Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/2/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/9/25 has been considered.
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 1-3, 6, 8-9 and 11-15 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claim 1 has been amended with the language “generating a modified sound signal by modifying the microphone signal when the acute sound is detected; sending the modified sound signal to the speaker;”. This language as set forth is not supported by the original specification and therefor constitutes new matter which must be cancelled. Paragraphs [0037 and 0045] discuss the operation of the arrangement in which the audio content is adjusted when an acute sound is detected. There is no disclosure that supports modifying the microphone signal when an acute sound is detected with this modified sound signal being sent to the speaker. The limitations of claims 1-2, 6, 8-9 and 11-15 inherit these newly claimed limitations.
Examiner’s Comments
It is noted that claim 1 sets forth the terms “an action” and “an incoming communication” but does not clearly distinguish one from the other. The claimed “action” as disclosed in paragraph [0039] of applicants’ disclosure indicated the meaning of this term can be a warning sound or a voice call. The disclosure also discloses a possible incoming communication as communications from a music player, cell phone, voice mail and messaging. A voice call is considered to be the same as at least a communication from a cell phone, each of which can be a warning sound to alert a user of a particular sound. Therefor when considering art these terms will be considered as meaning a similar feature.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 9,509,269 B1) in view of Alley (US 2004/0179694 A1); each reference already on record and in view of Michael (US 6,456,199 B2).
Re claim 1: Rosenberg teaches a device (depicted in figure 1) that comprises a microphone (95A); a speaker (within headphones (95B)); a memory storing instructions ((10), column 4, lines 55-64) and a processor ((5), column 4, lines 55-64) enabling wireless communications with other devices (such as (100A, 100B and a 100C), column 5, lines 44-61); generating a microphone signal (processing output from microphone (95A) when detecting sound signals from an ambient environment (column 6, lines 1-3) which is then analyzed to detect an acute signal (such as an alarm or siren, column 8, lines 25-27 and column 10, lines 14); generating a modified sound signal when an acute sound is detected (by changing at least a volume level of sound(s)) which is then sent to a speaker (within the headphones). Rosenberg however does not teach a haptic vibration generator used to generate a vibration when an acute sound is detected. Instead, Rosenberg teaches to adjust the audible output upon detection of an acute sound (column 8, lines 13-27). Alley teaches in a similar environment that when an acute sound (such as predetermined sound from an emergency vehicle) is detected that the audible output can be adjusted by automatic muting of sounds/music or alternatively provide a vibrational output by using a vibrator, paragraph [0036]) thereby providing a tactile notification to the user of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate such teaching of Alley into the arrangement of Rosenberg to predictably provide an alternative notification to the user of the device by providing a tactile notification to the user. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. This combination however does not teach that this generator includes a motor used to cause the vibration. Michael teaches in a related art that motors are used to form vibrations for tactile warning (See column 5, lines 61-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the use of a motor as taught in Michael to form the vibrational output as taught in Alley in the arrangement of Rosenberg in view of Alley as applied to predictably provide a structural means, motors, for the formation of a vibrational output. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 2: the claimed temporal and spectral characteristics as set forth are satisfied by the duration and frequency characteristics taught in paragraph [0030] of Alley for the detection of acute sounds and would have been obvious to incorporate into the arrangement of Rosenberg for detection of acute sounds with specific characteristics sensed when providing a tactile notification to the user.
Re claim 3: note in Rosenberg, the device including the use of headphones satisfies the alternatively claimed ear piece as broadly as set forth
Re claim 6: see for example the abstract of Rosenberg in which one possibility of audio characteristic includes the voice of the user
Re claim 8: the claimed audio content signal is satisfied by the audio provided by the media player in Rosenberg
Re claim 9: See Rosenberg, column 11, “Audio Mixing Embodiments”
Re claim 11: reducing the amount of audio content is deemed taught by Rosenberg, column 12, lines 31-40 by gradually decreasing the musical audio content
Re claim 12: increasing the amount of an ambient sound signal is taught in Rosenberg in column 12, lines 31-40 by gradually increasing the ambient audio content
Re claim 13: the claimed voice message is taught in Rosenberg, column 7, lines 20-61 such as particular words or phrases that can be spoken by the user
Re claim 14: see Rosenberg, column 8, lines 13-31 and columns 9-10 under the section “Additional Non-Verbal Ambient Sound Triggers” teaching at least a detection of a “siren” by analyzing the microphone signal
Re claim 15: see Rosenberg, columns 9-10 under the section “Additional Non-Verbal Ambient Sound Triggers” teaching at least a detection of a variety of signals including at least an “alarm and “bell” by analyzing the microphone signal satisfy those warnings as alternatively set forth
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither Rosenberg, Alley or Baxter teach a haptic vibration when an incoming communication is received. Examiner does not agree. This “incoming communication” can be interpreted as an incoming warning signal that is used to communicate to a user of an important sound event that has occurred in the ambient sound; with Alley teaching to form a vibration signal in response to the detection of an important sound event.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 2/11/26