DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 01/26/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed on 01/26/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 .
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. The end wall and the side wall from claim 14 are not clearly shown or labeled in the figures, therefore it’s unclear what they are and where they are located. Therefore, the “end wall” and “side wall” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference character “200A” does not appear in the specification
Reference character “200B” does not appear in the specification
Reference character “O332” does not appear in the specification
Reference character “400A” does not appear in the specification
Reference character “400B” does not appear in the specification
Reference character “256” in Figure 6A does not appear in the specification
Reference character “812A” does not appear in the specification
Reference character “812B” does not appear in the specification
Reference character “1002C” does not appear in the specification
Reference character “255” in Figure 11A does not appear in the specification
Reference character “525” in Figure 11A does not appear in the specification
Reference character “256” in Figure 11G does not appear in the specification
Reference character “526” in Figure 11G does not appear in the specification
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 5A, reference character “502”, which is designated in the specification as being the ear canal, points to two drawings that seem to be the hearing protector. It seems as though this was meant to be reference character “504”, not “502”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US 20200163592) in view of Verhave (EP 3248577) and Henriksen (US 9554733).
Regarding independent claim 1, Werner teaches a system for hearing testing and fit testing ([0004]: “Devices, systems and computer program products relating to one or more aspects are also described and may be claimed herein”), the system comprising:
a headset (Fig. 1, reference character 100), wherein the headset includes:
a support structure (Fig. 1, the arched connector between the first ear component 102a and the second ear component 102b); and
a pair of ear cups connected by the support structure (Fig. 1, reference characters 102a and 102b), wherein each of the pair of ear cups includes:
a cushion configured to seal an interior of the ear cup from an exterior of the ear cup when worn by a user (Fig. 1, reference characters 102a and 102b);
an audiometer stack disposed in the interior of the ear cup (Fig. 1, reference characters 104a, 104b, 106a, and 106b); and
an ear cup attenuating structure surrounding the audiometer stack and being connected to the cushion (Fig. 1, reference characters 102a and 102b), wherein the ear cup attenuating structure is configured to provide attenuation ([0025]: “the wearable technology is a hearing protection device”; [0038]: “feedback can include how well the hearing protection device maintains its specified attenuation over time”); and
an interface device configured to wirelessly connect to at least a first audiometer stack of the pair of ear cups ([0039]: “the hearing protection device contains a wireless transmitter”);
wherein the system is configured to:
output a first interface ([0068]: “Computer system 12 may include, … one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces”), the first interface including a first interface element configured to be selectable by a first input to start a hearing test ([0065]: “a device (e.g., a hearing protection device) is used for hearing protection, as well as to perform a test (e.g., a hearing test) on-demand. The device relays notifications to a user and/or another subject in real-time relating to the tests”);
determine that the first input has selected the first interface element ([0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc. As shown in FIG. 4A, in one example, the other device is a mobile device 400 that receives a notification 402 instructing the user to perform a hearing test. Further, in one example, as shown in FIG. 4B, mobile device 400 is used in performing the test. For instance, an app 410 on mobile device 400 prompts the user with a notification 412: When you hear a tone, select either the left ear button 414a or the right ear button 414b or use the sensors on your hearing protection device.”; [0030]: “the user can touch the right sensor to indicate hearing a sound from the right speaker. Alternatively, a mobile device or other device can be used instead of sensors to select when and in which ear the sounds are heard.”);
in response to determining the first input has selected the first interface element, instruct at least the first audiometer stack to perform a first series of stimuli (Fig. 6, reference character 612; [0055]: “sounds are played through the speakers in the hearing protection device, STEP 612”);
receive a first set of one or more user responses to at least a first subset of the first series of stimuli (Fig. 6, reference character 614; [0055]: “As the user hears a sound in an ear, in one example, the user presses or otherwise activates a sensor associated with that ear on the hearing protection device to record whether the user heard the sound, STEP 614”);
based on the first set of one or more user responses, determine a hearing test result of the hearing test (Fig. 6, reference characters 616-626; [0034]: “Results of testing both ears may be shown in an audiogram, in which one graphical line is for one ear and another graphical line is for another ear.”), the hearing test result including at least a measure of a hearing ability of the user ([0031]: “The results of a hearing test can be used to determine, for instance, if the user is experiencing hearing loss, if the environment is the main cause of hearing loss, and/or if higher attenuation hearing protection is desirable”).
Werner discloses determining the fit of the hearing protector ([0038]: “feedback can include how well the hearing protection device maintains its specified attenuation over time”), however Werner does not teach the specific steps in this determination.
Verhave discloses a method for determining a measure of sound attenuation provided by a hearing protector ear plug. Specifically, Verhave teaches performing a hearing protector fit test ([0026]: “the invention provides in a computing device arranged for determining a measure for an attenuation provided by a hearing protector ear pug when worn by a user, said computing device being arranged to perform at least two measurements, wherein each of said at least two measurements comprises the steps of: providing, by a computing device, a two channel test sound to a user via a head set; receiving, by said computing device, a balance input signal, wherein said balance input signal relates to a perceived loudness of said left audio channel and a perceived loudness of said right audio channel of said two channel test sound by said user, and controlling, by a computing device, amplitudes of said left audio channel and said right audio channel of said two channel test sound provided to said user via said headset based on said received balance input signal; receiving, by said computing device, an approval signal, wherein said approval signal indicates that said user perceives a same level of loudness of said left audio channel and said loudness of said right audio channel; wherein a first of said at least two measurements is performed when said user is free from said hearing protector ear plug, and a second of said at least two measurements if performed when said user is wearing said hearing protector ear plug in one of its ears; said device further being arranged to, after performing said at least two measurements, perform the step of: determining said measure for said attenuation provided by said hearing protector ear plug based on said performed at least two measurements, wherein said two channel test sound to said user comprises a binaural audio test sound.”). Werner and Verhave are analogous arts as they are both related to devices used to measure hearing of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hearing attenuation test from Verhave into the device from Werner as it allows the device to not only test the hearing of the user, but also ensure the user has ample hearing protection by testing the hearing protection being used, which can ensure the user is protecting their ears and hearing ability.
The Werner/Verhave combination teaches output a second interface (Werner, [0068]: “Computer system 12 may include, … one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces”) configured to indicate a transition to a hearing protector fit test (Werner, [0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc. As shown in FIG. 4A, in one example, the other device is a mobile device 400 that receives a notification 402 instructing the user to perform a hearing test.”. If the system includes multiple tests, it would be obvious that one of the interfaces indicates a transition to a hearing protector fit test.), the second interface including at least a second interface element configured to be selectable by a second input to start the hearing protector fit test (Werner, ([0068]: “Computer system 12 may include, … one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces”). The one or more input/output interfaces can include the second interface.; [0065]: “a device (e.g., a hearing protection device) is used for hearing protection, as well as to perform a test (e.g., a hearing test) on-demand. The device relays notifications to a user and/or another subject in real-time relating to the tests”. Since the Werner/Verhave combination adds an additional test, it would be obvious that a second interface can include a second interface configured to be selectable to start the second test (the hearing protector fit test).);
determine the second input has selected the second interface element (Werner, [0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc. As shown in FIG. 4A, in one example, the other device is a mobile device 400 that receives a notification 402 instructing the user to perform a hearing test. Further, in one example, as shown in FIG. 4B, mobile device 400 is used in performing the test. For instance, an app 410 on mobile device 400 prompts the user with a notification 412: When you hear a tone, select either the left ear button 414a or the right ear button 414b or use the sensors on your hearing protection device.”; [0030]: “the user can touch the right sensor to indicate hearing a sound from the right speaker. Alternatively, a mobile device or other device can be used instead of sensors to select when and in which ear the sounds are heard.”);
in response to determining the second input has selected the second interface element, instruct at least the first audiometer stack to perform a second series of stimuli; receive a second set of one or more user responses for at least a second subset of the second series of stimuli (Verhave, [0026]: “the invention provides in a computing device arranged for determining a measure for an attenuation provided by a hearing protector ear pug when worn by a user, said computing device being arranged to perform at least two measurements, wherein each of said at least two measurements comprises the steps of: providing, by a computing device, a two channel test sound to a user via a head set; receiving, by said computing device, a balance input signal, wherein said balance input signal relates to a perceived loudness of said left audio channel and a perceived loudness of said right audio channel of said two channel test sound by said user, and controlling, by a computing device, amplitudes of said left audio channel and said right audio channel of said two channel test sound provided to said user via said headset based on said received balance input signal; receiving, by said computing device, an approval signal, wherein said approval signal indicates that said user perceives a same level of loudness of said left audio channel and said loudness of said right audio channel; wherein a first of said at least two measurements is performed when said user is free from said hearing protector ear plug, and a second of said at least two measurements if performed when said user is wearing said hearing protector ear plug in one of its ears; said device further being arranged to, after performing said at least two measurements, perform the step of: determining said measure for said attenuation provided by said hearing protector ear plug based on said performed at least two measurements, wherein said two channel test sound to said user comprises a binaural audio test sound.”).
However, the Werner/Verhave combination does not teach determining hearing thresholds of the user.
Henriksen teaches a hearing protection device with integrated audiometric testing. Specifically, Henriksen teaches determining a hearing threshold of a user (Column 2, lines 50, line 53: “testing each ear for a specific frequency would be an iterative process that hones-in on the user's hearing threshold (based on a plurality of test sound stimuli responses)”). Werner, Verhave, and Henriksen are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used to measure hearing of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hearing threshold from Henriksen into the Werner/Verhave combination as it allows the device to determine specific limit of sound that the user can hear, which can allow the system to have a specific value to use for comparisons.
The Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches based on the first set of one or more user responses, determine an unoccluded hearing threshold of the user (Werner, ([0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc. As shown in FIG. 4A, in one example, the other device is a mobile device 400 that receives a notification 402 instructing the user to perform a hearing test”; Verhave, [0026]: “a first of said at least two measurements is performed when said user is free from said hearing protector ear plug”; Henriksen, Column 2, lines 50, line 53: “testing each ear for a specific frequency would be an iterative process that hones-in on the user's hearing threshold (based on a plurality of test sound stimuli responses)”. The first set of responses are obtained when the user is free from the hearing protector ear plug, therefore the hearing threshold is an unoccluded hearing threshold.);
based on the second set of one or more user responses, determine an occluded hearing threshold of the user (Werner, ([0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc. As shown in FIG. 4A, in one example, the other device is a mobile device 400 that receives a notification 402 instructing the user to perform a hearing test”; Verhave, [0026]: “a second of said at least two measurements if performed when said user is wearing said hearing protector ear plug in one of its ears”; Henriksen, Column 2, lines 50, line 53: “testing each ear for a specific frequency would be an iterative process that hones-in on the user's hearing threshold (based on a plurality of test sound stimuli responses)”. The first set of responses are obtained when the user has a hearing protector plug in their ear, therefore the hearing threshold is an occluded hearing threshold.); and
determine a fit test result of the hearing protector fit test by comparing the unoccluded and occluded hearing thresholds, the fit test result including an indication of a hearing attenuation achieved by a hearing protector as worn by the user during the hearing protector fit test (Verhave, [0026]: “determining said measure for said attenuation provided by said hearing protector ear plug based on said performed at least two measurements”. The two measurements include the occluded and unoccluded hearing thresholds, therefore the measure for attenuation provided by the hearing protector ear plug is a comparison of the occluded and unoccluded hearing thresholds.).
Regarding claim 2, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the interface device is a patient device or an administrator device (Werner, [0039]: “the hearing protection device contains a wireless transmitter (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, etc.) to communicate with another device of a user, such as a mobile device, a wearable device”).
Regarding claim 3, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first interface is configured to instruct the user on how to use the system (Werner, [0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc.”).
Regarding claim 4, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each audiometer stack includes at least: a speaker and a mounting structure to mount the speaker within the ear cup (Werner, Fig. 1, reference characters 106a and 106b).
Regarding claim 5, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the first audiometer stack is associated with one of the ear cups of the pair of ear cups and is connected to a second audiometer stack on the other of the ear cups of the pair of ear cups (Werner, Fig. 1, reference characters 104a, 104b, 106a, and 106b).
Regarding claim 6, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the first audiometer stack includes control electronics (Werner, [0045]: “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)”) and a wireless communication transceiver (Werner, [0039]: “the hearing protection device contains a wireless transmitter (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, etc.) to communicate with another device of a user”; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the control electronics are configured to receive, via the wireless communication transceiver, interface device instructions from the interface device and transmit signals to each speaker of the first and second audiometer stack (Werner, Fig. 6, reference characters 600-612; [0044]: “the hearing protection device can communicate with Wi-Fi and/or broadband cellular networks (e.g., 3G, 4G, 5G) in the environment and relay notifications via the built-in speaker”).
However, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination is silent on the type of signals transmitted.
Henriksen teaches transmitting analog signals (Column 21, lines 53-55: “The two microphones and the loudspeaker are connected to an electronics unit 211, which may optionally be connected to other equipment by an interface 213 that may transmit digital and/or analog signals”). Werner, Verhave, and Henriksen are analogous arts as they are both related to devices used to measure hearing of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the analog signals from Henriksen into the device from the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination as the combination is silent on the type of signals transmitted, and Henriksen teaches a suitable signal type in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 8, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the control electronics are configured to transmit, via the wireless communication transceiver, data to the interface device regarding the presented stimuli and any of the user responses (Werner, [0034]: “Based on completing the test, in one aspect, an audiogram is generated and stored along with a timestamp on a user profile and/or a company database. This is used, in one embodiment, to track a user's tests in order to record the user's hearing over time. Referring to FIG. 3, an audiogram 300 displays, for instance, the softest sounds an individual can hear at different pitches and frequencies. If the sounds are in the normal range 302, then the user can hear a normal conversation; in the mild range 304, the user can hear a normal conversation in a quiet area but has difficulty in a noisy environment; in the moderate range 306, the user has difficulty hearing a normal conversation in a quiet room; in the severe range 308, the user is unable to hear a conversation unless the speaker is shouting next to the ear; and in the profound range 310, the user is unable to understand the conversation even if the speaker is shouting. Results of testing both ears may be shown in an audiogram, in which one graphical line is for one ear and another graphical line is for another ear.”; [0039]: “when the test is complete, in one example, a notification is displayed on the mobile device, as shown in FIG. 4C. For instance, a notification 420 indicates the hearing test is complete, and, in this example, there are no signs of hearing loss.”).
Regarding claim 9, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the second audiometer stack includes a battery configured to power each of the first and second audiometer stack (Werner, [0026]: “the hearing protection device is battery powered”).
Regarding claim 10, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the mounting structure is positioned inside the interior of the ear cup so as to provide a clearance between (a) the speaker and mounting structure and (b) hearing protectors and/or user’s ears when applied to the user (Werner, Fig. 1 shows reference characters 106a and 106b inside the ear cup. Additionally, the limitation of “so as to provide clearance between (a) the speaker and the mounting structure and (b) hearing protectors and/or user’s ears when applied to the user” is intended use, and therefore does not distinguish the claimed structure from the combination.).
Regarding claim 15, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first set of one or more user responses are based on the first inputs that are from the user on a patient device or from an administrator on an administrator device (Werner, [0030]: “the user can touch the right sensor to indicate hearing a sound from the right speaker. Alternatively, a mobile device or other device can be used instead of sensors to select when and in which ear the sounds are heard.”).
Regarding claim 16, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to: determine another subset of the first series of stimuli based on a portion of the first set of one or more user responses (Werner, [0077]: “personalized data is used to customize a hearing test to a user based on a history of prior hearing tests. Tests can change over time based on both personal data, as well as new information learned from analytics on various users (e.g., more tones can be played in a frequency range in which the user is showing signs of hearing loss, etc.). Moreover, tests may change temporarily. For instance, if a user is subjected to a sudden loud noise that causes temporary hearing loss, tests over the next few days may be suggested more often and tailored towards specific frequencies that may have been affected. Other variations are possible.”).
Regarding claim 18, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to determine the user has a greater than a threshold level of asymmetrical hearing ability based on the first set of one or more user responses, and determine the second series of stimuli based on a level of differential hearing (Verhave, [0026]: “the invention provides in a computing device arranged for determining a measure for an attenuation provided by a hearing protector ear pug when worn by a user, said computing device being arranged to perform at least two measurements, wherein each of said at least two measurements comprises the steps of: providing, by a computing device, a two channel test sound to a user via a head set; receiving, by said computing device, a balance input signal, wherein said balance input signal relates to a perceived loudness of said left audio channel and a perceived loudness of said right audio channel of said two channel test sound by said user, and controlling, by a computing device, amplitudes of said left audio channel and said right audio channel of said two channel test sound provided to said user via said headset based on said received balance input signal; receiving, by said computing device, an approval signal, wherein said approval signal indicates that said user perceives a same level of loudness of said left audio channel and said loudness of said right audio channel; wherein a first of said at least two measurements is performed when said user is free from said hearing protector ear plug, and a second of said at least two measurements if performed when said user is wearing said hearing protector ear plug in one of its ears; said device further being arranged to, after performing said at least two measurements, perform the step of: determining said measure for said attenuation provided by said hearing protector ear plug based on said performed at least two measurements, wherein said two channel test sound to said user comprises a binaural audio test sound.”).
Regarding claim 19, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to, before determining the fit test result of the hearing protector fit test and while performing the second series of stimuli: determine, for a user response, of the second set of one or more user responses, responsive to a specific frequency and amplitude, that the hearing protector is improperly applied to the user; and output an instruction to adjust the hearing protector before continuing the hearing protector fit test (Werner, Fig. 5, reference characters 504-510).
Regarding independent claim 20, Werner teaches a method for hearing testing and fit testing (0120]: “Aspects of the present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a computer program product at any possible technical detail level of integration”), the method comprising:
output a first interface ([0068]: “Computer system 12 may include, … one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces”), the first interface including a first interface element configured to be selectable by a first input to start a hearing test ([0065]: “a device (e.g., a hearing protection device) is used for hearing protection, as well as to perform a test (e.g., a hearing test) on-demand. The device relays notifications to a user and/or another subject in real-time relating to the tests”);
determine that the first input has selected the first interface element ([0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc. As shown in FIG. 4A, in one example, the other device is a mobile device 400 that receives a notification 402 instructing the user to perform a hearing test. Further, in one example, as shown in FIG. 4B, mobile device 400 is used in performing the test. For instance, an app 410 on mobile device 400 prompts the user with a notification 412: When you hear a tone, select either the left ear button 414a or the right ear button 414b or use the sensors on your hearing protection device.”; [0030]: “the user can touch the right sensor to indicate hearing a sound from the right speaker. Alternatively, a mobile device or other device can be used instead of sensors to select when and in which ear the sounds are heard.”);
in response to determining the first input has selected the first interface element, instruct at least the first audiometer stack to perform a first series of stimuli (Fig. 6, reference character 612; [0055]: “sounds are played through the speakers in the hearing protection device, STEP 612”);
receive a first set of one or more user responses to at least a first subset of the first series of stimuli (Fig. 6, reference character 614; [0055]: “As the user hears a sound in an ear, in one example, the user presses or otherwise activates a sensor associated with that ear on the hearing protection device to record whether the user heard the sound, STEP 614”);
based on the first set of one or more user responses, determine a hearing test result of the hearing test (Fig. 6, reference characters 616-626; [0034]: “Results of testing both ears may be shown in an audiogram, in which one graphical line is for one ear and another graphical line is for another ear.”), the hearing test result including at least a measure of a hearing ability of the user ([0031]: “The results of a hearing test can be used to determine, for instance, if the user is experiencing hearing loss, if the environment is the main cause of hearing loss, and/or if higher attenuation hearing protection is desirable”).
Werner discloses determining the fit of the hearing protector ([0038]: “feedback can include how well the hearing protection device maintains its specified attenuation over time”), however Werner does not teach the specific steps in this determination.
Verhave discloses a method for determining a measure of sound attenuation provided by a hearing protector ear plug. Specifically, Verhave teaches performing a hearing protector fit test ([0026]: “the invention provides in a computing device arranged for determining a measure for an attenuation provided by a hearing protector ear pug when worn by a user, said computing device being arranged to perform at least two measurements, wherein each of said at least two measurements comprises the steps of: providing, by a computing device, a two channel test sound to a user via a head set; receiving, by said computing device, a balance input signal, wherein said balance input signal relates to a perceived loudness of said left audio channel and a perceived loudness of said right audio channel of said two channel test sound by said user, and controlling, by a computing device, amplitudes of said left audio channel and said right audio channel of said two channel test sound provided to said user via said headset based on said received balance input signal; receiving, by said computing device, an approval signal, wherein said approval signal indicates that said user perceives a same level of loudness of said left audio channel and said loudness of said right audio channel; wherein a first of said at least two measurements is performed when said user is free from said hearing protector ear plug, and a second of said at least two measurements if performed when said user is wearing said hearing protector ear plug in one of its ears; said device further being arranged to, after performing said at least two measurements, perform the step of: determining said measure for said attenuation provided by said hearing protector ear plug based on said performed at least two measurements, wherein said two channel test sound to said user comprises a binaural audio test sound.”). Werner and Verhave are analogous arts as they are both related to devices used to measure hearing of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hearing attenuation test from Verhave into the device from Werner as it allows the device to not only test the hearing of the user, but also ensure the user has ample hearing protection by testing the hearing protection being used, which can ensure the user is protecting their ears and hearing ability.
The Werner/Verhave combination teaches output a second interface (Werner, [0068]: “Computer system 12 may include, … one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces”) configured to indicate a transition to a hearing protector fit test (Werner, [0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc. As shown in FIG. 4A, in one example, the other device is a mobile device 400 that receives a notification 402 instructing the user to perform a hearing test.”. If the system includes multiple tests, it would be obvious that one of the interfaces indicates a transition to a hearing protector fit test.), the second interface including at least a second interface element configured to be selectable by a second input to start the hearing protector fit test (Werner, ([0068]: “Computer system 12 may include, … one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces”). The one or more input/output interfaces can include the second interface.; [0065]: “a device (e.g., a hearing protection device) is used for hearing protection, as well as to perform a test (e.g., a hearing test) on-demand. The device relays notifications to a user and/or another subject in real-time relating to the tests”. Since the Werner/Verhave combination adds an additional test, it would be obvious that a second interface can include a second interface configured to be selectable to start the second test (the hearing protector fit test).);
determine the second input has selected the second interface element (Werner, [0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc. As shown in FIG. 4A, in one example, the other device is a mobile device 400 that receives a notification 402 instructing the user to perform a hearing test. Further, in one example, as shown in FIG. 4B, mobile device 400 is used in performing the test. For instance, an app 410 on mobile device 400 prompts the user with a notification 412: When you hear a tone, select either the left ear button 414a or the right ear button 414b or use the sensors on your hearing protection device.”; [0030]: “the user can touch the right sensor to indicate hearing a sound from the right speaker. Alternatively, a mobile device or other device can be used instead of sensors to select when and in which ear the sounds are heard.”);
in response to determining the second input has selected the second interface element, instruct at least the first audiometer stack to perform a second series of stimuli; receive a second set of one or more user responses for at least a second subset of the second series of stimuli (Verhave, [0026]: “the invention provides in a computing device arranged for determining a measure for an attenuation provided by a hearing protector ear pug when worn by a user, said computing device being arranged to perform at least two measurements, wherein each of said at least two measurements comprises the steps of: providing, by a computing device, a two channel test sound to a user via a head set; receiving, by said computing device, a balance input signal, wherein said balance input signal relates to a perceived loudness of said left audio channel and a perceived loudness of said right audio channel of said two channel test sound by said user, and controlling, by a computing device, amplitudes of said left audio channel and said right audio channel of said two channel test sound provided to said user via said headset based on said received balance input signal; receiving, by said computing device, an approval signal, wherein said approval signal indicates that said user perceives a same level of loudness of said left audio channel and said loudness of said right audio channel; wherein a first of said at least two measurements is performed when said user is free from said hearing protector ear plug, and a second of said at least two measurements if performed when said user is wearing said hearing protector ear plug in one of its ears; said device further being arranged to, after performing said at least two measurements, perform the step of: determining said measure for said attenuation provided by said hearing protector ear plug based on said performed at least two measurements, wherein said two channel test sound to said user comprises a binaural audio test sound.”).
However, the Werner/Verhave combination does not teach determining hearing thresholds of the user.
Henriksen teaches a hearing protection device with integrated audiometric testing. Specifically, Henriksen teaches determining a hearing threshold of a user (Column 2, lines 50, line 53: “testing each ear for a specific frequency would be an iterative process that hones-in on the user's hearing threshold (based on a plurality of test sound stimuli responses)”). Werner, Verhave, and Henriksen are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used to measure hearing of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hearing threshold from Henriksen into the Werner/Verhave combination as it allows the device to determine specific limit of sound that the user can hear, which can allow the system to have a specific value to use for comparisons.
The Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches based on the first set of one or more user responses, determine an unoccluded hearing threshold of the user (Werner, ([0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc. As shown in FIG. 4A, in one example, the other device is a mobile device 400 that receives a notification 402 instructing the user to perform a hearing test”; Verhave, [0026]: “a first of said at least two measurements is performed when said user is free from said hearing protector ear plug”; Henriksen, Column 2, lines 50, line 53: “testing each ear for a specific frequency would be an iterative process that hones-in on the user's hearing threshold (based on a plurality of test sound stimuli responses)”. The first set of responses are obtained when the user is free from the hearing protector ear plug, therefore the hearing threshold is an unoccluded hearing threshold.);
based on the second set of one or more user responses, determine an occluded hearing threshold of the user (Werner, ([0039]: “The hearing protection device has, e.g., an associated application (app) on the other device that may be used to instruct the user to perform a hearing test and/or to provide results, etc. As shown in FIG. 4A, in one example, the other device is a mobile device 400 that receives a notification 402 instructing the user to perform a hearing test”; Verhave, [0026]: “a second of said at least two measurements if performed when said user is wearing said hearing protector ear plug in one of its ears”; Henriksen, Column 2, lines 50, line 53: “testing each ear for a specific frequency would be an iterative process that hones-in on the user's hearing threshold (based on a plurality of test sound stimuli responses)”. The first set of responses are obtained when the user has a hearing protector plug in their ear, therefore the hearing threshold is an occluded hearing threshold.); and
determine a fit test result of the hearing protector fit test by comparing the unoccluded and occluded hearing thresholds, the fit test result including an indication of a hearing attenuation achieved by a hearing protector as worn by the user during the hearing protector fit test (Verhave, [0026]: “determining said measure for said attenuation provided by said hearing protector ear plug based on said performed at least two measurements”. The two measurements include the occluded and unoccluded hearing thresholds, therefore the measure for attenuation provided by the hearing protector ear plug is a comparison of the occluded and unoccluded hearing thresholds.).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (US 20200236466).
Regarding claim 11, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each ear cup attenuating structure includes a case (Werner, Fig. 1, reference characters “102a and 102b”).
However, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination does not teach the ear cup attenuating structure includes insulation.
Zhao teaches noise-suppression headphones. Specifically, Zhao teaches the ear cup attenuating structure includes insulation ([0126]: “the device may also be equipped with a passive noise cancellation structure made of a sound insulating material. The passive noise cancellation is physical noise cancellation, insulating the outside noises into the ear canal by means of a shell or an earmuff. This passive noise cancellation method has a relatively good effect on the noises above medium-high frequencies 1 kHz.”). Werner, Verhave, and Zhao are analogous devices as they are all related to noise suppressing hearing protection devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the insulation from Zhao into the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen combination as it allows the device to further attenuate the outside sounds, which can further protect the user’s ears and their hearing ability, which can ensure the user’s health stays as protected as possible.
Regarding claim 12, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen/Zhao combination teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the insulation is configured to attenuate high frequency noise from the exterior of the ear cup (Zhao, [0126]: “the device may also be equipped with a passive noise cancellation structure made of a sound insulating material. The passive noise cancellation is physical noise cancellation, insulating the outside noises into the ear canal by means of a shell or an earmuff. This passive noise cancellation method has a relatively good effect on the noises above medium-high frequencies 1 kHz.”).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen/Zhao combination as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Muelder (WO 2010133701).
Regarding claim 13, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen/Zhao combination teaches the system of claim 11.
However, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen/Zhao combination does not teach wherein the case is configured to attenuate low frequency noise from the exterior of the ear cup.
Muelder discloses a dynamic hearing protection device. Specifically, Muelder teaches wherein the case is configured to attenuate low frequency noise from the exterior of the ear cup (Page 3: “the shell 14 will provide for a (passive) acoustic attenuation of about 25 dB for medium frequencies … about 20 dB at low frequencies”). Werner, Verhave, Zhao, and Muelder are analogous devices as they are all related to noise suppressing hearing protection devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the case being configured to attenuate low frequency noise from Muelder into the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen/Zhao combination as it allows the device to further attenuate the outside sounds, which can further protect the user’s ears and their hearing ability, which can ensure the user’s health stays as protected as possible.
Regarding claim 14, the Werner/Verhave/Henriksen/Zhao/Muelder combination teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the case includes a side wall extending away from the cushion and an end wall to enclose the side wall, the end wall being curved in at least one dimension to reduce resonance with the stimuli from a speaker of the audiometer stack (Werner, Fig. 1, reference characters “102a and 102b).
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s argument regarding the rejections and objections previously set forth have been fully considered and are persuasive unless directly addressed subsequently.
Applicant has filed replacement drawings and amended the specification to overcome some of the drawing objections, however no replacement drawings have been filed for Figures 2A, 2B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 6A, and 8C as stated, therefore the drawing objections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Werner/Verhave combination does not teach the claimed invention, specifically the hearing tests being performed differently, and that the addition of Hendriksen does not cure the deficiencies of the Werner/Verhave combination. Applicant argues that the present invention is based on threshold audiometry where the user is presented with tones at various frequencies and intensities asked to indicate when they hear the tone. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the specific steps of the hearing tests) 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).
Applicant argues that the Werner/Verhave combination does not teach comparing the unoccluded and occluded hearing thresholds and that the addition of Henriksen does not cure this deficiency, however Verhave discloses comparing the hearing test results from the unoccluded test and the occluded test (Verhave, [0026]: “determining said measure for said attenuation provided by said hearing protector ear plug based on said performed at least two measurements”. The two measurements include the occluded and unoccluded hearing thresholds, therefore the measure for attenuation provided by the hearing protector ear plug is a comparison of the occluded and unoccluded hearing thresholds.), and Henriksen teaches determining hearing thresholds for each test (Henriksen, Column 2, lines 50, line 53: “testing each ear for a specific frequency would be an iterative process that hones-in on the user's hearing threshold (based on a plurality of test sound stimuli responses)”), therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
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 ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Jason Sims can be reached at 5712727540. 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.
/E.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights