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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 01/27/2026.
Claims 1-18 and 20-22 are pending and will be examined. This action is made Final.
Applicant‘s arguments regarding claim interpretation of invoking 112(f) is persuasive. As such the claim interpretation of invoking 112(f) set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perri et al. (US 20220140628 A1) in view of Woodruff et al. (US 20200380945 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Perri teaches an audio transmitter configured for wirelessly communicating with a wireless audio reproducing device separate therefrom (Fig. 2: Charger 1, reads on the claimed audio transmitter, separately and wirelessly communicating with Hearing devices 2), the audio transmitter comprising:
at least one microphone configured to receive ambient audio and produce an ambient audio signal indicative of the received ambient audio (Fig. 3: Charger 1 having three microphones 3; also see Abstract and para [0031], [0039]-[0040], and [0045]);
a pairing component arranged to facilitate pairing of the audio transmitter with a wireless audio reproducing device (Fig. 3: Charger 1 radio transceiver 4 communicates with Hearing device 2, which also comprises a radio transceiver (not shown), e.g. a 2.4 GHz radio transceiver; inherently the radio transceiver 4 pairing with the hearing device 2 transceiver; also see the Abstract, para [0040], and [0049]);
an audio transmission component arranged to wirelessly transmit a short-range audio signal to a paired wireless audio reproducing device, the short-range audio signal usable by the wireless audio reproducing device to reproduce audio representative of the received ambient audio (Fig. 3: Radio transceiver 4 transmitting ambient audio signals collected by microphones 3 to Hearing device 2 radio transceiver (not shown); also see the Abstract, para [0040], [0049], and [0050]); and
a hearing assistance component arranged to process the ambient noise to reduce ambient noise and/or enhance a signal of interest and/or apply gains to the signal (Fig. 3: digital sound processors 9 and para [0050]).
Perri does not explicitly teach the hearing assistance component arranged to process the ambient audio signal so as to augment at least one frequency.
In the field of endeavor, Woodruff teaches a system comprising:
at least one microphone configured to receive ambient audio and produce an ambient audio signal indicative of the received ambient audio (Fig. 2: Microphone 3 and para [0024]-[0025]); and
a hearing assistance component arranged to process the ambient audio signal so as to augment at least one frequency (Fig. 2: Processor(s) in forms of Hearing loss compensation, Ambient sound environment analyzer 8, ASE Filter 6, and GASE; also see para [0004]-[0005], [0007], [0022], and [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Perri in view of Woodruff to have the digital sound processor to include the function of processing the ambient audio signal so as to augment at least one frequency. The motivation is providing user the ambient audio sound with the compensation according to the user’s hearing profile.
Regarding claim 2: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 1, comprising a noise reduction component arranged to process the ambient audio signal to increase the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the ambient audio signal and produce a noise processed audio signal, the audio transmission component arranged to use the noise processed audio signal to produce the short-range audio signal (Perri’s Fig. 3: Digital sound processor 9, para [0028]-[0029], [0050], and [0052]).
Regarding claim 3: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 2, comprising at least 2 microphones (Perri’s Fig. 3: three microphone 3 and para [0040]).
Regarding claim 4: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 3, wherein the noise reducing component is arranged to use the at least 2 microphones for directional processing to reduce noise in the received ambient audio signal (Perri’s para [0029] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 5: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 4 including the audio transmitter having three microphones (Perri’s Fig. 3: three microphones 3 and digital sound processors 9 configured to be focused on sound sources in one or more direction; see para [0051]) but does not explicitly teach the directional processing includes beam forming.
However, Woodruff further teaches the directional processing includes beam forming can be applied to multiple microphones (Woodruff’s Fig. 2: Microphone 3 and 4; and para [0024] and [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Perri in view of Woodruff to have the directional processing includes beam forming applied to multiple microphones. The motivation is providing a well-known technology to have microphones focusing on directions of interested sound sources.
Regarding claim 8: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the short-range audio signal is transmitted using at least one Bluetooth protocol (Perri’s para [0005] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 9: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 1, comprising a charging device arranged to charge the wireless audio reproducing device (Perri’s Fig. 3: Charging circuitry 7 and para [0041]).
Regarding claim 10: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 9, wherein the audio transmitter comprises a case arranged to contain the audio reproducing device, the audio transmitter arranged to charge the audio reproducing device when the audio reproducing device is received in the case (Perri’s Fig. 1 and para [0040]).
Regarding claims 11-13: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 10, wherein the audio transmitter includes at least one electrical contact for providing an electrical connection with the audio reproducing device when the audio reproducing device is received in the case; wherein the electrical connection is used to communicate between the audio transmitter and the audio reproducing device when the audio reproducing device is in the case; and wherein the audio transmitter is arranged to charge the audio reproducing device when an electrical connection is made between the case and the audio reproducing device (Perri’s Fig. 3: Charging circuitry 7 and para [0041] and [0017]).
Regarding claim 14: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 10, wherein the audio transmitter is arranged to wirelessly charge the audio reproducing device when the audio reproducing device is received in the case (Perri’s para [0017]).
Regarding claim 15 and 16: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 10, wherein the pairing component is arranged to pair the audio transmitter with an audio reproducing device when the audio reproducing device is received in the case, wherein the pairing component is arranged to pair with the audio transmitter in response to detection of the audio reproducing device (Perri’s para [0019] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 17: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 16, wherein the pairing component is arranged to pair the audio transmitter with an audio reproducing device using a proximity sensor, an infra-red sensor and/or at least one electrical contact (Perri’s para [0017], [0019], [0041], and [0044]).
Regarding claim 18: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the audio reproducing device is a set of ear buds (Perri’s para [0002]).
Regarding claim 20: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 19, wherein the hearing assistance component is arranged to process the ambient audio signal based on a hearing assistance profile associated with a user (Woodruff’s para [0004]-[0005], [0007], [0022], and [0025]).
Claims 6-7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perri et al. (US 20220140628 A1) in view of Woodruff et al. (US 20200380945 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 3; and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 6: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 3 but does not teach wherein the at least 2 microphones are matched such that they have substantially similar frequency and phase response characteristics.
However, the concept of matching the frequency and phase response to avoiding unwanted comb filtering or other artifacts caused by microphone mismatching is well-known technology in the art that is commonly applied to applications involving multiple microphones (Official Notice).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Perri in view of Woodruff, and further in view of Official Notice to have the at least 2 microphones substantially similar frequency and phase response characteristics. The motivation is providing microphone signals with least unwanted comb filtering or other artifacts.
Regarding claim 7: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 1 but does not explicitly teach each microphone has a signal to noise ratio (SNR) above about 65dB, and optionally above about 70dB.
However, it is well-known in the art that the average microphone signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) varies depending on the microphone type and intended use, but generally ranges from 60dB to 85dB for common microphones (Official Notice). It is also well-known that the microphones with higher microphone signal-to-noise ratio, optionally above 70dB, record cleaner signals with less background noises and provide a higher quality sound (Official Notice).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Perri in view of Woodruff, and further in view of Official Notice to have each microphone has a signal to noise ratio (SNR) above about 65dB, and optionally above about 70dB. The motivation is providing the audio transmitter with commonly used microphones while still achieving a clean signal with less background noise.
Regarding claim 22: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 1 wherein the Bluetooth protocol is utilized. Perri does not explicitly teach the latency of transmission of the short-range audio signals is less than about 20ms.
It is well-known in the art that keeping lower transmission latency in short-range wireless communication improves higher quality of audio playback for the Bluetooth transmitted audio signal. It is also well-known in the art that the combination of Bluetooth LE Audio (Released early 2020) and Snapdragon Sound S3 Gen 2 (Released in November 2022) can achieve the Bluetooth transmission latency under 20 ms (Official Notice).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Perri in view of Woodruff, and further in view of Official Notice to achieve of keeping transmission latency under 20 ms. The motivation is providing high quality of audio playback for the Bluetooth transmitted audio signal.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perri et al. (US 20220140628 A1) in view of Woodruff et al. (US 20200380945 A1), as applied to claim 20, and further in view of Campbell et al. (US 20210314692 A1).
Regarding claim 21: Perri in view of Woodruff teaches an audio transmitter as claimed in claim 20, wherein the user’s hearing profile stored in the audio reproducing device (Fig. 2: Hearing loss compensation Block and para [0004]).
Perri in view of Woodruff does not explicitly teach the hearing assistance profile is obtained from the audio reproducing device.
Campbell teaches a hearing assistant system wherein user’s hearing profile can be obtained/transmitted/uploaded/downloaded among audio reproducing devices and other devices by different processes (para [0034], [0056], and [0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Perri in view of Woodruff and further in view of Campbell to have the audio transmitter obtaining user’s hearing profile from the audio reproducing device. The motivation is to provide the audio transmitter user’s hearing profile to process the ambient audio signal according to the user’s hearing profile to compensate user’s hearing loss when the user’s hearing profile not pre-stored in the audio transmitter.
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 DAVID L TON whose telephone number is (571)270-7839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached at (571)272-7848. 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.
/DAVID L TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights