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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 7, 11, 13, 16, 25 and 27-31 are rejected
Claims 3-6, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 17-24, 26 and 32-33 are objected to
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.
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)(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) 1-2, 7, 16, 21, 28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by D’Orazio et al (US PUB 20230370758, hereinafter Dorazio).
Regarding Claim 1, Dorazio discloses an in-ear hearable device for monitoring exposure to continuous noise, impulse noise, blast overpressure, and head impacts (see figures 1 and 2), comprising: a left earpiece and a right earpiece (e.g. left and right earplugs 100) each shaped to fit in a concha of a respective ear of a wearer (see figures 1 and 6), with the left earpiece and right earpiece each including:
a sound port tube (e.g. a sound port tube 104/106) extending from an earpiece interior into an ear canal of the wearer (see figure 2); a sound-attenuating eartip (e.g. earplug 102) fitted to the sound port tube and providing hearing protection without blocking the sound port tube (e.g. the sound port tube 104/106 has an unblocked end 103), (see figure 2); one or more internal acoustic sensors (e.g. acoustic sensor 105) coupled to the sound port tube for measuring continuous and impulse noise exposure (see figure 2); and one or more motion sensors to detect one or more of linear accelerations and angular rates for measuring head impact exposure (e.g. each earplug can include physical elements configured to mitigate false readings from mechanical contact to the earplugs through one or more of the sensors, such as detecting physical shock to the earplug using an accelerometer; also each earplug can include an impact sensor or assessment system (e.g., B3 Impact Assessment System, Linx IAS®) to detect, record, and flag hits to the head), (see Dorazio, [0020], [0022]-[0023], and [0045]-[0046], also figures 1-2 and 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Dorazio discloses the device of claim 1, further including at least one processor (e.g. processing circuit 300), wherein the at least one processor is configured to process a function to receive analog signals or digital signals from one or more internal acoustic sensors (e.g. inter sensor 105) and one or more motion sensors (e.g. an accelerator), and to compute exposure metrics for continuous noise, impulse noise, blast overpressure, and head impacts (e.g. the earplug can include an impact sensor or assessment system (e.g., B3 Impact Assessment System, Linx IAS®) to detect, record, and flag hits to the head; together with a blast monitoring system (e.g., B3 Blast Gauge® System (BGS)), each of these sensors can be fed into a single app, combining blast, noise, and impact monitoring to create a monitor for all major forces that affect the ear and brain); (see Dorazio, [0031] and [0043]-[0046], also figures 3-5).
Regarding Claim 7, Dorazio discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising one or more external acoustic sensors (e.g. external acoustic sensors 112, 115) in each of the left and right earpieces, coupled through an external port (e.g. external port 113, 116) to an environment outside the ear of the wearer (see Dorazio, [0024]-[0025], and figure 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Dorazio discloses an in-ear hearable device for monitoring exposure to continuous noise, impulse noise, blast overpressure, and head impacts (see figures 1 and 2), comprising: a left earpiece and a right earpiece (e.g. left and right earplugs 100) each shaped to fit in a concha of a respective ear of a wearer (see figures 1 and 6), with the left earpiece and right earpiece each including:
a sound port tube (e.g. a sound port tube 104/106) extending from an earpiece interior into an ear canal of the wearer (see figure 2); a sound-attenuating eartip (e.g. earplug 102) fitted to the sound port tube and providing hearing protection without blocking the sound port tube (e.g. the sound port tube 104/106 has an unblocked end 103), (see figure 2); one or more microphones (e.g. interior microphone 105) coupled to the sound port tube for measuring continuous and impulse noise exposure (see figure 2); and one or more accelerometers or gyroscopes to detect one or more of linear accelerations and angular rates for measuring head impact exposure (e.g. the earplug further includes accelerometer and an impact sensor or assessment system such as B3 Impact Assessment System, Linx IAS®, for detecting head impact exposure), (see figures 2), at least one processor (e.g. processing circuit 300), wherein the at least one processor is configured to process a function to receive analog signals or digital signals from one or more internal acoustic sensors (e.g. inter sensor 105) and one or more motion sensors (e.g. an accelerator), and compute exposure metrics for continuous noise, impulse noise, blast overpressure, and head impacts (e.g. the earplug can include an impact sensor or assessment system (e.g., B3 Impact Assessment System, Linx IAS®) to detect, record, and flag hits to the head; together with a blast monitoring system (e.g., B3 Blast Gauge® System (BGS)), each of these sensors can be fed into a single app, combining blast, noise, and impact monitoring to create a monitor for all major forces that affect the ear and brain); ( see Dorazio, [0020], [0022]-[0023], [0031], and [0043]-[0046], also figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 21, Dorazio discloses the device of claim 16, further comprising one or more external acoustic sensors (e.g. external acoustic sensors 112, 115) in each of the left and right earpieces, coupled through an external port (e.g. external port 113, 116) to an environment outside the ear of the wearer (see Dorazio, [0024]-[0025], and figure 2).
Regarding Claim 28, Dorazio discloses the device of claim 16, further comprising a wireless transceiver configured to communicate exposure metrics to a head or body-mounted monitor (e.g. the earplugs can further include a wireless communication interface to transmit data to devices), (see Dorazio, [0019], figures 2 and 6).
Regarding Claim 30, Dorazio discloses the device of claim 28, wherein the head or body-mounted monitor is configured to provide one or more of visual, tactile, and audible warnings of exposure exceedances (e.g. the devices can alert the subject to unsafe levels), (see Dorazio, [0019], and figures 2-3).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorazio as applied to Claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Berg et al (US PUB 20060140425, hereinafter Berg).
Regarding Claim 11, Dorazio discloses the device of claim 7, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising one or more speakers in each of the left and right earpieces acoustically coupled to the sound port tube.
However, Berg in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a monitoring in-ear hearable device with a right and left earpieces, wherein the each of the left and right earpiece comprises one or more speakers (e.g. speaker 18) acoustically coupled to sound port tube as demonstrated in [0024] and [0027], also figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention as taught by Berg in the teachings of Dorazio in order to provide the user with acoustic information regarding the monitoring results, and also to enable the user to receive other pertinent audio information or media contents.
Regarding Claim 13, Dorazio as modified by Berg discloses the device of claim 11, wherein the one or more speakers (speaker 18) provide an aural warning to alert the wearer of exceedances for continuous noise, impulse noise, head impact, or blast exposures (e.g. the devices can alert the subject to unsafe levels), (see Dorazio, [0019], and figures 2-3; also Berg, figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 25, Dorazio discloses the device of claim 21, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising one or more speakers in each of the left and right earpieces acoustically coupled to the sound port tube.
However, Berg in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a monitoring in-ear hearable device with a right and left earpieces, wherein the each of the left and right earpiece comprises one or more speakers (e.g. speaker 18) acoustically coupled to sound port tube as demonstrated in [0024] and [0027], also figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention as taught by Berg in the teachings of Dorazio in order to provide the user with acoustic information regarding the monitoring results, and also to enable the user to receive other pertinent audio information or media contents.
Regarding Claim 27, Dorazio as modified by Berg discloses the device of claim 25, wherein the one or more speakers (speaker 18) provide an aural warning to alert the wearer of exceedances for continuous noise, impulse noise, head impact, or blast exposures (e.g. the devices can alert the subject to unsafe levels), (see Dorazio, [0019], and figures 2-3; also Berg, figures 1-2).
Claim(s) 29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorazio in view on Berg as applied to Claim 28 above, and further in view of Boesen et al (US PUB 20180324515, hereinafter Boesen).
Regarding Claim 29, Dorazio as modified by Berg discloses the device of claim 28, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a wireless communication method is a near-field communication method for establishing a body-area network with a range of less than approximately 30 inches.
However, Boesen in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to provide earpiece with a near-field wireless communication method for establishing a body-area network with a range of less than approximately 30 inches (e.g. within a threshold of about 1 foot or 12 inches) as demonstrated in [0046], also figure 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate a near-field wireless communication as taught by Boesen in the teachings of Dorazio in view of Berg in order to ease communication between the earpieces and any other external devices that are in close proximity, and thereby further enhancing the operation of the earpieces.
Regarding Claim 31, Dorazio as modified by Berg and Boesen discloses the device of claim 28, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to send and receive synchronization signals between each left and right earpiece and the head or body-mounted monitor (see Boesen, [0076], and figures 5-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 17-24, 26 and 32-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record provided on PTO 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYESOLA C OJO whose telephone number is (571)272-0848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm Central Time.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7840. 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.
/OYESOLA C OJO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695.