Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 18, “(II) detecting that the user is wearing the sound-producing device based on the data received from the one or more sensors of the sound-producing device, detecting a current audio listening duration of the user, in response to determining that the current audio listening duration of the user is greater than or equal to a duration threshold, determining a second duration of ears overuse of the user in which the user continues to listen to audio after the determination that the current audio listening duration of the user is greater than or equal to the duration threshold, increasing a second quantity of times of ears overuse, and recording the second duration of ears overuse, wherein the accumulated duration of overuse comprises a plurality of recorded second durations and the accumulated times of overuse comprise the second quantity of times of ears overuse; and generating prompt information or a control instruction based on the ear overuse information” these limitations were never disclosed in the original disclosure which includes original specification, original drawings and original claims. Specifically, determining a “second duration” and “second quantity of times of ears overuse” was not described in the specification as one of two methods for obtaining ear overuse information.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Yang (CN 107783751 A, hereinafter “Yang”) (translated document reference previously submitted in IDS file on 01/08/2025) in view of Song (CN 110657884 A, hereinafter “Song”) (translated document reference submitted).
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches a hearing monitoring apparatus, comprising; (see page 7, ¶4: detection module 21)
a processor; (see page 7, ¶4: processing unit 20)
and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the hearing monitoring apparatus to perform operations, the operations comprising: (see page 7, ¶7-8: stored in internal memory single by processing member 20 to perform each module to reach function)
obtaining ear overuse information of a user, wherein the ear overuse information comprises: accumulated duration (see page 8, ¶7: calculate the cumulative time that the audio players have produced. Calculating this time is equivalent to determining ear overuse by cumulated time)
and generating prompt information or a control instruction based on the ear overuse information. (see page 11, ¶7: module 24 exports an information warning or prompt information-based calculation of cumulative time)
However, Yang is silent to wherein the ear overuse information comprises an accumulated times of overuse of ears of the user…
(I) detecting that the user is wearing a sound-producing device based on data received from one or more sensors of the sound-producing device, detecting a current volume of the sound-producing device, recording a first duration of overuse by the ears of the user when the current volume is greater than or equal to a volume threshold, and increasing a first quantity of times of ears overuse, wherein the accumulated duration of overuse comprises a plurality of recorded first durations and the accumulated times of overuse comprise the first quantity of times of ears overuse: or
(II) detecting that the user is wearing the sound-producing device based on the data received from the one or more sensors of the sound-producing device, detecting a current audio listening duration of the user, in response to determining that the current audio listening duration of the user is greater than or equal to a duration threshold, determining a second duration of ears overuse of the user in which the user continues to listen to audio after the determination that the current audio listening duration of the user is greater than or equal to the duration threshold, increasing a second quantity of times of ears overuse, and recording the second duration of ears overuse, wherein the accumulated duration of overuse comprises a plurality of recorded second durations and the accumulated times of overuse comprise the second quantity of times of ears overuse; and generating prompt information or a control instruction based on the ear overuse information.
Song teaches wherein the ear overuse information comprises an accumulated times of overuse of ears of the user… (see page 3 ¶10: the accumulated time reaches the corresponding cumulative duration threshold. An accumulated time, which is an accumulated number of times of ear overuse, reaches a cumulative duration threshold.)
(I) detecting that the user is wearing a sound-producing device based on data received from one or more sensors of the sound-producing device, detecting a current volume of the sound-producing device, recording a first duration of overuse by the ears of the user when the current volume is greater than or equal to a volume threshold, and increasing a first quantity of times of ears overuse, wherein the accumulated duration of overuse comprises a plurality of recorded first durations and the accumulated times of overuse comprise the first quantity of times of ears overuse: or (see page 3-4: cumulative duration and cumulative number of times the user listens to audio at a volume greater than or equal to the volume threshold)
(II) detecting that the user is wearing the sound-producing device based on the data received from the one or more sensors of the sound-producing device, detecting a current audio listening duration of the user, in response to determining that the current audio listening duration of the user is greater than or equal to a duration threshold, determining a second duration of ears overuse of the user in which the user continues to listen to audio after the determination that the current audio listening duration of the user is greater than or equal to the duration threshold, increasing a second quantity of times of ears overuse, and recording the second duration of ears overuse, wherein the accumulated duration of overuse comprises a plurality of recorded second durations and the accumulated times of overuse comprise the second quantity of times of ears overuse; and generating prompt information or a control instruction based on the ear overuse information. (see page 3-4, page 5 ¶2-4: accumulated duration and/or accumulated times of the user’s excessive ear use; and first generating prompt information or a control instruction based on the ear overuse information and second prompt message on second values)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, obtaining both detecting processes (I) and (II) is not required to be present or operable. This operation only needs to be capable of using either a detecting process (I) or detecting process (II), not necessarily both, in accordance with the interpretation of “or”.
Yang and Song are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of monitoring/assessing hearing and protecting users from ear overuse, or hearing loss. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of evaluating accumulated duration and accumulated time of ear overuse of the user of Song to Yang in order to effectively obtain the hearing level of the user and generate a prompt information or a control instruction based on the ear overuse information.
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches determining that the current volume of the sound- producing device is greater than or equal to the volume threshold. (see page 1, claim 3: when judging that the broadcast sound volume meets the plurality of volume numerical value. The timing module calculation obtain the cumulative for the audio players produce meets the volume.)
Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches the volume threshold is determined based on a maximum volume of the sound- producing device. (see page 1, claim 1: one control module is connected with the timing module signal to judge whether the cumulative time is reached in the control time. If reached, audio players reduce, meaning that the threshold is met (≥) and contributes to ear overuse)
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches sending the prompt information or the control instruction when a trigger condition is met, wherein the trigger condition comprises at least one of: interval duration is greater than or equal to a sending period, the accumulated duration is greater than or equal to a duration threshold, a quantity of times of overuse of ears is greater than or equal to a quantity threshold, a decrease in hearing level. (see page 1, claim 1; page 11, ¶1-6: one control module is connected with the timing module signal to judge whether the cumulative time is reached in the control time. If reached, audio players reduce, meaning that the threshold is met, or exceeded (≥), and contributes to ear overuse. Or the cumulative time that volume meets the sound of particular volume numerical also adds and when adding up to 100%, control module 23 performs corresponding control.)
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, the claimed limitations are claims directly corresponding to the claims 13-15, and 17 respectively; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 13-15, and 17 as discussed above.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 107783751 A, hereinafter “Yang”) in view of Campbell (US 9497530 B1, hereinafter “Campbell”).
Regarding claim 16, Yang teaches generating the prompt information or the control instruction comprises: generating the prompt information or the control instruction based on the ear overuse information and the hearing level.
However, Yang fails to teach obtaining a hearing level of the user based on a bioelectrical signal of the user.
Campbell teaches obtaining a hearing level of the user based on a bioelectrical signal of the user; (see Column 12, line 10-67: obtain information about the high frequency hearing which is obtained by analyzing the response, such as an EEG, a bioelectrical signal, response signal after acoustic transients)
Yang and Campbell are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of monitoring/assessing hearing and protecting users from ear overuse, or hearing loss. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of incorporating a bioelectrical signal of Campbell to Yang in order to effectively obtain the hearing level of the user. For accurate and precise measurements, it is well known to use bioelectrical signals to obtain information on the user’s response to certain audio signals.
Regarding claim 18, Yang teaches sending the prompt information or the control instruction comprises: sending the prompt information or the control instruction to the user
However, Yang does not teach to send a prompt “based on a user identifier”.
Campbell teaches using a user identifier to determine whether to send a prompt (see Column 15, line 25-67: user can be identified based on the quality of the match of the biometric data)
Yang and Campbell are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of monitoring hearing and protecting users from hearing loss or providing comfort. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of utilizing a user identifier of Campbell to Yang in order to effectively determine and analyze stored data from the user.
Regarding claim 4, 6, 10 and 12, the claimed limitations are claims directly corresponding to the claims 16 and 18; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claims 16 and 18 as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-14, filed October 28, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 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. On page 14-16 of applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the art of record fails to disclose wherein the ear overuse information comprises an accumulated times of overuse of ears of the user…
(I) detecting that the user is wearing a sound-producing device based on data received from one or more sensors of the sound-producing device, detecting a current volume of the sound-producing device, recording a first duration of overuse by the ears of the user when the current volume is greater than or equal to a volume threshold, and increasing a first quantity of times of ears overuse, wherein the accumulated duration of overuse comprises a plurality of recorded first durations and the accumulated times of overuse comprise the first quantity of times of ears overuse: or
(II) detecting that the user is wearing the sound-producing device based on the data received from the one or more sensors of the sound-producing device, detecting a current audio listening duration of the user, in response to determining that the current audio listening duration of the user is greater than or equal to a duration threshold, determining a second duration of ears overuse of the user in which the user continues to listen to audio after the determination that the current audio listening duration of the user is greater than or equal to the duration threshold, increasing a second quantity of times of ears overuse, and recording the second duration of ears overuse, wherein the accumulated duration of overuse comprises a plurality of recorded second durations and the accumulated times of overuse comprise the second quantity of times of ears overuse; and generating prompt information or a control instruction based on the ear overuse information. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Yang in view of Song clearly teaches wherein the ear overuse information comprises an accumulated times of overuse of ears of the user… (see page 6 ¶8: accumulated duration and/or accumulated times of the user’s excessive ear use)
(I) detecting that the user is wearing a sound-producing device based on data received from one or more sensors of the sound-producing device, detecting a current volume of the sound-producing device, recording a first duration of overuse by the ears of the user when the current volume is greater than or equal to a volume threshold, and increasing a first quantity of times of ears overuse, wherein the accumulated duration of overuse comprises a plurality of recorded first durations and the accumulated times of overuse comprise the first quantity of times of ears overuse: or (see page 6 ¶4 – page 8 ¶7: cumulative duration and cumulative number of times the user listens to audio at a volume greater than or equal to the volume threshold)
(II) detecting that the user is wearing the sound-producing device based on the data received from the one or more sensors of the sound-producing device, detecting a current audio listening duration of the user, in response to determining that the current audio listening duration of the user is greater than or equal to a duration threshold, determining a second duration of ears overuse of the user in which the user continues to listen to audio after the determination that the current audio listening duration of the user is greater than or equal to the duration threshold, increasing a second quantity of times of ears overuse, and recording the second duration of ears overuse, wherein the accumulated duration of overuse comprises a plurality of recorded second durations and the accumulated times of overuse comprise the second quantity of times of ears overuse; and generating prompt information or a control instruction based on the ear overuse information. (see page 6 ¶8: accumulated duration and/or accumulated times of the user’s excessive ear use; and generating prompt information or a control instruction based on the ear overuse information)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, obtaining both detecting processes (I) and (II) is not required to be present or operable. This operation only needs to be capable of using either a detecting process (I) or detecting process (II), not necessarily both, in accordance with the interpretation of “or”.
Yang and Song are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of monitoring/assessing hearing and protecting users from ear overuse, or hearing loss. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of evaluating accumulated duration and accumulated time of ear overuse of the user of Song to Yang in order to effectively obtain the hearing level of the user and generate a prompt information or a control instruction based on the ear overuse information.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNABELLE KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695