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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 02 September 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-20 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 25 June 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Applicant has failed to provide a copy of Foreign Patent Document No. 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hviid et al. ‘658 (US Pub No. 2018/0227658).
Regarding claim 1, Hviid et al. ‘658 teaches a system for bone conduction hearing or fit testing (Title, Abstract, [0045]), the system comprising:
a headset (Fig. 1 intelligent headset 10 and [0039]), wherein the headset includes:
a support structure (Fig. 1 connecting band 12 and [0039]);
a pair of ear cups connected by the support structure (Fig. 1 right ear portion 16, left ear portion 14 and [0039]), wherein each of the pair of ear cups include:
a cushion configured to seal an interior of the ear cup from an exterior of the ear cup when worn by a user (Fig 2. left ear cushion 30, right ear cushion 32 and [0042]);
an audiometer stack disposed in the interior of the ear cup ([0026], [0029], [0031]-[0032]; The sensors and transceivers are interpreted as an audiometer stack.); and
an ear cup attenuating structure surrounding the audiometer stack and being connected to the cushion, wherein the ear cup attenuating structure is configured to provide attenuation comparable to that of a sound booth ([0041]; “each microphone 18 & 20 may comprise an amplifier and/or an attenuator configured to modify sounds by either a fixed factor or in accordance with one or more user settings of an algorithm…”); and
a bone conductor configured to be mounted to a head of the user (Fig. 3 speakers 73 and [0045]; “the speakers 73 may be positioned proximate to a temporal bone of the user to conduct sound for people with limited hearing capacity”) and electronically connected to a first audiometer stack of the pair of ear cups, wherein a second audiometer stack of the pair of ear cups is electronically connected to the first audiometer stack ([0010]; “a processor disposed within the intelligent wireless headset and operatively connected to the at least one microphone of the left ear portion, the at least one speaker of the left ear portion, the at least one microphone of the right ear portion, and the at least one speaker of the right ear portion”); and
an interface device configured to wirelessly connect to the first audiometer stack and transmit instructions to and receive data from the first audiometer stack (Fig. 3 gesture interface 36 and [0055]);
wherein the first audiometer stack includes a first analog output, a second analog output, and a third analog output (Fig. 3 speakers 73 and [0044]; “operatively connected to the processor 40 are speakers 73 which may include one or more speakers in the left ear piece portion and the right ear piece portion”),
the first analog output drives a first speaker associated with the first audiometer stack ([0045]; “speakers 73 may produce ambient sounds modified by the processor 40”),
the second analog output drives a second speaker associated with the second audiometer stack ([0054]; “a transceiver 46 in a right ear portion 16 may transmit a signal encoding instruction for modifying a certain ambient sound (e.g. thunder) to a left ear portion 14 while receiving a signal encoding instruction for modifying crowd noise from the left ear portion 14”),
the third analog output drives the bone conductor ([0045]; “the speakers 73 may be positioned proximate to a temporal bone to the user to conduct sound for people with limited hearing capacity”), and
the third analog output is different than the first analog output and the second analog output (One of ordinary skill that the different outputs as mentioned in [0045] and [0054] are different from each other.).
Regarding claim 7, Hviid et al. ‘658 teaches wherein the support structure of the headset is a first support structure, and the bone conductor includes a second support structure (The connecting band 12 and left/right ear portions with the one or more speakers 73 are different support structures.).
Regarding claim 8, Hviid et al. ‘658 teaches wherein the second support structure is configured to hold the bone conductor on the head of the user (The left/right ear portions hold the speakers 73 on the head of the user.).
Regarding claim 10, Hviid et al. ‘658 teaches wherein the bone conductor incudes a pressure monitor (Fig. 3 blood pressure sensors 82 and [0043]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Apfel ‘119 (US Pub No. 2012/0288119).
Regarding claim 2, Hviid et al. ‘658 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the first analog input, the second analog input, and the third analog input are each configured to output a respective dynamic range.
Apfel ‘119 teaches that a speaker system produces an output signal as sound and a bone conduction system with an output signal as a vibration. The patient's inner ear is able to detect the vibrations, such that the user hears the tone ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first analog input, the second analog input, and the third analog input of Hviid et al. ‘658 to include being configured to output a respective dynamic range as Apfel ‘119 teaches that this will aid in the patient's inner ear is able to detect the vibrations, such that the user hears the tone.
Regarding claim 3, Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Apfel ‘119 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the first analog output, the second analog output, and the third analog output are configured to be driven separately.
Apfel ‘119 teaches a speaker system with an output signal for the left ear, right ear, or both ears and a bone conduction system with an output signal ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first analog output, the second analog output, and the third analog output of Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Apfel ‘119 to include being configured to be driven separately as Apfel ‘119 teaches that this will aid in the patient's inner ear is able to detect the vibrations, such that the user hears the tone ([0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Apfel ‘119 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the third analog output has a different dynamic range than the first analog output and the second analog output.
Apfel ‘119 teaches that a speaker system produces an output signal as sound and a bone conduction system with an output signal as a vibration. The patient's inner ear is able to detect the vibrations, such that the user hears the tone ([0039]). One of ordinary skill would understand that a sound output signal and a vibratory output signal have different dynamic ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third analog input of Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Apfel ‘119 to include having a different dynamic range than the first analog output and the second analog output as Apfel ‘119 teaches that this will aid in the patient's inner ear is able to detect the vibrations, such that the user hears the tone.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Apfel ‘119 further in view of Sazonov ‘953 (US Pub No. 2016/0073953).
Regarding claim 5, Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Apfel ‘119 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the dynamic range of the third analog output is smaller than the dynamic range of the first analog output and the second analog output.
Sazonov ‘953 teaches a microphone that picks up vibration signals rather than wave of sound pressure. The microphone may be highly insensitive to external noise, but sensitive to low-level sounds providing a dynamic range of, for example, 58 db and low power consumption of, for example, 0.5 ma at 3V ([0030]). The microphone would be more sensitive to low-level sounds whereas microphones that pick up sound pressure waves are not as sensitive to low-level sounds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamic range of the third analog output of Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Apfel ‘119 to include being smaller than the dynamic range of the first analog output and the second analog output as Sazonov ‘953 teaches that this will aid in being sensitive to low-level sounds.
Regarding claim 6, Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Apfel ‘119 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the dynamic range of the third analog output has a lower upper range than the dynamic range of the first analog output and the second analog output.
Sazonov ‘953 teaches a microphone that picks up vibration signals rather than wave of sound pressure. The microphone may be highly insensitive to external noise, but sensitive to low-level sounds providing a dynamic range of, for example, 58 db and low power consumption of, for example, 0.5 ma at 3V ([0030]). The microphone would be more sensitive to low-level sounds whereas microphones that pick up sound pressure waves are not as sensitive to low-level sounds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamic range of the third analog output of Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Apfel ‘119 to include having a lower upper range than the dynamic range of the first analog output and the second analog output as Sazonov ‘953 teaches that this will aid in being sensitive to low-level sounds.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Bauman et al. ‘834 (US Pub No. 2015/0036834).
Regarding claim 9, Hviid et al. ‘658 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the second support structure is configured to be adjustable to apply a variable fit and/or an amount of contact pressure between the bone conductor and the head of the user.
Bauman et al. ’834 teaches a headset with an adjustment member 230 to adjust the size of strap 220/25, so that it is comfortably fits the user’s head (Fig. 1 and [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second support structure of Hviid et al. ‘658 to include being adjustable to apply a variable fit and/or an amount of contact pressure between the bone conductor and the head of the user as Bauman et al. ‘834 teaches that this will aid in comfortably fitting on the user’s head.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Hatfield et al. ‘821 (US Pub No. 2022/0128821).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Hviid et al. ‘658 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the bone conductor includes a pressure monitor; and wherein the pressure monitor is configured to indicate a threshold contact pressure for hearing/fit testing has been applied between the bone conductor and the head of the user.
Hatfield et al. ‘821 teaches each of the plurality of bone conduction speakers are selectively turned on in response to pressure detected from pressure sensors in the sliding member that correspond to the plurality of bone conduction speakers sensing a pressure that satisfies a threshold pressure. In certain embodiments, the protrusion member further comprises at least one of a proximity sensor and a pressure sensor, the protrusion member automatically adjusted along the second axis until a proximity that the proximity sensor senses satisfying a proximity threshold and/or a pressure that the pressure sensor senses satisfying a pressure threshold ([0035]). It is noted that the protrusion member is the bone conduction speaker ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hviid et al. ‘658 that includes a pressure monitor that is configured to indicate a threshold contact pressure for hearing/fit testing has been applied between the bone conductor and the head of the user as Hatfield et al. ‘821 teaches that this will aid in adjusting a protrusion member until the pressure measured by the pressure sensor satisfies a pressure threshold.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Laaksonen et al. ‘087 (US Pub No. 2022/0167087).
Regarding claim 12, Hviid et al. ‘658 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the system is configured to: automatically change between air-conduction testing and bone-conduction testing based on user responses.
Laaksonen et al. ‘087 teaches an apparatus 10 responds to detection of the impairment by automatically changing the cut-off (cross-over) frequency so that higher frequency audio signals are provided via the bone-conduction audio output channel rather than the air-conduction audio output channel to improve privacy and reduce the likelihood of being overheard. The detection of such a privacy impairment can be activated when the audio signals rendered to the user comprise speech or other private content and/or when the energy spectrum of the audio signal exceeds a threshold value ([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hviid et al. ‘658 to include automatically changing between air-conduction testing and bone-conduction testing based on user responses as Laaksonen et al. ‘087 teaches that this will aid in improving privacy and reduce likelihood of being overheard.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Laaksonen et al. ‘087 further in view of Gross et al. ‘695 (US Pub No. 2007/0204695 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 13, Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Laaksonen et al. ‘087 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the system is configured to: determine, based on user responses, masking is required to continue testing.
Gross et al. ‘695 teaches to eliminate the better ear's participation in the outcome of the test in these instances, sensitivity of the better ear must be temporarily reduced. Reducing the sensitivity of the better ear is accomplished by introducing a masking signal via air conduction to the better ear. In general, the masking signal is a narrow band noise (NBN) for pure tone testing. The masking signal is presented to the better ear while the poorer ear is being tested. Clinical masking requires calculation and adjustment of a masking level so that the masking level will prevent the detection of the acoustic stimulus by the non-test ear and yet not interfere with the detection of the acoustic stimulus in the ear under test ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hviid et al. ‘658 in view of Laaksonen et al. ‘087 to include determining, based on user responses, masking is required to continue testing as Gross et al. ‘695 teaches that this will aid in eliminating the better ear's participation in the outcome of the test.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791