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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Rejection - 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 is not to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In the state of the art, transitory signals are commonplace as a medium for transmitting computer instructions and thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of a “storage medium’ covers transitory medium such as a signal per se and non-transitory medium. A transitory signal does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matters.
The phrase “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” is suggested.
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 limitations 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 is: a signal obtaining module and a state determination module recited in claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonner et al
(US 10045111) in view of Wang et al (US 10491981).
Regarding claim 1, Bonner discloses a method for detecting a wearing state of a hearing device, which is implemented by a noise-cancelling hearing device, the noise-cancelling hearing device (note: noise cancelling headphone device 10 in fig. 1 reads on the claimed hearing device) comprises a feedback microphone (e.g., internal microphone 24A or 24B as shown in fig. 1 is a feedback microphone for the headphone device 10 of Bonner), and the method for detecting a wearing state of the hearing device comprises: obtaining a signal through the feedback microphone; and determining, according to a characteristic parameter of the signal and a previous wearing state of the noise-cancelling hearing device, a current wearing state of the noise-cancelling hearing device, wherein the wearing state of the noise-cancelling hearing device comprises a wearing state and a unworn state (note: Bonner’s noise cancelling headphone device 10 contains a control circuit 30 for processing signals to determine don/doff (wearing state and unworn state) events by analyzing a signal (e.g., capacitance) to identify transitions, using thresholds and keeping track of previous state (see figs. 1, figs. 4-8, column 7 line 8 – column 10 line 15) .
Bonner fails to disclose that the signal obtained through the feedback microphone is a transient pulse signal, the wearing state and unworn state of the hearing device is determined based on a characteristic parameter of the transient pulse signal and a previous wearing state of the noise-cancelling hearing device.
However, Wang teaches using an air pressure sensor or microphone (element 220 in fig. 2 of Wang) to obtain a transient pulse signal when the device is put on or taken off by processing the transient pulse signal to determine if a pulse signal exceeds a threshold, indicating a don/doff event (see figs. 4-6, column 11 lines 15-38, column 12, line 42 – column 16 line 55 of Wang).
It would have been obvious to substitute or supplement Bonner’s capacitance-based wear detection with Wang’s microphone-based transient pulse detection, since Wang teaches that microphones can serve as pressure sensors for wear state detection, providing a robust and alternative signal for don/doff detection. Both references address the same problem (accurate wearing state detection), and using a feedback microphone for transient pulse detection is a predictable and routine design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Bonner as modified by Wang teaches the method for detecting a wearing state of the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein determining, according to a characteristic parameter of the transient pulse signal and the previous wearing state of the noise-cancelling hearing device, a current wearing state of the noise-cancelling hearing device comprises: determining, according to the characteristic parameter of the transient pulse signal, whether a state change event is detected, wherein the state change event comprises a putting on event and a taking off event; if a state change event is detected, determining that the current wearing state of the noise-cancelling hearing device is different from the previous wear state of the noise-cancelling hearing device; and if no state change event is detected, determining that the current wear state of the noise-cancelling hearing device is the same as the previous wear state of the noise-cancelling hearing device (note the discussion of claim 1, Bonner teaches logic for updating wear state only when a threshold-crossing event is detected and maintains and updates state based on event detection (see figs. 1, figs. 4-8, column 7 line 8 – column 9 line 8). Although Bonner does not disclose the use of the transient pulse signal, Wang teaches detecting transient pulses (events) and updates wearing state or unworn state accordingly (see figs. 4-6, column 11 lines 15-38, column 12, line 42 – column 16 line 55 of Wang). It would have been obvious that the hearing device of Bonner would have replaced the event-based state logic of Bonner with the pulse-based event detection of Wang since it is just another well known alternative way to effectively determine the wearing state of the hearing device, it is just another well known routine design with predictable results).
Regarding claim 3, Bonner as modified by Wang teaches the method for detecting the hearing device wear state according to claim 2, wherein determining, according to the characteristic parameter of the transient pulse signal, whether a state change event is detected comprises: if the maximum amplitude of the transient pulse signal is smaller than a preset amplitude threshold, determining that no state change event is detected (note the discussion of claims 1-2, Bonner teaches threshold comparisons for don/doff events (see column 8 lines 23 – column 9 line 8). Bonner does not teach the Pulse detection. However, Wang teaches using a voltage or SPL amplitude threshold for pulse detection (see column 12 line 49 – column 16 line 7). It would have been obvious the headphone device of Bonner would have used the SPL amplitude thresholding taught by Wang since it is just another well known way to effectively detect change of wearing state of a headphone device.
Regarding claim 4, Bonner as modified by Wang teaches the method for detecting the hearing device wear state according to claim 2, wherein determining, according to the characteristic parameter of the transient pulse signal, whether a state change event is detected comprises: if the maximum amplitude of the transient pulse signal is greater than or equal to a preset amplitude threshold, transforming the transient pulse signal into frequency-domain to obtain a frequency-domain signal spectrum; and determining whether a state change event is detected according to whether abscissa and ordinate values of the frequency-domain signal spectrum in a preset frequency band are linearly correlated (note the discussion of claims 1-2, Bonner teaches further processing of signals to confirm events (column 8 lines 23 – column 9 line 8). Bonner does not teach if the maximum amplitude is above threshold, transform the transient pulse to frequency domain; determine state change event based on linear correlation of abscissa/ordinate values in a preset frequency band. However, Wang teaches spectral analysis of the signal (frequency domain transformation) to confirm don/doff and specifically, looks for energy concentration in low-frequency bins as a marker of don/doff (see column 15 line 1 – column 16 line 7, also specifically see Graph 410 of fig. 4) Thus it would have been obvious to apply the teaching of Wang to Bonner to apply frequency-domain analysis to transient pulses for event discrimination since it is just another well known alternative way to effectively determine a wearing state of a headphone device).
Regarding claim 5, Bonner as modified by Wang teaches the method for detecting the hearing device wear state according to claim 4, wherein determining whether a state change event is detected according to whether abscissa and ordinate values of the frequency-domain signal spectrum in a preset frequency band are linearly correlated comprises: if the abscissa and ordinate values of the frequency-domain signal spectrum in the preset frequency band are not linearly correlated, determining that no state change event is detected; if the abscissa and ordinate values of the frequency-domain signal spectrum in the preset frequency band are linearly correlated, obtaining an initial vibration direction of the transient pulse signal and the previous wear state of the noise-cancelling hearing device; and determining whether a state change event is detected according to the initial vibration direction and the previous wear state of the noise-cancelling hearing device (note the discussion of claims 1-4, Bonner teaches using additional features of the signal and maintains previous state and uses signal features to determine event type (e.g., polarity, direction, see e.g., the intermediate signal and its sign, threshold crossings, column 8 line 23 – column 9 line 8 ). Bonner does not teach the event of wearing state is determined based on correlation/polarity/direction of transient pulses. However, Wang teaches using the correlation/sign/direction of pulses (e.g., positive/negative direction, see column 12 line 60 – column 13 line 61). It would have been obvious to apply the teaching of Wang to Bonner since combining these signal features (correlation, polarity, direction) for robust don/doff detection is an ordinary extension which yields predictable results).
Regarding claim 6, Bonner as modified by Wang teaches the method for detecting a wear state of the hearing device according to claim 5, wherein determining whether a state change event is detected according to the initial vibration direction and the previous wear state of the noise-cancelling hearing device comprises: if the initial vibration direction is a negative direction and the previous wear state of the noise-cancelling hearing device is the non-wearing state, or, if the initial vibration direction is a positive direction and the previous wear state of the noise-cancelling hearing device is the wearing state, determining that no state change event is detected; and if the initial vibration direction is the negative direction and the previous wear state of the noise-cancelling hearing device is the wearing state, or, if the initial vibration direction is the positive direction and the previous wear state of the noise-cancelling hearing device is the non-wearing state, determining that a state change event is detected (note the discussion of claims 1-5, Bonner teaches implements state machine logic based on thresholds and prior state (see fig. 7 and column 8 line 36 – column 9 line 8) Bonner does not teach decision logic based on vibration direction and previous state of a transient pulse signal. However, Wang teaches using pulse direction (positive/negative) and event context (see column 12 line 60 – column 13 line 61). It would have been obvious to apply the teaching of Wang to Bonner since combining directionality and state machine logic is a routine extension of Bonner/Wang teachings which yields predictable results).
Regarding claim 7, Bonner as modified by Wang teaches the method for detecting a wear state of the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the noise-cancelling hearing device further comprises an acceleration sensor, and wherein, before obtaining the transient pulse signal through the feedback microphone, the method further comprises: detecting, by the acceleration sensor, an acceleration of the noise-cancelling hearing device; and if the acceleration is greater than a preset acceleration threshold, obtaining the transient pulse signal through the feedback microphone (note the discussion of claim 1, Bonner does not teach the hearing device includes an acceleration sensor and obtains the pulse after detecting acceleration above a threshold. However, Wang teaches using additional sensors (e.g., proximity sensor and/or motion sensor; see generally, and in the context of gating processing), and gating signal processing (e.g., only process when a proximity or motion event is detected) (see column 7 lines 7-39 and column 15 line 51 – column 16 line 19. It would have been obvious to apply the teaching of Wang to Bonner to add a motion sensor and gating pulse analysis to improve power efficiency and reduce false positives. Since acceleration sensor is just one type of well known motion sensor, it would have been obvious for the device of Bonner as modified by Wang to have added an acceleration sensor since it is just another well known motion sensor that can effectively improve power efficiency and reduce false positives for the modified device of Bonner).
Regarding claim 8, note the discussion of method claim 1, Bonner as modified by Wang teaches all limitations for the similar reasons as those of method claim 1 including having modular architectures (see Bonner: control circuit 30, ANR circuit 26, figs. 6-7; column 10 lines 16-34 or Wang: controller 205, Figs. 3–4 and column 20 lines 55-67).
Regarding claims 9-10, note the discussion of method claim 1, Bonner as modified by Wang teaches a hearing device as recited in claim 9 including implementation on a processor with memory and program logic (see Bonner: column 10 lines 16-34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument that the amended claims 1-10 are patentably distinct is not persuasive due to the new ground rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Supervisory Patent Examiner VIVIAN CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-
7848. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am--5pm.
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.
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. Tо
file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.goy. 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.
/VIVIAN C CHIN/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695