DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, "a first audio signal broadcasting device to the patient,” appears to be missing words in between “device” and “to.”
In claim 1, “comprising” should be “comprising:” in line 2 and “and ;” should be “and;” in line 10.
In claim 11, “of :” should be “of:” in line 2 and “and ;” should be “and;” in line 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1 and 11, the limitations “preferably between 40Hz and 160Hz,” and “preferably to the at least one tinnitus frequency plus or minus 6%” render the claim unclear.
Claims 2-10 and 12-13 are rejected for depending on the above claims.
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 1-2, 5-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drexler et al. (US 2015/0003650 A1), hereinafter “Drexler.”
As to claim 1, Drexler discloses a sound system adapted for the treatment of tinnitus in a patient (Fig. 1a) comprising
- an audio signal generator adapted to generate an audio signal based on a preset profile of a patient's tinnitus, said profile comprising at least one tinnitus frequency of said tinnitus (¶0042 and ¶0104, Figs. 1, 6 and 17. “Once the therapy is completed and the session ends, a patient's device 12 is connected to healthcare professional's device 10 and the tinnitus therapy is loaded onto patient's device 12.” “The method at [620] includes finalizing the pure tone sound saving the sound to the healthcare professional's device. Finalization of the tinnitus sound match may include setting therapy parameters.”);
- a first audio signal broadcasting device to the patient, the first audio signal broadcasting device being connected to the audio signal generator (¶0043, Fig. 1. “Patient's device 12 may include a set of customized earphones 56… earphones 56 may be used while generating a tinnitus therapy via a healthcare professional's device as well as during the tinnitus therapy via the patient's device.”);
wherein said audio signal comprises:
- a fundamental frequency (¶0098 and Fig. 14. Frequency 1704.), and ;
- at least one harmonic of said fundamental frequency, said harmonic being equal to the at least one tinnitus frequency plus or minus 10%, preferably to the at least one tinnitus frequency plus or minus 6%,and in that said first audio signal broadcasting device is adapted to broadcast said audio signal (¶0098, ¶0100-0101 and ¶0104, Figs. 6 and 17. “Specifically, graph 1700 shows the central frequency at 1702 with an added higher octave shown at 1706 and a lower octave shown at 1704.” “a user interface may include a tinnitus therapy sound display including a pure tone sound template display following the tinnitus therapy sound template selection process.” Frequencies 1702 and 1706 are harmonics of 1704. Frequency 1702 corresponds to the tinnitus frequency.).
Drexler does not expressly disclose the fundamental frequency between 20Hz and 300Hz.
However, Drexler (¶0098, ¶0100-0101 and ¶0104, Figs. 6 and 17) discloses that frequency 1702 corresponds to the patient’s tinnitus frequency. Applicant’s instant specification states that the majority of tinnitus cases are between 500 Hz and 10KHz (see ¶0035 of instant specification, as filed). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that when Frequency 1702 is 500 Hz, fundamental frequency 1704 is 250 Hz, which is between 20 Hz and 300 Hz. The motivation would have been using a frequency that is in the range of the majority of tinnitus cases.
As to claim 2, Drexler does not expressly disclose wherein the first audio signal broadcasting device comprises a subwoofer for broadcasting to the patient a low-frequency audio signal having a frequency equal to the fundamental frequency.
However, Drexler (¶0043) does disclose, “another type of earphones or listening device may be used.” Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the sound could be output to a device comprising a subwoofer. The motivation would have been that subwoofers are other listening devices and are well-known, routine and conventional in the art for outputting sound.
As to claim 5, Drexler discloses a second audio signal broadcasting device adapted to broadcast a plurality of audio signals so as to objectify said tinnitus and generate said tinnitus profile (¶0049. “In one example, when a tinnitus therapy sound template is selected (e.g., one of sound templates 57-61 and 90-91), a pre-defined tinnitus therapy sound template may be played and heard from an external speaker (not shown).”).
As to claim 6, Drexler discloses wherein the patient's tinnitus profile further comprises: a tinnitus behavior and/or; - a tinnitus intensity and/or; - a tinnitus sound nature (¶0100-0104, Fig. 6. “The user interface may include a display for a pure tone sound template display including adjustment input buttons (e.g. slide bars) for modifying the frequency, intensity, timbre, reverberation, and white noise edge enhancement of the tinnitus sound template.”).
As to claim 7, Drexler does not expressly disclose wherein the first audio signal broadcasting device comprises at least three loudspeakers.
However, Drexler (¶0043) does disclose, “earphones 56 may be used while generating a tinnitus therapy… In another example, another type of earphones or listening device may be used.” Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the audio output device could comprise at least three speakers. The motivation would have been that earphones with more that two speakers are well-known in the art, and further, outputting sound to three of more loudspeakers is well-known, routine and conventional in the art or audio signal processing. Either approach would have been a simple substitution of a known element for another to yield predictable results.
As to claim 8, Drexler discloses wherein the first audio signal broadcasting device comprises headphones or a hearing aid for broadcasting the audio signal to the patient (¶0043, Fig. 1. “Patient's device 12 may include a set of customized earphones 56.”).
As to claim 11, it is directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same motivation as claim 1 above.
As to claim 12, it is rejected under claim 11 using the same motivation as claim 6 above.
As to claim 13, Drexler discloses wherein the step of establishing a tinnitus profile comprises a phase of broadcasting a plurality of sounds to said patient by means of a second audio signal broadcasting device, and a phase of receiving feedback from the patient, said feedback being based on the patient's perception of the plurality of audio signals (¶0049 and ¶0144-0145, Fig. 25. “a pre-defined tinnitus therapy sound template may be played and heard from an external speaker (not shown).” “At 2506, the method includes playing a pre-determined sound based on an input selection. In one example, if a user selects a frequency input and an intensity input, a corresponding sound may be presented to the user. In another example, a user interface may prompt a user to confirm if the sound played is within a user's hearing range.” “At 2510, the method includes determining if the adjustment of the hearing data is complete. If the adjustment is not complete, the method continues, at 2508, until the adjustment to the hearing data is completed. The method, at 2512, includes generating and displaying an audiogram based on the adjusted hearing data.”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drexler, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Von Othegraven (US 2008/0214973 A1).
As to claim 3, Drexler does not expressly disclose wherein the system further comprises a patient support, the subwoofer being arranged so that vibrations corresponding to said fundamental frequency emitted by the subwoofer are propagated in the patient support.
Von Othegraven discloses wherein the system further comprises a patient support, the subwoofer being arranged so that vibrations corresponding to said fundamental frequency emitted by the subwoofer are propagated in the patient support (Von Othegraven, ¶0003 and ¶0027. “Tinnitus.” “the acoustic bodies 1 are mounted without a diaphragm on the support plate 2, through which the vibrations are transmitted directly to the support plate 2. These vibrations are transmitted directly to the body of the patient and are perceptible as low-frequency vibrations. Through the direct transmission of these vibrations to the body instead of an acoustic perception, these vibrations are also not subject to cognitive filtering.” “It has been shown in therapeutic practice that in many cases vibrations especially rich in overtones are advantageous.”).
Drexler and Von Othegraven are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to tinnitus treatment.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to propagate vibrations to the user, as taught by Von Othegraven. The motivation would have been that vibrations rich in overtones are advantageous for therapeutic practice (Von Othegraven, ¶0003 and ¶0032.).
As to claim 4, Drexler in view of Von Othegraven discloses wherein the patient support is selected from: a bed, a massage table or a seat (Von Othegraven, ¶0025, Fig. 1. Bed/table/seat shown.).
The motivation is the same as claim 3 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drexler, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lardaro et al. (US 2020/0178852 A1), hereinafter “Lardaro.”
As to claim 9, Drexler does not expressly disclose wherein the system further comprises a sound-isolated booth, the first audio signal broadcasting device being disposed inside the booth.
Lardaro discloses wherein the system further comprises a sound-isolated booth, the first audio signal broadcasting device being disposed inside the booth (Lardaro, ¶0064, Fig. 1. “The patient 110 is tested while inside a soundproof booth 135, to prevent background noise from influencing the test results, as is commonly done in the art of audiological testing.”).
Drexler and Lardaro are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to hearing evaluation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a soundproof booth, as taught by Lardaro,. The motivation would have been to prevent background noise from influencing the test results, as is commonly done in the art of audiological testing (Lardaro, ¶0064).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drexler, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of McGuire (US 2011/0071340 A1).
As to claim 10, Drexler does not expressly disclose a database of a plurality of patient tinnitus profiles, the audio signal generator being connected to said database.
McGuire discloses a database of a plurality of patient tinnitus profiles, the audio signal generator being connected to said database (¶0084. “a patient may create a profile according to website 400. Website 400 may include patient information (e.g., in a database) pertaining to the treatment of tinnitus, including the patient's tinnitus frequency, hearing levels based on intensity, right/left hearing balance, progress indicators such as graphs and illustrations with respect to the patient's condition, or any other information related to the treatment of tinnitus.”).
Drexler and McGuire are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to tinnitus treatment.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a database of patient information, as taught by McGuire. The motivation would have been to store hearing profiles of different patients.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-6:30 EST.
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 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695