DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response the preliminary amendment filed on 9/22/2023.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 15 does not exclude transitory forms of signal transmission and are therefore directed to non- statutory subject matter. In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the current sound environment” lacks proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 3, the following limitations lack proper antecedent basis: “the following”, “the affirmative”, “the range between 1.25V and 1.65V”, “the current sound environment”, “the range between “1.3V and 1.6V”. Regarding claim 9, the following limitations lack proper antecedent basis: “ “the affirmative” and “the range between 1.25V and 1.65V”. Regarding claim 10, the following limitations lack proper antecedent basis: “the current sound environment” and “the range between 1.25V and 1.65V”. Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the steps of” lacks proper antecedent basis. Dependent claims 12-15 inherits the deficiencies of independent claim 11 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b). Further regarding claim 12, the following limitations lack proper antecedent basis: “the further steps of”, “the range between 1.25V and 1.65V”, “the identification of the ear level audio device operating in headset mode”, “the identification of the ear level audio device operating a in high sound pressure level environment”, “the range between “1.3V and 1.6V”, “the identification of an active adjustable vent actuator”, “the range between “1.0V and 1.3V”. Further regarding claim 13, the following limitations lack proper antecedent basis: “the further step of”, “the range between 1.25V and 1.65V”, “the level”. Further regarding claim 14, the following limitations lack proper antecedent basis: “the further step of”, “the range between 1.25V and 1.65V”, “the identification of the ear level audio device operating a in high sound pressure level environment”. Further regarding claim 15, the limitation “the steps of” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegumfeldt et al. (US 2015/0189448) in view of Krogsgaard et al. (US Patent 9344812). Regarding claims 1 and 11, Siegumfeldt et al. discloses (see fig. 2-5) an ear level audio device (50) comprising a power supply source (60), a DC-DC converter (11/12), a power supply rail (connecting line between 10 and 42/43/44/45/48) and a DC-DC controller (controller used in determining which regulated voltage to supply to the power supply rail), wherein the DC-DC converter (11/12) is adapted to provide a regulated power supply voltage (outputs from 11 and 12), wherein the power supply rail (connecting line between 10 and 42/43/44/45/48) is configured to receive the regulated power supply voltage (output from 11 and 12 to connecting line) and to provide the regulated power supply voltage to a plurality of ear level audio components (regulated voltage to 42/43/44/45/48), and wherein the DC-DC controller (controller used in determining which regulated voltage to supply to the power supply rail) is adapted to determine a preferred power supply rail voltage level for the ear level audio device based on identification of a specific operating situation (determination that the hearing aid is powered on, see paragraph 0049-0050) and in response to such an identification control the DC-DC converter (11/12) to provide the preferred regulated power supply voltage (see paragraph 0049-0050). Siegumfeldt et al. does not discloses an ear level audio device comprising an inductive dc/dc converter. Krogsgaard et al. discloses (see fig. 1-2 and 5) an ear level audio device (100) comprising an inductive dc/dc converter (102/500). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Siegumfeldt et al. to include the features of Krogsgaard et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 2, Siegumfeldt et al. discloses (see fig. 2-5) that the specific operating situation is selected from a group of operating situations comprising: a headset mode being active (see paragraph 0049-0050, which states that the hearing aid is fully receiving power), the current sound environment is a high sound pressure level environment, an adjustable vent actuator is active, and only basic functionality is active (see paragraph 0049-0050, which states that the hearing aid is fully receiving power). Regarding claim 4, Siegumfeldt et al. discloses (see fig. 2-5) that said plurality of ear level audio components are selected from a group comprising a wireless link (48), an acoustical- electrical input transducer, an electrical-acoustical output transducer, an Analog-Digital Converter (42), a Digital-Analog converter (44), a digital signal processor (43), and an adjustable vent actuator. Regarding claim 6, Siegumfeldt et al. does not disclose that the inductive DC-DC converter is operated using pulse width modulation. Krogsgaard et al. discloses (see fig. 1-2 and 5) that the inductive DC-DC converter (102/500) is operated using pulse width modulation (operation of 501). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Siegumfeldt et al. to include the features of Krogsgaard et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 7, Siegumfeldt et al. discloses (see fig. 2-5) that the ear level audio device is a hearing aid (50 is a hearing aid). Regarding claim 8, Siegumfeldt et al. discloses (see fig. 2-5) that the specific operating situation is a headset mode being active (see paragraph 0049-0050, which states that the hearing aid is fully receiving power).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 9-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegumfeldt et al. (US 2015/0189448) in view of Krogsgaard et al. (US Patent 9344812) and Pederson (WO 03/026348 A1). Regarding claims 3 and 12, Siegumfeldt et al. discloses (see fig. 2-5) that the that a DC-DC controller (controller used in determining which regulated voltage to supply to the power supply rail) is further adapted to carry out at least one of the following tasks monitoring whether only basic functionality is active (see paragraph 0049-0050, which states that the hearing aid is fully receiving power) and in the affirmative control a DC- DC converter to provide the regulated power supply voltage (see paragraph 0049-0050, which states when the hearing aid is fully receiving power, 12 supplies the regulated voltage). Siegumfeldt et al. does not disclose that the provide the regulated power supply voltage has a level in the range between 1.OV and 1.3V. Pederson discloses (see fig. 1) that a regulated power supply voltage has a level in a range between 1.OV and 1.3V (see pg. 21, lines 12-28). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Siegumfeldt et al. to include the features of Pederson because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 5, Siegumfeldt et al. discloses (see fig. 2-5) that the DC-DC controller (controller used in determining which regulated voltage to supply to the power supply rail) is further adapted to carry out at least two of said tasks (in addition to the task mentioned in the rejection of claim 3 above, Siegumfeldt et al. also discloses monitoring whether a headset mode is active (see paragraph 0049-0050, which states that the hearing aid is fully receiving power) and in the affirmative control the inductive DC-DC converter to provide the regulated power supply voltage (see paragraph 0049-0050, which states when the hearing aid is fully receiving power, 12 supplies the regulated voltage). Siegumfeldt et al. does not disclose that the provide the regulated power supply voltage has a level in the range between 1.25V and 1.65V. Pederson discloses (see fig. 1) that a regulated power supply voltage has a level in a range between 1.25V and 1.65V (see pg. 21 line 28-pg 22 line 5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Siegumfeldt et al. to include the features of Pederson because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claims 9 and 13, Siegumfeldt et al. discloses (see fig. 2-5) that the DC-DC controller (controller used in determining which regulated voltage to supply to the power supply rail) is further adapted to monitor whether a headset mode is active (see paragraph 0049-0050, which states that the hearing aid is fully receiving power) and in the affirmative control the inductive DC-DC converter to provide the regulated power supply voltage (see paragraph 0049-0050, which states when the hearing aid is fully receiving power, 12 supplies the regulated voltage). Siegumfeldt et al. does not disclose that the provide the regulated power supply voltage has a level in the range between 1.25V and 1.65V. Pederson discloses (see fig. 1) that a regulated power supply voltage has a level in a range between 1.25V and 1.65V (see pg. 21 line 28-pg 22 line 5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Siegumfeldt et al. to include the features of Pederson because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claims 10 and 14, Siegumfeldt et al. does not disclose that the DC-DC controller is further adapted to monitor whether the current sound environment has a sound pressure level above a first threshold value and whether a sound with an estimated sound pressure level above a second threshold is to be provided and in case at least one is affirmative control the inductive DC-DC converter to provide the regulated power supply voltage with a level in the range between 1.25 V and 1.65 V. Pederson discloses (see fig. 1) that a controller is further adapted to monitor whether a current sound environment (noise levels, see pg. 17 line 24-pg 18 line 5) has a sound pressure level above a first threshold value (noise levels, see pg 17 line 24-pg 18 line 5) and whether a sound with an estimated sound pressure level above a second threshold is to be provided (noise levels, see pg. 17 line 24-pg 18 line 5) and in case at least one is affirmative control the inductive DC-DC converter to provide the regulated power supply voltage with a level in the range between 1.25 V and 1.65 V (see pg. 21 line 28-pg 22 line 5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Siegumfeldt et al. to include the features of Pederson because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chen et al. (US 2010/0148867) discloses an audio unit with a regulator providing a regulate voltage. Wu (US Patent 7482866) discloses an audio system with power-on/off noise suppression. Bergmann et al. (US Patent 10575106) discloses a modular hearing aid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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 A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838