards the wireless communication unit to the detector (Matlin, microwave coupler 824 comprises part of transmission line 811 and is configured to couple power reflected from the antenna 810 towards wireless communication unit 802 to the detector 814, Fig. 8, Paras. [0060]-[0063]), and wherein the detector is configured to detect the coupled power from the at least one microwave coupler as the detected reflected power signal (detector 814 detects coupled power from the microwave couple 824 as reflected power signal, Fig. 8, Para. [0063]).
Regarding Claim 6, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach wherein the transmission line is a part of a microwave coupler coupling the wireless communication unit and the antenna (Matlin, transmission 811 is part of microwave coupler 824, Fig. 8, Paras. [0060]-[0063]).
Regarding Claim 7, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach wherein the hearing device is in a first state when the hearing device is not worn in its operational position in or at an ear of a user (Xue, collected 2-D RSSI data can be used to detect if one of the wearer's two hearing devices falls off the wearer's head, Para. [0085]), and wherein the hearing device is in a second state when the hearing device is worn in its operational position in or at the ear of the user (Xue, collected 2-D RSSI data can be used to detect if one of the wearer's two hearing devices falls off the wearer's head, Para. [0085]). This also means it can be used to determine that the hearing device is worn in its operational position in or at the ear of the user. In Para. [0040] ear-worn device with wireless transceiver coupled to an antenna can collect two-dimensional (2-D) RSSI data, detect input gesture using the 2-D RSSI data, and implement a predetermined function of the ear-worn electronic device in response to detecting input gesture).
Regarding Claim 8, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach wherein the hearing device is configured to be operated in the idle mode (Anderson, once the proximity sensor has been turned on then it may continue to operate and provide a continuous or pulsed transmit signal continually or at timed intervals until the proximity sensor detects that the blocking object is no longer present (e.g. until the magnitude of the reflected power at the third port of the directional coupler falls below a set thresh old). The proximity sensor can also be turned off or placed in a standby mode after a predetermined amount of time has lapsed or if the associated detection circuit detects that the main electromagnetic signal is being properly transmitted or received again, for example, Para. [0012]) when the hearing device is in the first state (Xue, collected 2-D RSSI data can be used to detect if one of the wearer's two hearing devices falls off the wearer's head, Para. [0085]), and wherein the hearing device is configured to be operated in one of a number of operational modes when the hearing device is in the second state (Xue, collected 2-D RSSI data can be used to detect if one of the wearer's two hearing devices falls off the wearer's head, Para. [0085]). This also means it can be used to determine that the hearing device is worn in its operational position in or at the ear of the user. In Para. [0040] ear-worn device with wireless transceiver coupled to an antenna can collect two-dimensional (2-D) RSSI data, detect input gesture using the 2-D RSSI data, and implement a predetermined function of the ear-worn electronic device in response to detecting input gesture).
Regarding Claim 9, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach wherein the reflected power signal indicating the amount of power reflected towards the wireless communication unit corresponds to a reflection coefficient of the antenna (Matlin, reflected power is referred to as return loss which is measured as a ratio of the reflected power over the incident power [i.e. the reflection coefficient of the antenna], Para. [0063]).
Regarding Claim 10, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach wherein the detector is configured to detect the reflected power signal as a function of frequency and time (Xue, the control circuitry 822 can be configured to compute the values of S11 as V.sub.ref/V.sub.fwd as a function of time and of frequency as the frequency hops through its hopping sequence. The control circuitry 822 can store the 2-D reflection coefficient data in a memory as a matrix of S11 values as a function of time and of frequency computed by the control circuitry 822. The control circuitry 822 can implement an algorithm that monitors the forward and reflected power of the antenna 810 and matching circuitry 808, Para. [0118]).
Regarding Claim 11, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach further comprising a memory configured to store the reflected power signal and other reflected power signals as a function of frequency and time (Matlin, memory 806 is used to store reflected power signals as function of frequency and time, Fig. 19, Para. [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding Claim 12, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach wherein the wireless communication unit and the antenna are configured for electromagnetic-signal transmission and electromagnetic-signal reception (Xue, wireless transceiver [TX, RX] and antenna 810 are configured for electromagnetic-signal transmission [transmit channel 801] and electromagnetic-signal reception [receive channel 803], Fig. 8, Paras. [0115] and [0116]).
Regarding Claim 14, it is similarly rejected as Claim 1. The method can be found in Xue (a gesture control method using FHSS transmission implemented by at least a first ear-worn electronic device, Fig. 2, Para. [0087]).
Regarding Claim 22, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach the processing unit is configured to place the hearing device in the idle mode in response to the hearing device being in a state that is identified based on the reflected power signal (the proximity sensor can be placed in a standby mode [idle mode] when the main electromagnetic signal is being properly transmitted or received again i.e. when the reflected power at a third port of the directional coupler falls below a set threshold, Para. [0026]; reflected power at the third port is reflected power transmitted from the antenna along the directional coupler 4 back to wireless communication unit 2, Paras. [0025]-[0027]).
4. Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0217464 A1, hereinafter "Xue") in view of Matlin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0329569 A1, hereinafter "Matlin") in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0050446 Al, hereinafter "Anderson"), and further in view of Jurg et al. (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2018/036638 A1, hereinafter "Jurg").
Regarding Claim 13, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach a charger (Xue, hearing device 100A, 100B cooperates with a charging unit, Para. [0078]);
wherein the charger is configured to charge a rechargeable battery of the hearing device (Xue, charging unit implements a charging process to charge rechargeable battery 110a, 110b, Para. [0078]).
Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson fail to explicitly teach wherein the hearing device is configured to be operated in the idle mode when connected to the charger.
However, Jurg teaches wherein the hearing device is configured to be operated in the idle mode when connected to the charger (hearing device 1 is configured to operate in idle mode when connected to the charger, Figs. 1 and 2, Pg. 16, Lns. 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hearing device (as taught by Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson) to include operating in idle mode when connected to a charger (as taught by Jurg). Doing so will cause the sound system of the hearing device to operate in low power mode (Jurg Pg. 16, Lns. 1-14).
5. Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0217464 A1, hereinafter "Xue") in view of Matlin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0329569 A1, hereinafter "Matlin") in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0050446 Al, hereinafter "Anderson"), and further in view of Neumeyer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0082329 A1, hereinafter "Neumeyer").
Regarding Claim 15, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson fail to explicitly teach wherein the act of placing the hearing device in the idle mode comprises controlling a hearing device setting in response to the hearing device being in a state that is identified based on the reflected power signal.
However, Neumeyer teaches wherein the act of placing the hearing device in the idle mode comprises controlling a hearing device setting (hearing aid 100 setting is controlled to place the hearing device in idle mode, Para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hearing device (as taught by Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson) to include controlling hearing device setting (as taught by Neumeyer). Doing so will conserve battery power and extending the battery life of hearing aid (Neumeyer Para. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 16, Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson, and further in view of Neumeyer teach wherein the hearing device comprises at least one hearing device transducer (Xue, mic 112a, 112b, and speaker 108a, 108b, Figs. 1D and 1E), and wherein the hearing device setting is an on/off setting of the transducer (Neumeyer, hearing aid 100 turn off sound processing, Para. [0026]).
6. Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0217464 A1, hereinafter "Xue") in view of Matlin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0329569 A1, hereinafter "Matlin") in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0050446 Al, hereinafter "Anderson") in view of Neumeyer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0082329 A1, hereinafter "Neumeyer"), and further in view of Caren et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0165994 A1, hereinafter "Caren").
Regarding Claim 17, Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson, and further in view of Neumeyer fail to explicitly teach wherein the hearing device setting is a gain setting.
However, Caren teaches the hearing device setting is a gain setting (volume of signal can be controlled by adjusting the gain of amplifier 111, Par. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hearing device (as taught by Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson, and further in view of Neumeyer) to include a gain setting (as taught by Caren). Doing so will conserve battery power and extending the battery life of hearing device.
7. Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0217464 A1, hereinafter "Xue") in view of Matlin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0329569 A1, hereinafter "Matlin") in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0050446 Al, hereinafter "Anderson"), and further in view of Neumeyer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0082329 A1, hereinafter "Neumeyer").
Regarding Claim 18, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach further comprising a transducer (Xue, mic 112a, 112b, and speaker 108a, 108b, Figs. 1D and 1E).
Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson fail to explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is configured to place the hearing device in the idle mode by controlling an on/off setting of the transducer.
However, Neumeyer teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to place the hearing device in the idle mode by controlling an on/off setting of the transducer (hearing aid 100 is placed in idle mode and turns off sound processing, Para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hearing device (as taught by Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson) to include controlling an on/off setting of the transducer (as taught by Neumeyer). Doing so will conserve battery power and extending the battery life of hearing aid (Neumeyer Para. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 19, it is similarly rejected as Claim 18.
8. Claim(s) 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0217464 A1, hereinafter "Xue") in view of Matlin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0329569 A1, hereinafter "Matlin") in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0050446 Al, hereinafter "Anderson"), and further in view of Caren et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0165994 A1, hereinafter "Caren").
Regarding Claim 20, Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson teach further comprising a transducer (Xue, mic 112a, 112b, and speaker 108a, 108b, Figs. 1D and 1E).
Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson fail to explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is configured to place the hearing device in the idle mode by controlling a gain setting of the transducer.
However, Caren teaches the hearing device setting is a gain setting (volume of signal can be controlled by adjusting the gain of amplifier 111, Par. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hearing device (as taught by Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson) to include adjusting the gain setting (as taught by Caren). Doing so will conserve battery power and extending the battery life of hearing device.
Regarding Claim 21, it is similarly rejected as Claim 20.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed December 02, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see applicant’s remark pages 6-9), Claim 1 has been amended to recite "a detector coupled to the conductor element and configured to detect a reflected power signal via the conductor element, the reflected power signal indicating an amount of power reflected towards the wireless communication unit from the antenna, wherein the conductor element is galvanically isolated from the transmission line". Xue and Anderson do not disclose or suggest the above features. Since both Xue and Anderson do not disclose or suggest the above features, their combined teaching and any purported combination of these references do not, and cannot, result in the subject matter of claim 1. For at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1 and its dependent claims should be allowable over Xue, Anderson, and their combination. For one or more reasons similar to those discussed, claim 14 and its dependent claims should also be allowable.
In response to applicant’s argument above, independent Claims 1 and 14 have been rejected based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson.
Matlin teaches a detector coupled to the conductor element and configured to detect a reflected power signal via the conductor element, the reflected power signal indicating an amount of power reflected towards the wireless communication unit from the antenna, wherein the conductor element is galvanically isolated from the transmission line (Fig. 8, Paras. [0060]-[0063]).
The combination of the teachings of Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson renders independent Claims 1 and 14 obvious.
The rejections of Claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson are maintained.
Dependent Claims 5-12 and 22 have been rejected based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson.
The rejections of Claims 5-12 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin, and further in view of Anderson are maintained.
Dependent Claim 13 has been rejected based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson and further in view of Jurg.
The rejection of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson and further in view of Jurg is maintained.
Dependent Claims 15 and 16 have been rejected based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson, and further in view of Neumeyer.
The rejections of Claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson, and further in view of Neumeyer are maintained.
Dependent Claim 17 has been rejected based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson in view of Neumeyer and further in view of Caren.
The rejection of Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson in view of Neumeyer and further in view of Caren is maintained.
Dependent Claims 18 and 19 have been rejected based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson, and further in view of Neumeyer.
The rejections of Claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson, and further in view of Neumeyer are maintained.
Dependent Claims 20 and 21 have been rejected based on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson, and further in view of Caren.
The rejections of Claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Matlin in view of Anderson, and further in view of Caren are maintained.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al. (U.S. Pub. No. US 20210211797 A1) teaches using a reflection signal to determine that an earphone is worn or not. Kofman (U.S. Pub. No. US 20190045291 A1) teaches turning off or deactivating wireless earbuds when not in use.
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIMEZIE E BEKEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7.30-5.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/CHIMEZIE EZERIWE BEKEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights