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 to the amendment(s) and argument(s) filed 11/13/25. The previous ground(s) of rejection is/are withdrawn and the following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth hereinbelow.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “clock” of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 as amended positively recites “the first headset determines the response time(s) by a clock of the first headset determining a difference from when a first stimulus is output by first or second speaker of the first headset and when a timestamp in a response message indicates the user interacted with the first interface device”.
Original claim 6 as filed found support from itself for “the first headset determines the response time(s) by a clock”. Also finding support in the instant Specification, which merely mentions the term “clock” once on page 62 at section C6, and which reads “C6. The system of C4, wherein the first headset determines the response time(s) by a clock determining a difference from when a first stimulus is output by first or second speaker of the first headset and when the user interacts with the first interface device.”. Similarly, the fact pattern is identical for the term “difference”. Conversely, “a timestamp” is received by the headset from the response message.
The instant Specification is devoid of any corresponding detailed disclosure of “clock” structure “of the first headset”. The term clock in C6 is not necessarily explicitly, implicitly, inherently, or inferentially tied to or correspond with a structure “of the first headset”.
Claim 6 as amended comprises new matter that was not sufficiently described to demonstrate possession of the now claimed invention. Thus, claim 6 lacks written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Werner et al. (US 2020/0163592 A1, hereinafter Werner).
For claim 1, Werner discloses a system for hearing or fit testing (Figs 1, 3-8), the system comprising:
at least one headset (100,702), wherein the at least one headset includes a first headset (100), the first headset includes:
a support structure (upper head-spanning connection portion of 100); and
a pair of ear cups (102a, 102b) connected by the support structure (Fig 1), wherein the ear cups include:
a cushion (innermost portion of 102a, 102b) configured to seal an interior of the ear cup from an exterior of the ear cup when worn by a user (Fig 1);
an audiometer stack (106a, 106b) disposed in the interior of the ear cup (Fig 1); and
an ear cup attenuating structure (outermost portion of 102a, 102b) ([0025-0045]) surrounding the audiometer stack and being connected to the cushion (Fig 1), wherein the ear cup attenuating structure is configured to provide attenuation comparable to that of a sound booth ([0025-0045]) (Fig 1);
at least one interface device (18 and/or 400) ([0045, 0067-0077]) (Figs 4, 8a-8b), wherein the at least one interface device includes a first interface device (18 and/or 400) ([0045, 0067-0077]) (Figs 8a-8b) configured to wirelessly connect to at least a first audiometer stack of the first headset ([0025-0045]) (Figs 1, 4), the first interface device being a personal computing device (12 inside 100, 400, 704) ([0025-0045]) (Figs 1, 4) ([0067-0077]) (Figs 8a-8b); and
an administrator device (740) configured to wirelessly connect to each of the at least one interface device, to thereby transmit instructions to and receive data from each of the at least one headset via the at least one interface device ([0060-0066]) (Fig 7),
wherein the administrator device is configured to, in response to receiving an administrator user input on the administrator device, transmit an instruction message, via the first interface device, to the first headset to conduct a hearing or fit test (Fig 7) ([0060-0066, 0077-0103]), and
the instruction message does not include data indicating frequency of stimuli, amplitude of stimuli, or timing of stimuli (Fig 7) ([0025-0045, 0060-0066, 0077-0103]) (instead they are locally stored on-device) ([0045, 0067-0077]) (Figs 8a-8b).
For claim 2, Werner discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the administrator device is configured to receive, via the first interface device, data indicating status of the hearing or fit test.
For claim 3, Werner discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the data indicating status of the hearing or fit test is generated and transmitted from the first headset (Fig 7) ([0060-0066, 0077-0103]).
For claim 4, Werner discloses the system of claim 1, wherein,
the first headset is configured to conduct the hearing or fit test by a firmware (24, 26, 28) of the first audiometer stack determining and outputting a series of stimuli ([0045, 0067-0077]) (Figs 8a-8b);
the first interface device is configured to receive user responses to the series of stimuli and transmit response messages to the first headset ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b);
the first headset is configured to receive the response messages from the first interface device ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b), process the response messages to update the hearing or fit test based on the received response messages ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b), and determine response time(s) of a user of the first headset based on the response messages ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b); and
the administrator device is configured to receive, via the first interface device, data indicating response time(s) of a user of the first headset during the hearing or fit test (Fig 7) ([0060-0066, 0077-0103]).
For claim 5, Werner discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the data indicating the response time(s) of a user of the first headset during the hearing or fit test is generated and transmitted from the first headset (Fig 7) ([0060-0066, 0077-0103]).
For claim 6, Werner discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the first headset determines the response time(s) by a clock ([0067-0077]) (Figs 8a-8b) of the first headset determining a difference from when a first stimulus is output by first or second speaker of the first headset and when a timestamp in a response message indicates the user interacted with the first interface device (Figs 4-6) ([0067-0077]) (Figs 8a-8b).
For claim 7, Werner discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one headset comprises a plurality of headsets (702) for use by a plurality of users, and the administrator device is configured to manage a plurality of hearing or fit tests for the plurality of users (Fig 7) ([0025-0045, 0060-0066, 0077-0103]).
For claim 8, Werner discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the administrator device is configured to manage the plurality of hearing or fit tests in an asynchronous or synchronous manner (Fig 7) ([0025-0045, 0060-0066, 0077-0103]).
For claim 9, Werner discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first interface device, the first headset, and the administrator device form wireless connections using short-range or local-area communication protocols (Fig 7) ([0025-0045, 0060-0066, 0077-0103]).
For claim 10, Werner discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the administrator device is configured to remotely connect to the first interface device via a secure sever connection (Fig 7) ([0025-0045, 0060-0066, 0077-0103]).
For claim 11, Werner discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the administrator device is configured to connect to the first interface device via a direct WIFI connection (Fig 7) ([0025-0045, 0060-0066, 0077-0103]).
For claim 12, Werner discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the wireless connections between the first interface device, the first headset, and the administrator device are low energy connections (Fig 7) ([0025-0045, 0060-0066, 0077-0103]).
For claim 13, Werner discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the administrator device is configured to, in response to receiving an administrator user input on the administrator device for voice transmission to the first headset, change the wireless connections to standard wireless communications, and transmit voice data over the standard wireless communications to the first headset (Fig 7) ([0025-0045, 0060-0066, 0077-0103]).
For claim 14, Werner discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first headset includes firmware, a voltage module, and at least two analog outputs (Figs 4 and/or 8).
For claim 15, Werner discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the firmware is configured to determine the frequency of stimuli, the amplitude of stimuli, and the timing of stimuli based on a type of hearing or fit test being performed (Figs 4 and/or 8) ([0039-0044, 0067-0077]).
For claim 16, Werner discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the firmware is configured to adjust the test parameters based on user response and/or response time. (Figs 4 and/or 8) ([0039-0044, 0067-0077])
For claim 17, Werner discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the voltage module is configured to output a dynamic range for each of the at least two analog outputs (Figs 4 and/or 8) ([0039-0044, 0067-0077]).
For claim 18, Werner discloses the system of claim 17, wherein an output of the dynamic range is configured to be a pure tone or range of frequencies (Fig 3).
For claim 19, Werner discloses the system of claim 18, wherein the pure tone is a narrow bandwidth range of frequency (Figs 4 and/or 8) ([0039-0044, 0067-0077], especially [0077]).
For claim 21, Werner discloses a system for hearing or fit testing, the system (Figs 1, 3-8), comprising inter alia:
at least one headset (100, 702) comprising:
a support structure (upper head-spanning connection portion of 100); and
a pair of ear cups (102a, 102b) connected by the support structure (Fig 1), each of the pair of ear cups comprising inter alia:
a cushion (innermost portion of 102a, 102b) configured to seal an interior of each ear cup from an exterior of each ear cup when worn by a user (Fig 1);
at least one audiometer stack (106a, 106b, 14, 24, 26, and/or 28) ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b) disposed in the interior of each ear cup, at least one of the audiometer stack comprising a programmed board (14) ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b) that comprises firmware (24, 26, and/or 28) ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b) configured to determine frequency of stimuli, amplitude of stimuli, or timing of stimuli ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b); and
an ear cup attenuating structure (outermost portion of 102a, 102b) ([0025-0045]) surrounding each audiometer stack and being connected to each cushion, wherein each ear cup attenuating structure is configured to provide attenuation comparable to that of a sound booth ([0025-0045]) (Fig 1);
at least one interface device (18 and/or 400) ([0045, 0067-0077]) (Figs 4, 8a-8b) configured to wirelessly connect to each of the audiometer stacks of the at least one headset ([0045, 0067-0077]) (Figs 4, 8a-8b), the at least one interface device being a personal computing device (18 and/or 400) ([0045, 0067-0077]) (Figs 4, 8a-8b); and
an administrator device (740) configured to wirelessly connect to the at least one interface device ([0060-0066]) (Fig 7), to thereby transmit instructions to and receive data from the at least one headset via the at least one interface device ([0060-0066]) (Fig 7),
wherein the administrator device is configured to, in response to receiving an administrator user input on the administrator device, transmit an instruction message, via the first interface device, to the first headset to conduct a hearing or fit test (Fig 7) ([0025-0045, 0060-0066, 0077-0103]), and
the instruction message does not include data indicating frequency of stimuli, amplitude of stimuli, or timing of stimuli (Fig 7) ([0025-0045, 0060-0066, 0077-0103]) (instead they are locally stored on-device) ([0045, 0067-0077]) (Figs 8a-8b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the following:
“Werner fails to teach the limitation of "the instruction message [of the administrator device] does not include data indicating frequency of stimuli, amplitude of stimuli, or timing of stimuli," as recited in claim 1. The instruction message omitting the specific test parameters of the test signals, such as the exact frequencies, loudness (amplitude), or timing of the sounds to be played during the test can have a number of advantages…”
“In contrast, the mobile device 400 of Werner is not just sending a generic instruction to the headset 100; it is actively involved in the test process, either generating the test signals or controlling the test parameters. See paragraphs [0039], [0041], and [0043] of Werner. There is no disclosure or suggestion in Werner that the instruction message from the administrator device to the headset omits the frequency, amplitude, and timing data. Instead, the Werner system relies on the mobile device 400 or app to manage or generate the hearing test parameters. Werner does not describe the hearing protection device 100 as independently generating the test stimuli based on internal logic or firmware. Instead, the Wener (sic) headset 100/702 acts as a peripheral that receives instructions or audio signals from the mobile device. In other words, in Werner, the mobile device/app is the primary controller of the test process.
“Werner also fails to teach at least one interface device, as claimed. The Examiner identifies the "wireless transmitter" the communicates with the speakers 106a and 106b of Werner as an interface device, as claimed. However, Applicant submits that one skilled in this art would recognize that a mere wireless transmitter would not be considered an "interface device" in the context of the present application. To clarify this for the Examiner, independent claim 1 is presently amended to recite that the at least one interface device is a personal computing device. Support for this amendment can be found in paragraph [0036], for example, of Applicant's disclosure.
“This clearly distinguishes the "wireless transmitter" of Werner (which is part of the headset 100/702 itself and not a separate personal computing device (such as a mobile device). Moreover, Applicant submits that the mobile device 400/704 of Wener (sic) could not be considered the "interface device," because then it would be the mobile device 400/704 (rather than the headset) that transmits the testing protocol (i.e. frequency of stimuli, amplitude of stimuli, or timing of stimuli), contrary to claim 1. “
“New independent claim 21 is similar to independent claim 1 and distinguishes Werner for similar reasons discussed above. New claim 21 also recites that the at least one audiometer comprises a programmed board that comprises firmware configured to determine frequency of stimuli, amplitude of stimuli, or timing of stimuli. See, for example, paragraph [0091] of Applicant's disclosure of this application ("In some cases, the programmed board 420 may include firmware, a voltage module, and at least one analog output. The firmware may functionally correspond to the control electronics or the controller and memory discussed above. The firmware may be configured to determine frequency of stimuli, amplitude of stimuli (e.g., level in dB), and timing of stimuli (collectively, test parameters) based on a type of hearing or fit test being performed."). In contrast, nothing in Werner teaches that its speakers 106a and 106b (identified by the Examiner as the "audiometer stack", as claimed) are specifically associated with a programmed board with the testing protocol firmware.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes in response the following:
In response to applicant's argument (1) that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a number of advantages” and/or the listing thereof) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments (1) and (2) that Werner fails to teach the limitation “the instruction message does not include data indicating frequency of stimuli, amplitude of stimuli, or timing of stimuli” The Examiner respectfully directs Applicants attention to the headset’s on-board processing shown in Figure 8, containing application programs and computer readable program instructions amongst others.
Werner is concerned with and explicitly states at least the following (emphasis added):
[0020] “the on-demand testing employs, for instance, wearable technology, including internet-of-things wearable technology, and/or cognitive analysis. The testing may be performed in real-time to determine if a selected condition exists”;
[0045] “Further, one or more functions may be performed, for instance, by one or more processors. One or more of the processors may be included within the hearing protection device (e.g., the various components of the hearing protection device or otherwise) or separate from the hearing protection device.”
[0067] “As indicated above, processors may be used in various functions relating to on-demand testing, including collecting the data (e.g., noise levels), comparing the data, taking action (e.g., provide notification, initiate testing), etc. Therefore, further details regarding processors that may be used in one or more aspects of the on-demand testing are described with reference to FIG. 8A. Additionally, an example environment that may include one or more of the processors, is described. With reference to FIG. 8A, one example of a computer system that includes processors that may be used by one or more aspects of the present invention is described. In this example, the computer system is part of a computing environment including additional components that may or may not be used by aspects of the present invention.”
In response to applicant's arguments (3) and (4) that Werner fails to teach the at least one interface device limitation, the examiner respectfully notes the argument is moot in view of updated reliance on Werner necessitated by amendment, wherein the at least one interface device being a personal computing device is instead newly cited as (18 and/or 400) ([0045, 0067-0077]) (Figs 4, 8a-8b).
In response to applicant's arguments (5) that Werner fails to teach the newly claimed invention, the Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the rejection and cited portions of Werner hereinabove and reiterates Werner discloses:
at least one audiometer stack (106a, 106b, 14, 24, 26, and/or 28) ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b) disposed in the interior of each ear cup, at least one of the audiometer stack comprising a programmed board (14) ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b) that comprises firmware (24, 26, and/or 28) ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b) configured to determine frequency of stimuli, amplitude of stimuli, or timing of stimuli ([0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b).
In response to applicant's arguments (5) the Examiner respectfully notes Werner explicitly discloses the cited at least one audiometer stack is specifically associated with a programmed board with the testing protocol firmware ([0020, 0045, 0060-0077]) (Figs 7, 8a-8b).
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 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
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791