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 .
Applicant’s arguments filed in the reply on June 10, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 1 and 11 were amended. Please see below for more detail.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim(s) recites “determining, by a processor of the computing device, one or more health characteristics of the inner ear of the user based at least in part on the recorded otoacoustic emissions” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“emitting, by a signal generator, a stimulus tone that is to be received by a user, wherein the stimulus tone comprises a swept level stimuli that is swept over a range of decibel values;”
“recording, in a memory of a computing device, otoacoustic emissions generated by an inner ear of the user, wherein the otoacoustic emissions are in response to the stimulus tone;”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities.
Furthermore, signal generators are general fields of use and memories and processors are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of evaluating otoacoustic emissions generated by an inner ear to determine health characteristics of the inner ear of the user and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-10 also do not recite patent eligible subject matter as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim(s) recites “determines one or more health characteristics of the inner ear of the user based at least in part on the otoacoustic emissions” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“a signal generator that emits a stimulus tone that is to be received by a user, wherein the stimulus tone comprises a swept level stimuli that is swept over a range of decibel values;
a computing device operatively coupled to the signal generator, wherein the computing device includes:
a memory that stores otoacoustic emissions generated by an inner ear of the user, wherein the otoacoustic emissions are in response to the stimulus tone;”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities.
Furthermore, signal generators are general fields of use and memories and processors are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of evaluating otoacoustic emissions generated by an inner ear to determine health characteristics of the inner ear of the user and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 12-20 also do not recite patent eligible subject matter as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
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) 1-4, 7-8, 11-14, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Housley et al (US 2021/0015405) (“Housley”) in view of Anderson (US 2011/0075833) and further in view of John (US 2006/0153396).
Regarding Claim 1, while Housley teaches a method of conducting an otoacoustic emission testing (Abstract), the method comprising:
Emitting, by a signal generator, a stimulus tone that is to be received by a user, wherein the stimulus tone comprises a swept level stimuli ([0100]-[0102] “Two EC1 electrostatic speakers were controlled by the controller to generated unequal intensity primary tones (f1 and f1; f2/f1 ratio=1.25; L1=L2+10 dB). For human studies recordings were taken at 4 kHz presented from 50 to 65 dB SPL (in 5 dB increments).” [0011] where the emission spectrum of the emitted stimulus tone may sweep across a broad frequency range) that is output at discrete values over a range of decibel values ([0101] range of decibel values between 50 to 65 dB in 5 dB increments);
recording, in a memory of a computing device, otoacoustic emissions ([0023], [0062]) generated by an inner ear of the user, wherein the otoacoustic emissions are in response to the stimulus tone ([0064]); and
determining, by a processor of the computing device, one or more health characteristics of the inner ear of the user based at least in part on the recorded otoacoustic emissions ([0023], [0097], [0122]).
Housley fails to teach the emitted stimulus tone comprises a swept level stimuli that is swept over a range of decibel values.
However Housley further teaches a previous study of hearing testing applied on mice utilizing a swept level stimuli that is swept over a range of decibel values ([0080] “In the inventor's studies using mice, male and female (9-17 weeks) wildtype (P2rx2.sup.(+/+)) and P2rx2-null (P2rx2.sup.(−/−)) mice on a C57Bl/6J background (Australian BioResources, Moss Vale, NSW, Australia) were used. Hearing testing was carried out in a sound-attenuating chamber using an auditory-evoked potential ABR and DPOAE workstation with signal processors programmed with software for performing the tests and signal analysis… The cubic (2f1−f2) DPOAEs [25] were detected using a microphone coupled to the ear canal, driven by the paired primary tones (168ms duration, 6/sec from 0 to 70 dB in 2.5 dB SPL steps), with 50 sound stimuli analysed by Fast Fourier transformation. The threshold level for DPOAEs was defined as the sound level producing a cubic DPOAE with an amplitude of 5 dB above the noise floor. The noise floor was determined as an average of two points on either side of the cubic DPOAE.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the stimuli levels of Housley’s first embodiment in a continuous swept manner as there are certain testing benefits from this characteristic of stimuli change. For example, the hearing testing of Anderson includes identification of a loudness discomfort level with such a stimuli ([0028]-[0029], [0137] loudness recruitment testing for a patient is best done with continuous, small changes in stimuli level). Another example is the hearing testing of John where acoustic stimuli may be presented in a sweeping manner at multiple levels ([0016], [0028], [0043] Fig. 7) where a hearing test may be performed rapidly when the stimulus level is changed in a sweeping manner ([0111]).
Regarding Claim 2, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the method of claim 1, wherein the swept level stimuli simultaneously includes a plurality of distinct frequencies (See Claim 1 Rejection, [0101]).
Regarding Claim 3, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the method of claim 1, and Abdala further teaches wherein the stimulus tone comprises a pair of stimulus tones that have a fixed frequency ratio (See Claim 1 Rejection, [0101] f2/f1 = 1.25).
Regarding Claim 4, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the method of claim 3, wherein the fixed frequency ratio is in a range between 1.1 and 1.3 (See Claim 3 Rejection, [0101] f2/f1 = 1.25).
Regarding Claim 7, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the method of claim 1, and Housley further teaches in a second embodiment wherein determining one or more health characteristics includes determining a growth function for the inner ear of a user (Table 5, [0164]-[0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the growth function analysis of Housley for the first embodiment as this enables an identification of adaptation of hearting sensitivity in the patient ([0165]).
Regarding Claim 8, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the method of claim 7, wherein the growth function comprises a pattern of distortion product otoacoustic emission growth with increasing stimulus level at a given frequency (See Claim 7 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 11, while Housley teaches a system for conducting an otoacoustic emission test (Abstract), the system comprising:
a signal generator that emits a stimulus tone that is to be received by a user, wherein the stimulus tone comprises a swept level stimuli ([0100]-[0102] “Two EC1 electrostatic speakers were controlled by the controller to generated unequal intensity primary tones (f1 and f1; f2/f1 ratio=1.25; L1=L2+10 dB). For human studies recordings were taken at 4 kHz presented from 50 to 65 dB SPL (in 5 dB increments).” Speakers as signal generators, [0011] where the emission spectrum of the emitted stimulus tone may sweep across a broad frequency range) that is output at discrete values over a range of decibel values ([0101] range of decibel values between 50 to 65 dB in 5 dB increments);
a computing device operatively coupled to the signal generator (Fig. 1, [0023], [0061]), wherein the computing device includes:
a memory that stores otoacoustic emissions generated by an inner ear of the user ([0023], [0062]), wherein the otoacoustic emissions are in response to the stimulus tone ([0064]);
a processor operatively coupled to the memory (Fig. 1, [0023], [0061] processor 130 operatively connected to the memory 150), wherein the processor determines one or more health characteristics of the inner ear of the user based at least in part on the otoacoustic emissions ([0023], [0097], [0122]).
Housley fails to teach the emitted stimulus tone comprises a swept level stimuli that is swept over a range of decibel values.
However Housley further teaches a previous study of hearing testing applied on mice utilizing a swept level stimuli that is swept over a range of decibel values ([0080] “In the inventor's studies using mice, male and female (9-17 weeks) wildtype (P2rx2.sup.(+/+)) and P2rx2-null (P2rx2.sup.(−/−)) mice on a C57Bl/6J background (Australian BioResources, Moss Vale, NSW, Australia) were used. Hearing testing was carried out in a sound-attenuating chamber using an auditory-evoked potential ABR and DPOAE workstation with signal processors programmed with software for performing the tests and signal analysis… The cubic (2f1−f2) DPOAEs [25] were detected using a microphone coupled to the ear canal, driven by the paired primary tones (168ms duration, 6/sec from 0 to 70 dB in 2.5 dB SPL steps), with 50 sound stimuli analysed by Fast Fourier transformation. The threshold level for DPOAEs was defined as the sound level producing a cubic DPOAE with an amplitude of 5 dB above the noise floor. The noise floor was determined as an average of two points on either side of the cubic DPOAE.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the stimuli levels of Housley’s first embodiment in a continuous swept manner as there are certain testing benefits from this characteristic of stimuli change. For example, the hearing testing of Anderson includes identification of a loudness discomfort level with such a stimuli ([0028]-[0029], [0137] loudness recruitment testing for a patient is best done with continuous, small changes in stimuli level). Another example is the hearing testing of John where acoustic stimuli may be presented in a sweeping manner at multiple levels ([0016], [0028], [0043] Fig. 7) where a hearing test may be performed rapidly when the stimulus level is changed in a sweeping manner ([0111]).
Regarding Claim 12, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the system of claim 11, wherein the swept level stimuli simultaneously includes a plurality of distinct frequencies (See Claim 11 Rejection, [0101]).
Regarding Claim 13, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the system of claim 11, and Abdala further teaches wherein the stimulus tone comprises a pair of stimulus tones that have a fixed frequency ratio (See Claim 11 Rejection, [0101] f2/f1 = 1.25).
Regarding Claim 14, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the system of claim 11, wherein the fixed frequency ratio is in a range between 1.1 and 1.3 (See Claim 13 Rejection, [0101] f2/f1 = 1.25).
Regarding Claim 16, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the system of claim 11, further comprising a measurement probe configured to record the otoacoustic emissions generated by the inner ear of the user (See Claim 11 Rejection, [0061] uses a microphone as a measurement probe 110).
Regarding Claim 18, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the system of claim 11, and Housley further teaches in a second embodiment wherein determining one or more health characteristics includes determining a growth function for the inner ear of a user (Table 5, [0164]-[0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the growth function analysis of Housley for the first embodiment as this enables an identification of adaptation of hearting sensitivity in the patient ([0165]).
Regarding Claim 19, Housley, Anderson, and John teach the system of claim 18, wherein the growth function comprises a pattern of distortion product otoacoustic emission growth with increasing stimulus level at a given frequency (See Claim 18 Rejection).
Claim(s) 5-6, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Housley in view of Anderson and further in view of John and further in view of Abdala et al (“Characterizing the Relationship Between Reflection and Distortion Otoacoustic Emissions in Normal‑Hearing Adults”) (“Abdala”).
Regarding Claim 5, while Housley, Anderson, and John teach the method of claim 1, their combined efforts fail to teach the method further comprising calibrating the stimulus tone using a forward pressure level (FPL) technique.
However Abdala teaches a method for conducting an otoacoustic emission test (Abstract) comprising calibrating the stimulus tone using a forward pressure level (FPL) technique (p649, Instrumentation and Calibration, “Forward-pressure-level (FPL) stimulus calibration was applied to correct for the effects of ear-canal standing waves on stimulus level by controlling the amplitude of the forward-traveling stimulus wave rather than the total pressure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calibrate the stimulus tone of Housley using a forward pressure level (FPL) technique taught by Abdala to correct for the effects of ear-canal standing waves on stimulus levels, ensuring more accurate results.
Regarding Claim 6, while Housley, Anderson, and John teach the method of claim 1, their combined efforts fail to teach determining the one or more health characteristics includes determining an amount of cochlear aging in the user.
However Abdala teaches a method for conducting an otoacoustic emission test (Abstract) determining the one or more health characteristics includes determining an amount of cochlear aging in the user (p661, Distinguishing Among Hearing Losses, “While both SFOAEs and DPOAEs drop in level with aging, the decline is greater for distortion emissions. That is, OAEs in elderly adults are more reduced along the DPOAE level dimension (y-axis) than the SFOAE level dimension (x-axis). A different cochlear pathology—for example, one producing equal reduction in both SFOAE and DPOAE levels—could possibly be distinguished from this pattern.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calibrate the stimulus tone of Housley using a forward pressure level (FPL) technique taught by Abdala to correct for the effects of ear-canal standing waves on stimulus levels, ensuring more accurate results.
Regarding Claim 15, while Housley, Anderson, and John teach the system of claim 11, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to calibrate the stimulus tone using a forward pressure level (FPL) technique.
However Abdala teaches a method for conducting an otoacoustic emission test (Abstract) comprising calibrating the stimulus tone using a forward pressure level (FPL) technique (p649, Instrumentation and Calibration, “Forward-pressure-level (FPL) stimulus calibration was applied to correct for the effects of ear-canal standing waves on stimulus level by controlling the amplitude of the forward-traveling stimulus wave rather than the total pressure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calibrate the stimulus tone of Housley using a forward pressure level (FPL) technique taught by Abdala to correct for the effects of ear-canal standing waves on stimulus levels, ensuring more accurate results.
Regarding Claim 17, while Housley, Anderson, and John teach the system of claim 11, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the one or more health characteristics include an amount of cochlear aging in the user.
However Abdala teaches a method for conducting an otoacoustic emission test (Abstract) determining the one or more health characteristics includes determining an amount of cochlear aging in the user (p661, Distinguishing Among Hearing Losses, “While both SFOAEs and DPOAEs drop in level with aging, the decline is greater for distortion emissions. That is, OAEs in elderly adults are more reduced along the DPOAE level dimension (y-axis) than the SFOAE level dimension (x-axis). A different cochlear pathology—for example, one producing equal reduction in both SFOAE and DPOAE levels—could possibly be distinguished from this pattern.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calibrate the stimulus tone of Housley using a forward pressure level (FPL) technique taught by Abdala to correct for the effects of ear-canal standing waves on stimulus levels, ensuring more accurate results.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Housley in view of Anderson and further in view of John and further in view of Zoth et al (US 2007/0156063) (“Zoth”).
Regarding Claim 9, while Housley, Anderson, and John teach the method of claim 1, and Housley further teaches in a second embodiment that determining includes analyzing the recorded otoacoustic emissions using time analysis windows with a least- squares fitting procedure ([0112]), and John teaches sliding time-window analysis ([0116]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the time-based analysis of Housley’s evoked responses from DPOAE with a sliding time window as taught by John to ensure patient characteristics are not missed from the data due to the fact that they occur at the time-window boundary.
Yet their combined efforts fail to teach analyzing the recorded otoacoustic emissions using a weighted least- squares fitting (WLSF) procedure.
However Zoth teaches a distortion product otoacoustic emission analysis (Abstract) where weighted least square regression analysis is used to find DPOAE parameters (Fig. 1B, [0010]-[0011], [0046]-[0049], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the least square fitting of Housley to a weighted least square regression as Zoth teaches that this improves the hearing threshold extrapolation from the growth function ([0010], Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 20, while Housley, Anderson, and John teach the system of claim 11, and Housley further teaches in a second embodiment that determining includes analyzing the recorded otoacoustic emissions using time analysis windows with a least- squares fitting procedure ([0112]), and John teaches sliding time-window analysis ([0116]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the time-based analysis of Housley’s evoked responses from DPOAE with a sliding time window as taught by John to ensure patient characteristics are not missed from the data due to the fact that they occur at the time-window boundary.
Yet their combined efforts fail to teach analyzing the recorded otoacoustic emissions using a weighted least- squares fitting (WLSF) procedure.
However Zoth teaches a distortion product otoacoustic emission analysis (Abstract) where weighted least square regression analysis is used to find DPOAE parameters (Fig. 1B, [0010]-[0011], [0046]-[0049], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the least square fitting of Housley to a weighted least square regression as Zoth teaches that this improves the hearing threshold extrapolation from the growth function ([0010], Fig. 1B).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Housley in view of Anderson and further in view of John and further in view of Zoth and further in view of Long et al (“Measuring distortion product otoacoustic emissions using continuously sweeping primaries”) (“Long”).
Regarding Claim 10, while Housley, Anderson, John, and Zoth teach the method of claim 9, wherein there is an overlap between sliding time analysis windows (See Claim 9 Rejection), and Housley teaches stimuli being output in a time between 100-300 milliseconds in length (See Claim 9 Rejection), their combined efforts fail to teach the sliding time analysis windows are between 100-300 milliseconds in length.
However Long teaches an otoacoustic emission testing (Abstract) where a least squares fitting is used to find parameters of distortion product otoacoustic emission tests, with the least squares fitting analysis comprising overlapping windows of 500 milliseconds in length (p1615, 4. Analysis, “In this experiment, the analysis window was ½ s (22 050 points), which gives a bandwidth of 2 Hz (sampling rate/analysis window).” And further identifies that the size of the analysis window may be reduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the window of Housley, Anderson, John, and Zoth at a current length as taught by Long as a way to standardize the steps of the method and increase consistency across applications of the invention. Furthermore, it would be obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at overlapping window size of 100-300 milliseconds in length from Long’s teaching of 500 milliseconds or lower as a routine optimization in view of prior art conditions [ “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 6/10/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5-7 of the Remarks that the limitations of the signal generator, the emission of a stimulus tone, and recording otoacoustic emissions are not abstract concepts and not mental/mathematical operation. The lack of consideration of these elements is improper as it indicates the claims have not been considered as a whole. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner contends that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of determining health characteristics of a patient based on provided data, akin to a mental process. The elements recited by Applicant are not directed to the mental process and thus considered as to whether they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Such an analysis was performed above and Examiner contends that they do not amount to more as they are steps facilitating the acquisition of input data of which the mental process is performed.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the Remarks that the claims when considered as a whole result in significantly more than an abstract idea. Specifically, the prior art did not perform a process where the loudness of the stimulus was swept over a range of decibel values to elicit an inner ear response. Examiner respectfully disagrees in view of Housley, Anderson, and John, all references that teach a continuous change in stimulus loudness over a range to elicit a response in a patient.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the Remarks that the sweeping characteristic of the presented stimuli represents an improvement in overall functioning of the inner ear health evaluation. Applicant cites paragraphs [0022] and [0039] of the submitted Specification dated 2/06/2024. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The first stated improvement of paragraph [0022] required specifically creating multiple pairs of frequencies at fixed ratios performed simultaneously, with each frequency being distinct. This is not reflected in the current claim language of claim 1 and thus cannot be read as the improvement of claim 1. The second stated improvement of paragraph [0039] states that the sweeping characteristic is an improvement over traditional testing using discrete loudness levels. However Housley teaches applying a sweep level stimuli of changing decibel values in the context of measuring inner ear health and John reflects that it was known in the hearing test art that this type of acoustic stimuli modification could provide more efficient monitoring durations. While Applicant’s invention may reflect an improvement over the art, this has not yet been made clear. The rejection stands.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 6/10/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) is/are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Housley, Anderson, and John.
Consequently, claims 2-10 and 12-20 remain rejected due to their dependency on rejected claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Charaziak et al (US 2019/0159702) is also related to inner ear health analysis with multiple stimuli emitted in a swept manner.
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 PUYA AGAHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1906. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/JAIRO H. PORTILLO/
Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights