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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office Action is responsive to amendments filed for 18/496,116 filed on 11/17/2025. Please note claims 1-18 and 20-21 remain in the application.
In response to the cancellation of claim 19, the previous objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/17/2025 with respect to claim 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that Oishi does not disclose determining if the device is in a trusted location, and does not disclose mitigating the sound leakage from the personal listening device based on the device being located in a trusted location or not. Oishi does in fact disclose these features, at least in ¶[0073]-¶[0074] (presented in greater detail in the rejection of claim 8 below), which discloses wherein a sound leakage attenuation module may attenuate audio content to prevent leakage based upon a location designated as quiet (non-trusted).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner additionally notes that the term “metric” does not appear within applicant’s specification, nor does any variation of the word “measure.” Based on the examiner’s reading of applicant’s specification (¶[0030] in particular), a “sound leakage metric” is interpreted under BRI as any determined characteristic of a personal listening device related to a level of leakiness exhibited by the device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oishi et al (hereinafter Oishi), US-PG-PUB 2021/0204058 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Oishi discloses a method, comprising: determining that a personal listening device (A headset for audio playback.....¶[0020], lines 6-9) exhibits sound leakage (An audio controller determines if a privacy setting should be enabled, determining the amount of sound leakage exhibited by the headset.....¶[0034], lines 3-6) during audio playback (During playback of audio content.....¶[0034], lines 2-3) of audio received (Audio played by the system is received by the headset.....¶[0079], lines 3-4) from an audio source device (The audio system may be embodied as a phone (audio source device)…..¶[0079], lines 3); determining (Determination of whether or not to enable a privacy setting is based on environmental conditions.....¶[0069], lines 6-8) if the personal listening device is located (The environmental condition may be location.....¶[0074], lines 1-2) in a trusted location or in a non-trusted location (Locations (such as libraries) may be designated as non-private (non-trusted), requiring a higher privacy level than other (trusted) locations.....¶[0074], lines 3-5); and mitigating the sound leakage (Leakage is attenuated (mitigated) when a private mode of playback is selected.....¶[0077], lines 1-4) from the personal listening device during the audio playback based at least in part on the personal listening device being in the non-trusted location (The privacy mode is enabled in non-trusted locations.....¶[0074], lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 13, Oishi discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the mitigating the sound leakage from the personal listening device during the audio playback comprises reducing a volume of the audio playback (Presented audio is attenuated selectively over different frequency bands, and any attenuation reduces overall volume of the audio.....¶[0078], lines 4-8) to compensate for the sound leakage.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (hereinafter Park), US-PG-PUB No. 2024/0276164 (previously cited) in view of Cha et al et al (hereinafter Cha), US-PG-PUB No. 2018/0167718.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an audio source device (An electronic device which transmits an audio signal to a wearable device.....¶[0070], lines 3-4), comprising:
a device interface (A wireless interface.....¶[0070], lines 1-2) to connect the audio source device to a personal listening device (Wearable device (210).....¶[0070], lines 1-2) for audio playback (The wearable device plays back audio received from the electronic device through a speaker.....¶[0070], lines 1-4);
a sound leak identification (The device is configured to identify improper mounting of a personal listening device, (resulting in sound leakage).....¶[0142], lines 1-3) module (The method is implemented as a program (module).....¶[0053], lines 1-2) implemented at least partially in hardware (The program is implemented by a processor.....¶[0053], line 6) and configured to (as shown in fig. 8 and detailed below):
detect the personal listening device connected to the audio source device (Fig. 8 step 1, pairing of the two devices via Bluetooth, which requires detection of the devices by each other.....¶[0138], lines 5-7) via the device interface (Bluetooth utilizes the aforementioned wireless interface.....¶[0070], lines 1-2);
query (The electronic device sends a download request (query).....¶[0139], lines 1-2) for a sound leakage characteristic (A “leaked sound profile” (an example of which is shown in Fig. 5), indicates a sound leakage characteristic (leakage amplitude vs frequency).....¶[0139], lines 1-2) using an identifier of the personal listening device (Profiles correspond to identification by listening device type.....¶[0106], lines 6-7);
receive (The profile is downloaded (received) from an external server.....¶[0139], lines 3-5) a sound leakage metric (The leaked sound profile is a measurement (metric) of leaked audio amplitude for a frequency range.....¶[0105], lines 15-18) that indicates the personal listening device exhibits sound leakage (Shown in Fig. 5, the leaked sound profile indicates the leakage.....¶[0105], lines 15-16) during the audio playback (Leakage from a device only occurs during audio playback); and
identify the sound leakage (The device recognizes when a personal listening device is improperly mounted, and is therefore leaking sound.....¶[0142], lines 1-3) from the personal listening device during the audio playback (Identification occurs during playback of a test signal.....¶[0141], lines 2-3) based at least in part on the sound leakage metric (Leakage is identified based on the leaked sound profile.....¶[0142], lines 1-3).
Park fails to teach wherein the module automatically mitigates sound leakage upon recognition of said leakage, instead teaching alerting a user to the condition so they may mitigate it themselves.
Cha teaches an electronic device (¶0063], line 8) wherein, upon identification of sound leakage (The electronic device determines presence of leakage.....¶[0063], lines 4-6) out of a personal listening device (earphones.....¶[0063], line 10), automatically mitigates sound leakage (The electronic device controls the sound volume, mitigating leakage.....¶[0063], lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park by Cha to provide the benefit of a system which avoids disturbing others around a user of the device (Cha, ¶[0114], lines 12-14). Such a modification would make obvious wherein the module of Park is a sound leak mitigation module, configured to mitigate sound leakage based at least in part on a sound leakage metric.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Park and Cha, as explained above, teach the device of claim 1.
Park additionally teaches wherein the module is configured to obtain the identifier of the personal listening device, the identifier indicating a type of the personal listening device (Profiles correspond to identification by listening device type.....¶[0106], lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park and Cha teach the audio source device of claim 2.
Park additionally teaches wherein the sound leak mitigation module is configured to: query (The electronic device sends a download request (query).....¶[0139], lines 1-2) a sound leakage characteristic database (A external server storing sound leakage characteristics.....¶[0139], lines 3-5) using the identifier (Profiles correspond to identification by listening device type.....¶[0106], lines 6-7); and receive (The profile is downloaded (received) from an external server.....¶[0139], lines 3-5) a query response that includes the sound leakage metric (The leaked sound profile is a measurement (metric) of leaked audio amplitude for a frequency range.....¶[0105], lines 15-18) as an indication of whether the personal listening device exhibits the sound leakage during the audio playback (Shown in Fig. 5, the leaked sound profile indicates the leakage.....¶[0105], lines 15-16).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Park and Cha teach the audio source device of claim 1.
Cha additionally teaches wherein to mitigate the sound leakage from the personal listening device during the audio playback (In response to an audio leakage volume exceeding a threshold.....¶[0114], lines 9-11), the sound leak mitigation module is configured to reduce a volume of the audio playback (The electronic device may turn down the volume of the audio signal.....¶[0114], lines 11-12) to compensate for the sound leakage (To prevent disturbing nearby people (by reducing leakage).....¶[0014], lines 12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Park and Cha further by Cha to provide the benefit of a system which avoids disturbing others around a user of the device. Such a modification would make obvious wherein to mitigate the sound leakage from the personal listening device during the audio playback, the sound leak mitigation module is configured to reduce a volume of the audio playback to compensate for the sound leakage.
Regarding claim 15, the functions recited are the same as those of claim 1, and are taught by the combination of Park and Cha as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Park additionally teaches wherein the electronic device is a mobile device (A smartphone.....¶[0050], lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Park and Cha, as explained above, teach the mobile device of claim 15, wherein the sound leak mitigation module is configured to mitigate the sound leakage of the audio call from the personal listening device (The sound leak mitigation module taught by the combination of Park and Cha mitigates all leaked audio from the personal listening device, including that of audio calls from a mobile device.....¶[0063], lines 8-11).
Park additionally teaches wherein the mobile device is configured to connect to a communication platform (A cellular communication network.....¶[0044], lines 24-25) that hosts an audio call (The electronic device may execute a telephone call function.....¶[0080], line 5) between the mobile device and one or more communication devices (A telephone call is an audio call between two communication devices).
Claim 17 is rejected under the same grounds as claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Park and Cha, as explained above, teach the system of claim 15, wherein the sound leak mitigation module is configured to mitigate the sound leakage from the personal listening device during the audio playback based at least in part on the sound leakage characteristic of the personal listening device (As explained in the rejection of claim 1, lines 17-22, upon which the rejection of claim 15 is based, the metric upon which the leakage mitigation is based is itself based upon (and reflective of) the characteristics of the device queried for).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Cha in further view of McGregor et al (hereinafter McGregor), US-PG-PUB 2017/0289328 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park and Cha as explained above teach the audio source device of claim 2, but fail to explicitly teach that the specific types of the personal listening device identifiers are the same as the ones listed in summary paragraph ¶[0005]).
McGregor teaches a method by which sound leakage characteristics of personal listening devices are identified by device type (Earpiece (listening device) types are identified…..¶[0022], lines 1-3), wherein the types include in-ear headphones (Open and closed ear tips (in-ear listening devices).....¶[0045], lines 2-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined disclosures of Park and Cha to incorporate the teachings of McGregor, and provide wherein the identifier includes a type of personal listening device. This would provide a benefit where sound volume and equalizer settings may be appropriately set for different categories of audio device (McGregor, ¶[0022], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park and Cha as explained above teach the device of claim 4 but fail to teach wherein the indication of whether the personal listening device exhibits the sound leakage during the audio playback comprises a sound leakage category.
McGregor teaches a method wherein the indication of whether the personal listening device exhibits the sound leakage during the audio playback comprises a sound leakage category (Shown in Fig. 1, ear tips are identified by the system as either being occluding (least leaky), non-occluding (most leaky), or partially occluding.....¶[0023], line 1 – ¶[0025], line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined disclosures of Park and Cha to incorporate the teachings of McGregor, and provide wherein the indication of whether the personal listening device exhibits the sound leakage during the audio playback comprises a sound leakage category. This would provide a benefit where sound volume and equalizer settings may be appropriately set for different categories of audio device (McGregor, ¶[0022], lines 1-3).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Cha in further view of Silfvast et al (hereinafter Silfvast) US Patent No. 11,176,925 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Park and Cha as explained above teach the device of claim 4, but fail to teach wherein the sound leak mitigation module is configured to selectively enable a transcription function to transcribe audio playback into text.
Silfvast teaches a system wherein to mitigate sound leakage from a personal listening device during the audio playback (Private communications are routed to a less leaky bone conduction audio device, instead of the leakier speaker device…..Col. 10, lines 25-41), the system is configured to selectively enable a transcription function to transcribe the audio playback into text (A private conversation mode may also perform speech-to-text transcription of audio data…..Col. 11, lines 46-53) to compensate for the sound leakage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Oishi to incorporate the teachings of Silfvast, and provide wherein the sound leak mitigation module is configured to selectively enable a transcription function to transcribe audio playback into text. This would provide a benefit where a system may output different portions of a private communication via audio signal and a display screen (Silfvast, Col.11, lines 55-60).
Claim 18 is rejected under the same grounds as claim 7.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of McGregor.
Regarding claim 9, Oishi teaches the method of Claim 8, as explained above, but fails to teach obtaining an identifier for the personal listening device.
McGregor teaches a method by which an audio source device is configured to obtain an identifier for a personal listening device, the identifier indicating the type of the personal listening device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Oishi to incorporate the teachings of McGregor, and provide obtaining an identifier for the personal listening device, wherein the identifier indicates the type of device. This would provide a benefit where sound volume and equalizer settings may be appropriately set for different categories of audio device (McGregor, ¶[0022], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Oishi and McGregor teaches, as explained above, the method of claim 9.
McGregor additionally teaches wherein sound leakage characteristics of personal listening devices are identified by device type (Earpiece (listening device) types are identified…..¶[0022], lines 1-3), wherein the types include in-ear headphones (Open and closed ear tips (in-ear listening devices).....¶[0045], lines 2-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined disclosures of Oishi and McGregor to further incorporate the teachings of McGregor, and provide wherein the identifier includes a type of personal listening device. This would provide a benefit where sound volume and equalizer settings may be appropriately set for different categories of audio device (McGregor, ¶[0022], lines 1-3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Park.
Regarding claim 11, Oishi teaches the method of Claim 8, as explained above, but fails to teach determining the presence of leakage by querying for a sound leakage characteristic from a database.
Park teaches a method of identifying audio leakage from a personal audio device wherein the determining (The device is configured to identify improper mounting of a personal listening device, (resulting in sound leakage).....¶[0142], lines 1-3) that the personal listening device exhibits the sound leakage during the audio playback (Leakage from a device only occurs during audio playback) comprises: querying (The electronic device sends a download request (query).....¶[0139], lines 1-2) a sound leakage characteristic (A “leaked sound profile” (an example of which is shown in Fig. 5) database (The profile is downloaded (received) from an external server (Database).....¶[0139], lines 3-5) using an identifier associated with the personal listening device (Profiles correspond to identification by listening device type.....¶[0106], lines 6-7); and receiving a query response (The profile is downloaded (received) from an external server.....¶[0139], lines 3-5) that includes a sound leakage metric (The leaked sound profile is a measurement (metric) of leaked audio amplitude for a frequency range.....¶[0105], lines 15-18) that the personal listening device exhibits the sound leakage during the audio playback (Shown in Fig. 5, the leaked sound profile indicates the leakage.....¶[0105], lines 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Oishi to incorporate the teachings of Park, and provide determining the presence of leakage by querying for a sound leakage characteristic from a database. This would provide a benefit where an electronic device may ensure a personal listening device is properly worn by a user (Park, ¶[0012], lines 5-7).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Park in further view of McGregor.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Oishi and Park, as explained above, teach the method of claim 11, but fail to teach wherein the indication of whether the personal listening device exhibits the sound leakage during the audio playback comprises a sound leakage category.
McGregor teaches a method wherein the indication of whether the personal listening device exhibits the sound leakage during the audio playback comprises a sound leakage category (Shown in Fig. 1, ear tips are identified by the system as either being occluding (least leaky), non-occluding (most leaky), or partially occluding.....¶[0023], line 1 – ¶[0025], line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined disclosures of Oishi and Park to incorporate the teachings of McGregor, and provide wherein the indication of whether the personal listening device exhibits the sound leakage during the audio playback comprises a sound leakage category. This would provide a benefit where sound volume and equalizer settings may be appropriately set for different categories of audio device (McGregor, ¶[0022], lines 1-3).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Silfvast.
Regarding claim 14, Oishi teaches, as explained above, the method of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the mitigating the sound leakage comprises selectively enabling a transcription function to compensate for the sound leakage.
Silfvast teaches a method wherein the mitigating the sound leakage from the personal listening device during the audio playback (Private communications are routed to a less leaky bone conduction audio device, instead of the leakier speaker device…..Col. 10, lines 25-41) comprises selectively enabling a transcription function to transcribe the audio playback into text (A private conversation mode may also performs speech-to-text transcription of audio data…..Col. 11, lines 46-53) to compensate for the sound leakage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosures of Oishi to incorporate the teachings of Silfvast, and provide mitigating the sound leakage comprises selectively enabling a transcription function to compensate for the sound leakage. This would provide a benefit where a system may output different portions of a private communication via audio signal and a display screen (Silfvast, Col.11, lines 55-60).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Cha in further view of Silfvast.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Park and Cha, as explained above, teach the
device according to claim 1, but fail to teach determining if the device is in a trusted or non-trusted location, and mitigating leakage based on the device being in a non-trusted location.
Silfvast teaches an audio playback device configured to: determine (A device determines if a private listening mode (mitigating sound leakage) should be enabled…..Col. 14, lines 60-62) if the personal listening device is located (The determination may be based on a location…..Col. 15, lines 3-4) in a trusted location or in a non-trusted location (The location is designated as requiring private mode (not trusted) or not requiring private mode (trusted)…..Col. 15, lines 3-4); and mitigate the sound leakage (Sound leakage is prevented…..Col. 5, lines 54-55) from the personal listening device during the audio playback (When an audio mode is set to private, the audio is routed to bone conduction speakers, mitigating leakage…..Col. 5, lines 55-57) based at least in part on the personal listening device being in the non-trusted location (Col. 15, lines 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Park and Cha to incorporate the teachings of Silfvast, and provide wherein the sound leak mitigation module determines if the device is in a trusted or non-trusted location, and mitigating leakage based on the device being in a non-trusted location. This would provide the benefit of enhanced privacy in public areas (Silfvast, Col. 14, lines 60-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Noertker et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2021/0281232, teaches an audio playback system which stores leakage control settings individualized to playback devices remotely.
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 SEAN M RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN M RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694