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 and Arguments.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 5/12/2026, with respect to claims 11-14 and 17-19 rejection have been fully considered and is withdrawn due to cancelling claims 11-14 and 17-19 . The 101 rejection of claims 11-14 and 17-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, and 20-23 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. The newly modified claim limitation “modify an operational parameter of the wearable audio device perform an action in response to determining that i) a volume level of the audio from the user of the wearable audio device is below a threshold and ii) the audio indicates a desire to modify the operational parameter desired performance of the action.” necessitates the new ground of rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4,8-10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rekimoto, Jun. "DualVoice: speech interaction that discriminates between normal and whispered voice input." Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 2022 in view of US 9830924 B1, (Degges, Jr.; Ronald Joseph.).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1 , Rekimoto teach
1. A wearable audio device, comprising:
a housing;
(Fig 11 shows the headset being used in a normal and whispered voice.
Page 3 left col introduction “If one can discriminate between normal voice (for normal conversation) and whisper voice for computer inputs, efective interaction for wearable, mobile, and virtual-environment computing may be possible.”
Page 1 left col section Abstract "The method can be used in a wide range of situations where speech recognition is already available, ranging from text input to mobile/wearable computing. ")
at least one audio sensor disposed in or on the housing; and
(Page 9 right column section Combination with Silent Speech " A microphone can be placed inside such masks for picking up whisper voice, making it possible to achieve an efect almost equivalent to silent speech.")
at least one processor configured to:
(Page 10 right col section 9 conclusion “Furthermore, this study designed two neural networks, one for distinguishing whisper speech from normal speech and the other for recognizing whisper speech and implemented a prototype speechbased text input system using these neural networks and evaluated its usability.”
It would be inherent to have a processor to achieve this)
receive input from the at least one audio sensor;
(Fig 9 shows the input going through a whisper or normal voice classifier
Page 9 left col section 6 IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS "The GUI system manages the thread that receives the microphone input and splits it into packets containing 1,600 samples (100ms) of sound. These packets are sent via TCP/IP to the whisper discriminator, which discriminates each packet as containing whispers, normal voice, or silence. Then, depending on the result of the discrimination, the speech packet is then sent to either the whisper recognizer or the normal speech recognizer. ")
detect, using the at least one audio sensor, audio from a user of the wearable audio device; and
(page 6 right col section 4.2 Whisper Voice Classification and page 7 left col section 4.2 Whisper Voice Classification "The whisper voice classification part distinguishes whispers from normal voice input by a fixed-length (e.g., 100 ms) audio signal, whereas the feature extractor based on convolutional neural networks obtained from wav2vec 2.0 converts the acoustic signal into 512-dimensional features every 20 ms (Figure 5 (right)).")
Rekimoto do not explicitly teach all of modify an operational parameter of the wearable audio device perform an action in response to determining that i) a volume level of the audio from the user of the wearable audio device is below a threshold and ii) the audio indicates a desire to modify the operational parameter desired performance of the action.
However, Degges teaches
modify an operational parameter of the wearable audio device perform an action in response to determining that i) a volume level of the audio from the user of the wearable audio device is below a threshold and ii) the audio indicates a desire to modify the operational parameter desired performance of the action.
(col 2 lines 25-40 "A user (180) speaks the voice command 182, which is captured by microphones 116a and 116b, or by another audio capture device, such as a microphone on wireless headset 184. The automatic speech recognition (ASR) device 110 performs speech recognition processing (122) on the captured audio. The ASR device 110 may be connected to (or even located in) wireless headset 184. If a speech command is recognized that conveys to adjust the volume of the audio output, the ASR device 110 calculates (124) the sound intensity of the recognized speech command. The volume of the audio output is then adjusted based on the calculated intensity (126), approximately matching the volume of the output volume to the intensity of the speech command."
Col 2 line 6-20 " Software running on a user's device, or on a backend system supporting the device over a network, analyzes the sound intensity of voice command audio samples and extracts a volume level, adjusting the volume of multimedia playback to match the volume of the user's voice when issuing the “match volume” command. For example, if a user says “match volume” very quietly, playback volume may be lowered to whisper levels, whereas if the user yells the same command, the volume may be raised to a preset maximum level. Combined with a “mute” and “unmute” voice commands, three commands may cover a full range of playback volumes from none to maximum.")
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rekimoto to incorporate the teachings of Degges to provide a “modify an operational parameter of the wearable audio device perform an action in response to determining that i) a volume level of the audio from the user of the wearable audio device is below a threshold and ii) the audio indicates a desire to modify the operational parameter desired performance of the action.” Doing so would Allow a single command for a task instead of multiple iterations of a task, as recognized by Degges. (col1 lines 40-67 and col 2 lines 0-6 )
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Rekimoto in view of Degges, further Rekimoto teach
The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the volume level is below a normal speaking volume level of the user.
(Page 9 right col section Combination with Silent Speech "The sound pressure level of a typical conversation is approximately 60 dB; whereas, the sound pressure level of a whisper is in the range 30–40 dB. Thus, using a whisper voice as the speech command, the objectives of silent speech can be achieved. ")
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Rekimoto in view of Degges, further Rekimoto teach The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the threshold is at most 50 dB.
(Page 9 right col section Combination with Silent Speech "The sound pressure level of a typical conversation is approximately 60 dB; whereas, the sound pressure level of a whisper is in the range 30–40 dB. Thus, using a whisper voice as the speech command, the objectives of silent speech can be achieved. ")
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Rekimoto in view of Degges, further Rekimoto teach
The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein one or more audio sensors of the at least one audio sensor is a microphone.
(page 2 right col section introduction "Voice input requires no specialized input device other than a microphone and thus can be operated hands-free. ")
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8 , Rekimoto in view of Degges, further Degges teach
8. (Currently Amended) The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the determination triggers the performance of the action modification of the operational parameter.
(col 2 lines 25-40 "A user (180) speaks the voice command 182, which is captured by microphones 116a and 116b, or by another audio capture device, such as a microphone on wireless headset 184. The automatic speech recognition (ASR) device 110 performs speech recognition processing (122) on the captured audio. The ASR device 110 may be connected to (or even located in) wireless headset 184. If a speech command is recognized that conveys to adjust the volume of the audio output, the ASR device 110 calculates (124) the sound intensity of the recognized speech command. The volume of the audio output is then adjusted based on the calculated intensity (126), approximately matching the volume of the output volume to the intensity of the speech command."
Col 2 line 6-20 " Software running on a user's device, or on a backend system supporting the device over a network, analyzes the sound intensity of voice command audio samples and extracts a volume level, adjusting the volume of multimedia playback to match the volume of the user's voice when issuing the “match volume” command. For example, if a user says “match volume” very quietly, playback volume may be lowered to whisper levels, whereas if the user yells the same command, the volume may be raised to a preset maximum level. Combined with a “mute” and “unmute” voice commands, three commands may cover a full range of playback volumes from none to maximum.")
See claim 1 for rationale.
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, Rekimoto in view of Degges, further Rekimoto The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the audio from the user is a whisper.
(page 10 right col section 9 conclusion “This study proposed DualVoice, a speech input method for inputting non-text commands in a whispered voice and inputting text in a normal voice.”")
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10 , Rekimoto in view of Degges, further Rekimoto
The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein determining that the volume level of the audio from the user of the wearable audio device is below the threshold comprises determining that the characteristics of the audio is whisper speech.
(Page 9 right col section Combination with Silent Speech "The sound pressure level of a typical conversation is approximately 60 dB; whereas, the sound pressure level of a whisper is in the range 30–40 dB. Thus, using a whisper voice as the speech command, the objectives of silent speech can be achieved. ")
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, Rekimoto in view of Degges, furthermore, Degges teaches
20. (New) The wearable audio device of claim 1, further comprising an acoustic driver configured to emit an audio, and wherein the operational parameter is a volume of the audio emitted by the acoustic driver.
(col 3 lines 15-27 "FIG. 1 illustrates a system 100 for recognizing a speech command to adjust output volume based on the volume of a voice command to do so. Multimedia including audio and video, or just audio, is output. Audio is output via speakers 114, wireless headset 184, or some other audio output device. Video is output via display 112."
col 2 lines 25-40 "A user (180) speaks the voice command 182, which is captured by microphones 116a and 116b, or by another audio capture device, such as a microphone on wireless headset 184. The automatic speech recognition (ASR) device 110 performs speech recognition processing (122) on the captured audio. The ASR device 110 may be connected to (or even located in) wireless headset 184. If a speech command is recognized that conveys to adjust the volume of the audio output, the ASR device 110 calculates (124) the sound intensity of the recognized speech command. The volume of the audio output is then adjusted based on the calculated intensity (126), approximately matching the volume of the output volume to the intensity of the speech command.")
see claim one for rationale.
Claims 5-6, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rekimoto, Jun. "DualVoice: speech interaction that discriminates between normal and whispered voice input." Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 2022 in view of US 9830924 B1, (Degges, Jr.; Ronald Joseph.) in further view of US Patent US 20250094211 A1, (SPITTLE; Gary.).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Rekimoto in view of Degges do not explicitly teach all of 5. The wearable audio device of claim 4, wherein the microphone is a feedback microphone disposed within the housing.
However, SPITTLE teaches
The wearable audio device of claim 4, wherein the microphone is a feedback microphone disposed within the housing.
(paragraph 932 "A feedback microphone may be placed in the ear pieces to capture the sounds being heard by the user (e.g., representative of residual sound that may need to be removed). In some embodiments, a feedback microphone may be located in the user's ear canal such that it captures sounds that have passed through to the user's ear. A signal processing filter is designed to use the signal captured from the feedback microphone and create cancellation signal with the aim of reducing any residual noise even further. This signal path also has a transfer function from the feedback microphone to the loudspeaker"
Paragraph 933 "The feedback microphone may be an internal microphone that measures the actual internal sound level for the binaural intelligent active noise control algorithm. The signals from the feedback microphone may be compared to the noise levels measured by the feedforward (e.g., external) microphone. The difference between the signals from the feedback microphone and the feedforward microphone may be used to determine the performance of the binaural intelligent active noise control algorithm. For example, a noise reduction metric can be used to indicate how much noise the binaural intelligent active noise control algorithm removes, and a playback reduction metric can be used to indicate how much content playback level has been reduced.")
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rekimoto in view of Degges to incorporate the teachings of SPITTLE to provide a “The wearable audio device of claim 4, wherein the microphone is a feedback microphone disposed within the housing.” Doing so would Capture sounds that have passed through the users’ ears and can create a cancellation signal residuals noise, as recognized by SPITTLE. (Paragraph 932).
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Rekimoto in view of Degges in view of SPITTLE, furthermore, SPITTLE teaches
The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the housing is acoustically coupled with an ear canal of the user to define an acoustic volume, and wherein one or more audio sensors of the at least one audio sensor is included in the acoustic volume.
(paragraph 932 "A feedback microphone may be placed in the ear pieces to capture the sounds being heard by the user (e.g., representative of residual sound that may need to be removed). In some embodiments, a feedback microphone may be located in the user's ear canal such that it captures sounds that have passed through to the user's ear. A signal processing filter is designed to use the signal captured from the feedback microphone and create cancellation signal with the aim of reducing any residual noise even further. This signal path also has a transfer function from the feedback microphone to the loudspeaker"
Paragraph 933 "The feedback microphone may be an internal microphone that measures the actual internal sound level for the binaural intelligent active noise control algorithm. The signals from the feedback microphone may be compared to the noise levels measured by the feedforward (e.g., external) microphone. The difference between the signals from the feedback microphone and the feedforward microphone may be used to determine the performance of the binaural intelligent active noise control algorithm. For example, a noise reduction metric can be used to indicate how much noise the binaural intelligent active noise control algorithm removes, and a playback reduction metric can be used to indicate how much content playback level has been reduced.")
See claim 5 and 15 for rationale.
Claim 21
Regarding Claim 21, Rekimoto in view of Degges do not explicitly teach all of 21. (New) The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the operational parameter is a noise cancellation setting of the wearable audio device.
However, SPITTLE teaches
21. (New) The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the operational parameter is a noise cancellation setting of the wearable audio device.
(Paragraph 955 "In some embodiments, the steps performed by the binaural intelligent active noise control algorithm may be based on signal analysis, the specific user scenario, or both. For example, a first set of configurations may be downloaded and used when the user is located in a first scene. The binaural intelligent active noise control algorithm may switch to a second set of configuration when the user moves to a second scene. The first set of configurations may use less processing than the second set of configurations. The user may force the system to switch to a different set of parameters for a particular scenario, which requires a different user profile to be used for the noise cancellation."
Paragraph 1086 "In some embodiments, the settings may be based on ambient awareness. In some instances, removing all ambient sounds (e.g., active noise cancellation) may create an unnatural scene and usually leads to distortion of the sound source due to over processing. Complete isolation of active noise cancellation may be uncomfortable in some scenarios. This discomfort and disconnection from the original ambient sounds may cause the user to use more effort to listen for long periods of time. Instead, a user may want to “turn down the world,” and may do so via the customized settings.")
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rekimoto in view of Degges to incorporate the teachings of SPITTLE to provide a “21. (New) The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the operational parameter is a noise cancellation setting of the wearable audio device.” Doing so would Reduce unwanted noise, as recognized by SPITTLE. (Paragraph 1083).
Claim 22
Regarding Claim 22, Rekimoto in view of Degges do not explicitly teach all of 22. (New) The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the operational parameter is an audio output mode of the wearable audio device.
However, SPITTLE teaches
22. (New) The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the operational parameter is an audio output mode of the wearable audio device.
(paragraph 498 "The DSP instruction set may include instructions for NN output transitions. The NN output transitions instructions may ensure a smooth transition between NN outputs. The NN may create an output block with parameters and performance metrics that determine the audio signal processing to be applied. Exemplary output blocks may include a block of gains, a block of frequency components, etc. In some embodiments, the NN output transitions instructions may allow the user to switch to different audio processing modes or profiles based on their preferences. For example, mode A may be used for quiet ambient sound conditions, mode B may be used in a restaurant with a lot of reverberation, mode C might be used on an airplane, mode D might be for very noisy conditions, and mode E might be used for outdoor windy conditions. Additionally or alternatively, the NN may be updated to perform a different task, or the audio data may be routed to a different NN."
Paragraph 909 "In some embodiments, plugin parameters can be updated while the development platform is running. This allows the plugins to be deployed and evaluated for testing in real world scenarios with typical users of the system. Exemplary plugin parameters may include new coefficients for filters or gains for mixing. The plugin can generate metrics and debug information that can be extracted by the simulation software or the real-time running audio system. The plugin developer may allow the user to transmit and receive audio data into and out of the audio system for analysis. The plugin developer may also allow the user to interact with the audio system or the simulation software by, e.g., pressing buttons or other control inputs to cause updates and parameter changes. For example, the plugin developer may allow the user to change the output level or switch modes of operation.")
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rekimoto in view of Degges to incorporate the teachings of SPITTLE to provide a “22. (New) The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the operational parameter is an audio output mode of the wearable audio device.” Doing so would Allow the user to choose what voice command he would like to associate for a certain operation , as recognized by SPITTLE. (Paragraph 701).
Claim 23
Regarding Claim 23, Rekimoto in view of Degges do not explicitly teach all of 23. (New) The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the operational parameter is a spatial audio setting.
However, SPITTLE teaches
23. (New) The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the operational parameter is a spatial audio setting.
(paragraph 1190 "Advanced use cases would enable the use of plugins that provide a completely different listening experience. For example, the audio data for the music files can be delivered in spatial audio format that provides individual sound objects. These objects can be rendered to specific locations to provide an immersive experience. An audio processing plugin can be used to create a rendering based on the encoded audio data that matches the intent of the original audio recording. The audio processing plugin may be enabled such that the rendering can be changed by a user to adjust the spatialization of the audio to create a different immersive experience. User A can provide a parameter set that is their preferred way of spatializing the audio objects that are contained in the music track. This can be different from the original intent of the music track. User B can use the parameters provided by User A so that they can also experience the spatialization preferences of User A.")
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rekimoto in view of Degges to incorporate the teachings of SPITTLE to provide a “23. (New) The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the operational parameter is a spatial audio setting.” Doing so would Increase the volume of wanted noise, as recognized by SPITTLE. (Paragraph 1083).
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rekimoto, Jun. "DualVoice: speech interaction that discriminates between normal and whispered voice input." Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 2022 in view of US 9830924 B1, (Degges, Jr.; Ronald Joseph.) in further view of US Patent US 20250349294 A1, (Marelus; Meier.).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, Rekimoto in view of Degges do not explicitly teach all of 7. The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to extract the user’s audio from other audio sensed.
However, Marelus teach
The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to extract the user’s audio from other audio sensed.
(paragraph 237 "These can also, in combination with user voice identification modules, be combined so that the system is only listening to the voice of the pre-set user(s) or otherwise already-identified user(s) of the system, further reducing the amount of voice input it may have to analyze and determine whether or not it is addressed to the system.")
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rekimoto in view of Degges to incorporate the teachings of Marelus to provide a “7. The wearable audio device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to extract the user’s audio from other audio sensed.” Doing so would Reduce the amount of voice input it may have to analyze, as recognized by Marelus. (Paragraph 237).
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 ALI M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Paras Shah can be reached at (571)270-1650. 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.
/ALI M HASSAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
07/23/2026
Prosecution Insights