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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, 17 recite “where”. Examiner recommends amending to –wherein—
-Claim 2 recites “450 ≤ X ≤ 500” in line 9. Examiner recommends including units in this recitation.
-Claim 10 recites “450 ≤ X ≤ 500” in line 8. Examiner recommends including units in this recitation.
-Claim 17 recites “450 ≤ X ≤ 500” in line 14. Examiner recommends including units in this recitation.
-Claims 1-3, 8-11, 16-18 recites “the Shepard tones”. Examiner recommends amending to –the plurality of Shepard tones—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, 6, 8 recites “a communication module” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to communicatively connect to the audio output device. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
Claim 1, 6, 9-15 recites “a tinnitus treatment system” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to communicatively connect to the communication module. According to the specification the tinnitus treatment system includes audio generation module, playback control module, stimulation module and database module [Pg. 7, lines 8-10] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1, 5, 9, 13 recites “a database module” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to store a Shepard scale that includes a plurality of Shepard tones. According to the specification the database module includes ROM, PROM, EPROM, HDD, or SSD [Pg. 7, lines 14-16] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1, 8, 9 recites “a playback control unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to execute a loop playback procedure. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
Claim 5, 13 recites “audio generation module” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is audio generation. According to the specification the audio generation module includes a frequency range setting unit, a sound type setting unit, and a Shepard scale generation unit [Pg. 7, lines 17-18] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 5, 13 recites “a frequency range setting unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to input tinnitus frequency. According to the specification the frequency range setting unit includes user interface displayed and operated through the display module [Pg. 8, lines 3-5] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 5, 13 recites “a sound type setting unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to select one of the sound templates from the database module. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
Claim 5, 13 recites “a Shepard scale generation unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to process the selected one of the sound templates. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
Claim 6, 14 recites “a stimulation module” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to randomly select one of the resting-time intervals. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
Claim 8 recites “a volume adjusting unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to adjust volume of the Shepard scale. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
Claim 16 recites “audio output device” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to output audio. According to the specification the audio output device includes headphones, earphones, or loudspeakers [Pg. 6, lines 1-5] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claim limitations:
“communication module”
“playback control unit”
“Shepard scale generation unit”
“stimulation module”
“volume adjusting unit”
“sound type setting unit”
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While these elements are briefly mentioned in the specification, there is no corresponding structure recited for these. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
-Claim 3 recites “the Shepard tones…that are consecutively outputted” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should possibly read –the Shepard tones…that are outputted—
-Claim 6 recites “the resting time intervals” in line 12. It is unclear which plural intervals are referred to when claim 1, line 4 originally referenced a singular resting time interval. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 6 recites “the T number of executions” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 9 recites “A tinnitus treatment system…electronic circuit or a software program…within an electronic device” in lines 5-6. It is unclear whether the electronic circuit or a software program that is constructed within an electronic device are required by the claim to be components on the tinnitus treatment system. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 11 recites “the Shepard tones…that are consecutively outputted” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should possibly read –the Shepard tones…that are outputted—
-Claim 14 recites “the resting time intervals” in lines 8-9. It is unclear which plural intervals are referred to when claim 9, line 3 originally referenced a singular resting time interval. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 14 recites “the T number of executions” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 16 recites “establishes a Shepard scale…frequency” in lines 17-1. It is unclear what the recitation of establishes imposes on the limitations required by the claim. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this requires the tinnitus treatment device to generate, output, create, develop, store data relevant to the scale or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 18 recites “the Shepard tones…that are consecutively outputted” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should possibly read –the Shepard tones…that are outputted—
-Claim 20 recites “the resting time intervals” in lines 8-9. It is unclear which plural intervals are referred to when claim 16, line 9 originally referenced a singular resting time interval. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 20 recites “the T number of executions” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choy (U.S. 6846284) in view of Dalesnale — Noise Ambient (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IINQ6iZXmjw)
Regarding Claim 1, Choy teaches a tinnitus treatment device adapted for use with an audio output device to perform tinnitus treatment on a user who has tinnitus at a tinnitus frequency [Abstract; “Reciprocal…speaker system”], said tinnitus treatment device comprising:
a communication module that is to be communicatively connected to the audio output device [Fig. 4, element 46 (transmitter/receiver)] and [Col 7, lines 1-5]; and
a tinnitus treatment system that is communicatively connected to said communication module [Fig. 4], and that includes:
a database module and that spans a frequency range covering the tinnitus frequency [Fig. 4, element 42 (memory)], [Col 6, lines 54-62] and [Col 7, lines 44-51]; and
a playback control module including a playback control unit that is communicatively connected to said database module [Fig. 4, element 10 (first sound generator)] and [Col 3, lines 42-60], and that is configured to, when activated, execute a loop playback procedure T number of times, where T ≥ 2 [Col 3, lines 61-64]—where plurality of times is interpreted to be 2 or more times;
wherein, in the loop playback procedure, said playback control unit reads the Shepard scale from said database module [Fig. 3A]—depicts superimposed sine waves which typically embody the characteristics of the Shepard scale further described in [Col 6, lines 9-37], and outputs the Shepard scale S number of times to the audio output device through said communication module in a manner that the Shepard tones are outputted in order from high frequency to low frequency, where S ≥ 2 [Fig. 3A]—showing two sound waves and [Col 6, lines 62-65]; and
wherein said playback control unit is configured to stop output of the Shepard scale for a resting-time interval after each execution of the loop playback procedure [Col 5, lines 54-Col 6, lines 6]—describing cancellation of the patient’s tinnitus tone, and a length of the resting-time interval is equal to time taken for a single execution of the loop playback procedure [Figs. 2A-2E]—depicting the cancellation of the patient’s tinnitus tone embodying a resting-time interval interpreted to be the reduction in the patient’s tinnitus tone.
Choy is silent on storing a Shepard scale that includes a plurality of Shepard tones. Dalesnale teaches storing a Shepard scale that includes a plurality of Shepard tones [Description ; “Tinnitus Dropper is a continuously downward shifting noise masking sound. It is loosely based on the Roger Shepard tone…Consequently an upward sound can feel uplifting, like the Tinnitus Lifter: Tinnitus Lifter | Noise Masking that Keeps... released in 2022.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Shepard tones and a Shepard scale as taught by Dalesnale to output audio to mask tinnitus frequencies as suggested by Choy, as Choy discusses determining the patient’s tinnitus sound wave characteristics and inserting a sine wave to cancel the patient’s tinnitus noise [Col 2, lines 11-18] with Dalesnale because Dalesnale teaches because the shifting noise passes through most listeners tinnitus ringing, this sound may help train the mind away from hearing ringing in the mind by the introduction of the new noise [Description].
Regarding Claim 9, Choy teaches a tinnitus treatment system [Abstract; “Reciprocal…speaker system”], implemented by at least one of an electronic circuit [Col 4, lines 22-23] or a software program that is constructed within an electronic device [Col 11, lines 51-42; “electronic recorder”], to perform tinnitus treatment on a user who has tinnitus at a tinnitus frequency [Abstract; “Reciprocal…speaker system”], said tinnitus treatment system comprising:
a database module and that spans a frequency range covering the tinnitus frequency [Fig. 4, element 42 (memory)], [Col 6, lines 54-62] and [Col 7, lines 44-51]; and
a playback control module including a playback control unit that is communicatively connected to said database module [Fig. 4, element 10 (first sound generator)] and [Col 3, lines 42-60], and that is configured to, when activated, execute a loop playback procedure T number of times, where T ≥ 2 [Col 3, lines 61-64]—where plurality of times is interpreted to be 2 or more times;
wherein, in the loop playback procedure, said playback control unit reads the Shepard scale from said database module [Fig. 3A]—depicts superimposed sine waves which typically embody the characteristics of the Shepard scale further described in [Col 6, lines 9-37], and outputs the Shepard scale S number of times to an audio output device in a manner that the Shepard tones are outputted in order from high frequency to low frequency, where S ≥ 2 [Fig. 3A]—showing two sound waves and [Col 6, lines 62-65]; and
wherein said playback control unit is configured to stop output of the Shepard scale for a resting-time interval after each execution of the loop playback procedure [Col 5, lines 54-Col 6, lines 6]—describing cancellation of the patient’s tinnitus tone, and a length of the resting-time interval is equal to time taken for a single execution of the loop playback procedure [Figs. 2A-2E]—depicting the cancellation of the patient’s tinnitus tone embodying a resting-time interval interpreted to be the reduction in the patient’s tinnitus tone.
Choy is silent on storing a Shepard scale that includes a plurality of Shepard tones. Dalesnale teaches storing a Shepard scale that includes a plurality of Shepard tones [Description ; “Tinnitus Dropper is a continuously downward shifting noise masking sound. It is loosely based on the Roger Shepard tone…Consequently an upward sound can feel uplifting, like the Tinnitus Lifter: Tinnitus Lifter | Noise Masking that Keeps... released in 2022.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Shepard tones and a Shepard scale as taught by Dalesnale to output audio to mask tinnitus frequencies as suggested by Choy, as Choy discusses determining the patient’s tinnitus sound wave characteristics and inserting a sine wave to cancel the patient’s tinnitus noise [Col 2, lines 11-18] with Dalesnale because Dalesnale teaches because the shifting noise passes through most listeners tinnitus ringing, this sound may help train the mind away from hearing ringing in the mind by the introduction of the new noise [Description].
Regarding Claim 16, Choy teaches a tinnitus treatment method adapted for a user who has tinnitus at a tinnitus frequency [Abstract; “Reciprocal…speaker system”], comprising:
an establishing step, and that spans a frequency range covering the tinnitus frequency [Fig. 4, element 42 (memory)], [Col 6, lines 54-62] and [Col 7, lines 44-51]; and
an outputting step, in which the tinnitus treatment device executes a loop playback procedure T number of times, where T ≥ 2 [Col 3, lines 61-64]—where plurality of times is interpreted to be 2 or more times;
wherein, in the loop playback procedure, the tinnitus treatment device outputs the Shepard scale S number of times to an audio output device in a manner that the Shepard tones are outputted in order from high frequency to low frequency, where S ≥ 2 [Fig. 3A]—depicts superimposed sine waves which typically embody the characteristics of the Shepard scale further described in [Col 6, lines 9-37]; and
wherein, in the outputting step, the tinnitus treatment device stops output of the Shepard scale for a resting-time interval after each execution of the loop playback procedure [Col 5, lines 54-Col 6, lines 6]—describing cancellation of the patient’s tinnitus tone, and a length of the resting-time interval is equal to time taken for a single execution of the loop playback procedure [Figs. 2A-2E]—depicting the cancellation of the patient’s tinnitus tone embodying a resting-time interval interpreted to be the reduction in the patient’s tinnitus tone.
Choy is silent on in which a tinnitus treatment device establishes a Shepard scale that includes a plurality of Shepard tones. Dalesnale teaches in which a tinnitus treatment device establishes a Shepard scale that includes a plurality of Shepard tones [Description ; “Tinnitus Dropper is a continuously downward shifting noise masking sound. It is loosely based on the Roger Shepard tone…Consequently an upward sound can feel uplifting, like the Tinnitus Lifter: Tinnitus Lifter | Noise Masking that Keeps... released in 2022.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Shepard tones and a Shepard scale as taught by Dalesnale to output audio to mask tinnitus frequencies as suggested by Choy, as Choy discusses determining the patient’s tinnitus sound wave characteristics and inserting a sine wave to cancel the patient’s tinnitus noise [Col 2, lines 11-18] with Dalesnale because Dalesnale teaches because the shifting noise passes through most listeners tinnitus ringing, this sound may help train the mind away from hearing ringing in the mind by the introduction of the new noise [Description].
Claim(s) 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choy (U.S. 6846284) in view of Dalesnale — Noise Ambient (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IINQ6iZXmjw) and in further view of Kilgard (U.S. 20170143550).
Regarding Claim 2, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on wherein in the loop playback procedure, the Shepard tones are outputted at an interval of X milliseconds, where 450 ≤ X ≤ 500. Kilgard teaches wherein in the loop playback procedure, the Shepard tones are outputted at an interval of X milliseconds, where 450 ≤ X ≤ 500 [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select this interval period as taught by Kilgard to output audio to treat or alleviate tinnitus as suggested by Choy, and Dalesnale as Choy discusses selection of time interval length [Figs. 8A-C] and Dalesnale which discloses introducing a new sound every 10 seconds [Description] with Kilgard because Kilgard teaches adjusting interval train length as appropriate for the patient [0073].
Regarding Claim 6, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on wherein said tinnitus treatment system includes a stimulation module that is configured to randomly select one of the resting-time intervals that are respectively after the T number of executions of the loop playback procedure, and to output, to the audio output device via said communication module, a stimulus sound for a predetermined period within the selected one of the resting-time intervals. Kilgard teaches wherein said tinnitus treatment system includes a stimulation module [0077] that is configured to randomly select one of the resting-time intervals that are respectively after the T number of executions of the loop playback procedure, and to output, to the audio output device via said communication module, a stimulus sound for a predetermined period within the selected one of the resting-time intervals [0081]—discusses random selection of stimulation intervals and tones and implementation of the end of therapy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide stimulation as taught by Kilgard for use in structured intervals as suggested by Choy, and Dalesnale as Choy discusses interval spacing [Col 12, lines 21-23] and Dalesnale which discloses introducing a new sound in intervals [Description] with Kilgard because Kilgard teaches sound as a neurostimulation technique including masking therapy auditory exposure and frequency discrimination training [0006].
Regarding Claim 7, Choy is silent on wherein the predetermined period for which the stimulus sound is outputted ranges from eight seconds to twelve seconds. Dalesnale teaches wherein the predetermined period for which the stimulus sound is outputted ranges from eight seconds to twelve seconds [Description; “A new sound is introduced every 10 seconds.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select this interval length as taught by Dalesnale to output audio to mask tinnitus frequencies as suggested by Choy, as Choy discusses intervals of at least one minute [Col 12, lines 10-13] with Dalesnale because Dalesnale teaches creating audio illusions to cause relaxation and grounding [Description].
Regarding Claim 8, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on wherein said playback control module includes a volume adjusting unit operable to adjust volume of the Shepard scale that is outputted by said playback control unit to the audio output device through said communication module. Kilgard teaches wherein said playback control module includes a volume adjusting unit operable to adjust volume of the Shepard scale that is outputted by said playback control unit to the audio output device through said communication module [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for volume adjustment as taught by Kilgard for an audio output device as suggested by Choy, and Dalesnale as Choy discusses adjustment of audio output generator [Col 4, lines 9-16] and Dalesnale which discloses the use of this audio to train the mind away from the tinnitus condition [Description] with Kilgard because Kilgard teaches the use of the volume adjustment units to test the tones and volume levels [0093].
Regarding Claim 10, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on wherein, in the loop playback procedure, the Shepard tones are outputted at an interval of X milliseconds, where 450 ≤ X ≤ 500. Kilgard teaches wherein in the loop playback procedure, the Shepard tones are outputted at an interval of X milliseconds, where 450 ≤ X ≤ 500 [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select this interval period as taught by Kilgard to output audio to treat or alleviate tinnitus as suggested by Choy, and Dalesnale as Choy discusses selection of time interval length [Figs. 8A-C] and Dalesnale which discloses introducing a new sound every 10 seconds [Description] with Kilgard because Kilgard teaches adjusting interval train length as appropriate for the patient [0073].
Regarding Claim 14, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on further comprising a stimulation module that is configured to randomly select one of the resting-time intervals that are respectively after the T number of executions of the loop playback procedure, and to output to the audio output device a stimulus sound for a predetermined period within the selected one of the resting-time intervals. Kilgard teaches further comprising a stimulation module [0077] that is configured to randomly select one of the resting-time intervals that are respectively after the T number of executions of the loop playback procedure, and to output to the audio output device a stimulus sound for a predetermined period within the selected one of the resting-time intervals [0081]—discusses random selection of stimulation intervals and tones and implementation of the end of therapy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide stimulation as taught by Kilgard for use in structured intervals as suggested by Choy, and Dalesnale as Choy discusses interval spacing [Col 12, lines 21-23] and Dalesnale which discloses introducing a new sound in intervals [Description] with Kilgard because Kilgard teaches sound as a neurostimulation technique including masking therapy auditory exposure and frequency discrimination training [0006].
Regarding Claim 15, Choy is silent on wherein the predetermined period for which the stimulus sound is outputted ranges from eight seconds to twelve seconds. Dalesnale teaches wherein the predetermined period for which the stimulus sound is outputted ranges from eight seconds to twelve seconds [Description; “A new sound is introduced every 10 seconds.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select this interval length as taught by Dalesnale to output audio to mask tinnitus frequencies as suggested by Choy, as Choy discusses intervals of at least one minute [Col 12, lines 10-13] with Dalesnale because Dalesnale teaches creating audio illusions to cause relaxation and grounding [Description].
Regarding Claim 17, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on wherein in the loop playback procedure, the Shepard tones are outputted at an interval of X milliseconds, where 450 ≤ X ≤ 500. Kilgard teaches wherein in the loop playback procedure, the Shepard tones are outputted at an interval of X milliseconds, where 450 ≤ X ≤ 500 [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select this interval period as taught by Kilgard to output audio to treat or alleviate tinnitus as suggested by Choy, and Dalesnale as Choy discusses selection of time interval length [Figs. 8A-C] and Dalesnale which discloses introducing a new sound every 10 seconds [Description] with Kilgard because Kilgard teaches adjusting interval train length as appropriate for the patient [0073].
Regarding Claim 20, Choy is silent on further comprising a stimulation step, in which the tinnitus treatment device randomly selects one of the resting-time intervals that are respectively after the T number of executions of the loop playback procedure, and outputs to the audio output device a stimulus sound for a predetermined period ranging from eight seconds to twelve seconds within the selected one of the resting-time intervals.
Dalesnale teaches a stimulus sound for a predetermined period ranging from eight seconds to twelve seconds within the selected one of the resting-time intervals [Description; “A new sound is introduced every 10 seconds.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select this interval length as taught by Dalesnale to output audio to mask tinnitus frequencies as suggested by Choy, as Choy discusses intervals of at least one minute [Col 12, lines 10-13] with Dalesnale because Dalesnale teaches creating audio illusions to cause relaxation and grounding [Description].
Choy and Dalesnale are silent on further comprising a stimulation step, in which the tinnitus treatment device randomly selects one of the resting-time intervals that are respectively after the T number of executions of the loop playback procedure, and outputs to the audio output device. Kilgard teaches further comprising a stimulation step [0077], in which the tinnitus treatment device randomly selects one of the resting-time intervals that are respectively after the T number of executions of the loop playback procedure, and outputs to the audio output device [0081]—discusses random selection of stimulation intervals and tones and implementation of the end of therapy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide stimulation as taught by Kilgard for use in structured intervals as suggested by Choy, and Dalesnale as Choy discusses interval spacing [Col 12, lines 21-23] and Dalesnale which discloses introducing a new sound in intervals [Description] with Kilgard because Kilgard teaches sound as a neurostimulation technique including masking therapy auditory exposure and frequency discrimination training [0006].
Claim(s) 3, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choy (U.S. 6846284) in view of Dalesnale — Noise Ambient (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IINQ6iZXmjw) and in further view of Vandali (WO 2022238791).
Regarding Claim 3, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on wherein any two of the Shepard tones of the Shepard scale that are consecutively outputted differ from each other by one semitone. Vandali teaches wherein any two of the Shepard tones of the Shepard scale that are consecutively outputted differ from each other by one semitone [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide differing semitones as taught by Vandali to output audio to treat or alleviate tinnitus as suggested by Choy, and Dalesnale as Choy discusses selection of time interval length [Figs. 8A-C] and Dalesnale which discloses a downward shifting noise [Description] with Vandali because Vandali teaches the use of this method with tinnitus therapy devices [0040].
Regarding Claim 11, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on wherein any two of the Shepard tones of the Shepard scale that are consecutively outputted differ from each other by one semitone. Vandali teaches wherein any two of the Shepard tones of the Shepard scale that are consecutively outputted differ from each other by one semitone [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide differing semitones as taught by Vandali to output audio to treat or alleviate tinnitus as suggested by Choy, and Dalesnale as Choy discusses selection of time interval length [Figs. 8A-C] and Dalesnale which discloses a downward shifting noise [Description] with Vandali because Vandali teaches the use of this method with tinnitus therapy devices [0040].
Regarding Claim 18, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on wherein any two of the Shepard tones of the Shepard scale that are consecutively outputted differ from each other by one semitone. Vandali teaches wherein any two of the Shepard tones of the Shepard scale that are consecutively outputted differ from each other by one semitone[0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide differing semitones as taught by Vandali to output audio to treat or alleviate tinnitus as suggested by Choy, and Dalesnale as Choy discusses selection of time interval length [Figs. 8A-C] and Dalesnale which discloses a downward shifting noise [Description] with Vandali because Vandali teaches the use of this method with tinnitus therapy devices [0040].
Claim(s) 4, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choy (U.S. 6846284) in view of Dalesnale — Noise Ambient (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IINQ6iZXmjw), in further view of Vandali (WO 2022238791) and in even further view of McLennan (U.S. 20220071805).
Regarding Claim 4, Choy, Dalesnale and Vandali are silent on wherein the Shepard scale spans the frequency range from one perfect octave lower than the tinnitus frequency to one perfect octave higher than the tinnitus frequency, and consists of twenty-four pitches of different frequencies. McLennan teaches wherein the Shepard scale spans the frequency range from one perfect octave lower than the tinnitus frequency to one perfect octave higher than the tinnitus frequency [0063-0070], and consists of twenty-four pitches of different frequencies [0100]—reference to smaller increments such as quarter tones which are known to contain 24 pitches per octave.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a range of one octave higher and lower than that of the tinnitus frequency as taught by McLennan to output audio to treat or alleviate tinnitus as suggested by Choy, Dalesnale and Vandali, as Choy discusses selection of time interval length [Figs. 8A-C], Dalesnale which discloses a downward shifting noise [Description] and Vandali which discusses the use of pitch coding to enhance hearing devices [Abstract] with McLennan because McLennan teaches the use sine clusters to treat tinnitus [0148].
Regarding Claim 12, Choy and Dalesnale and Vandali are silent on wherein the Shepard scale spans the frequency range from one perfect octave lower than the tinnitus frequency to one perfect octave higher than the tinnitus frequency, and consists of twenty-four pitches of different frequencies. McLennan teaches wherein the Shepard scale spans the frequency range from one perfect octave lower than the tinnitus frequency to one perfect octave higher than the tinnitus frequency [0063-0070], and consists of twenty-four pitches of different frequencies [0100]—reference to smaller increments such as quarter tones which are known to contain 24 pitches per octave.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a range of one octave higher and lower than that of the tinnitus frequency as taught by McLennan to output audio to treat or alleviate tinnitus as suggested by Choy, Dalesnale and Vandali, as Choy discusses selection of time interval length [Figs. 8A-C], Dalesnale which discloses a downward shifting noise [Description] and Vandali which discusses the use of pitch coding to enhance hearing devices [Abstract] with McLennan because McLennan teaches the use sine clusters to treat tinnitus [0148].
Regarding Claim 19, Choy and Dalesnale and Vandali are silent on wherein the Shepard scale spans the frequency range from one perfect octave lower than the tinnitus frequency to one perfect octave higher than the tinnitus frequency, and consists of twenty-four pitches of different frequencies. McLennan teaches wherein the Shepard scale spans the frequency range from one perfect octave lower than the tinnitus frequency to one perfect octave higher than the tinnitus frequency [0063-0070], and consists of twenty-four pitches of different frequencies [0100]—reference to smaller increments such as quarter tones which are known to contain 24 pitches per octave.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a range of one octave higher and lower than that of the tinnitus frequency as taught by McLennan to output audio to treat or alleviate tinnitus as suggested by Choy, Dalesnale and Vandali, as Choy discusses selection of time interval length [Figs. 8A-C], Dalesnale which discloses a downward shifting noise [Description] and Vandali which discusses the use of pitch coding to enhance hearing devices [Abstract] with McLennan because McLennan teaches the use sine clusters to treat tinnitus [0148].
Claim(s) 5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choy (U.S. 6846284) in view of Dalesnale — Noise Ambient (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IINQ6iZXmjw) and in further view of Huang (CN 111737515).
Regarding Claim 5, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on wherein said database module has a plurality of sound templates built therein, and said tinnitus treatment system includes an audio generation module; wherein said audio generation module includes: a frequency range setting unit that is operable to input the tinnitus frequency; a sound type setting unit that is operable to select one of the sound templates from said database module; and a Shepard scale generation unit that is configured to process the selected one of the sound templates into the Shepard scale based on the tinnitus frequency, and to store the Shepard scale into said database module. Huang teaches wherein said database module has a plurality of sound templates built therein [0024], and said tinnitus treatment system includes an audio generation module [0025];
wherein said audio generation module includes:
a frequency range setting unit that is operable to input the tinnitus frequency [0153];
a sound type setting unit that is operable to select one of the sound templates from said database module [0155]; and
a Shepard scale generation unit that is configured to process the selected one of the sound templates into the Shepard scale based on the tinnitus frequency, and to store the Shepard scale into said database module [0086]—description of the terminal and [0124].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the database with sound templates and user selectable settings as taught by Huang to vary audio output parameters as suggested by Choy and Dalesnale, as Choy discusses phase adjustment of the external tone [Col 1, lines 47-49], Dalesnale which discloses a downward shifting noise [Description] with Huang because Huang teaches the processing involved in extracting audio information related to the library [0125].
Regarding Claim 13, Choy and Dalesnale are silent on wherein said database module has a plurality of sound templates built therein, and said tinnitus treatment system further comprises an audio generation module that includes: a frequency range setting unit that is operable to input the tinnitus frequency; a sound type setting unit that is operable to select one of the sound templates from said database module; and a Shepard scale generation unit that is configured to process the selected one of the sound templates into the Shepard scale based on the tinnitus frequency, and to store the Shepard scale into said database module. Huang teaches wherein said database module has a plurality of sound templates built therein [0024], and said tinnitus treatment system further comprises an audio generation module [0025] that includes:
a frequency range setting unit that is operable to input the tinnitus frequency [0153];
a sound type setting unit that is operable to select one of the sound templates from said database module [0155]; and
a Shepard scale generation unit that is configured to process the selected one of the sound templates into the Shepard scale based on the tinnitus frequency, and to store the Shepard scale into said database module [0086]—description of the terminal and [0124].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the database with sound templates and user selectable settings as taught by Huang to vary audio output parameters as suggested by Choy and Dalesnale, as Choy discusses phase adjustment of the external tone [Col 1, lines 47-49], Dalesnale which discloses a downward shifting noise [Description] with Huang because Huang teaches the processing involved in extracting audio information related to the library [0125].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Nielsen (WO 2014094867)—includes disclosure of a hearing aid system using successive chords for enriching sound
-Theimer (CA 2721599)—discloses a system for controlling audio dosage to a user taking into account frequency ranges of the dosing
-Benattar (U.S. 20190028809)—includes an audio system with database memory and playback controllers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights