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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 13, 17-18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muggleton et al. (US 10,390,157 B2).
Re claim 1: Muggleton et al. teaches a method, comprising
receiving wirelessly, by a first electronic device (104) in a noise environment, a noise notification (sound measurements processed by (107) providing noise notifications, calculated weighted A9dBA) and C (dBC) indicated of noise level measured by the second device (102) that is located in the noise environment) (Note each of elements (104) and (102) are carried by a user (such as on the users head (headset) and being a handheld device such as a smartphone) each of which is in a noisy environment (column 4, lines 41-43) and which are in wireless communication with each other (column 1, lines 44-48); and
providing, by the first electronic device responsive to the noise notification, a hearing protection notification (in the form of suggestions of the type of personal protection equipment that would be best for the environment).
Re claim 17: this claim sets forth similar features as claim 1 that are satisfied by the teaching of Muggleton et al. as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additionally, the claimed memory and one or more processors is taught (column 5, line 51 – column 6, line 10) to perform all information handling
Re claim 21: Muggleton et al. teaches a method, comprising:
determining, by a first electronic device (such as by combination of elements 102 and element 104) each carried by a user (headset and handheld) in a noisy environment (column 4, lines 41-43), that a noise level in a physical environment of the first electronic device is above a threshold noise level (see discussion in column 5, lines 6-14); and
providing, wirelessly by the first electronic device and responsive to the determining, a noise notification advertisement (suggestion) that is detectable within a predetermined range of the first electronic device (such as by use of a kiosk and/or workstation, column 5, lines 20-25).
Re claim 2: the wireless advertisement is satisfied by the wireless signal of suggested type of personal protection equipment with the noise level being those levels reaching threshold(s) discussed in column 5, lines 10-13 that can be provided via the kiosk and/or workstation.
Re claim 3: note that when used in conjunction with a kiosk and or work station there will be an indicated relation between the detected noise level and the type of suggested head protection corresponding to the noise level.
Re claim 4: see column 4, lines 43-45 in which noise levels are measured for a given time period
Re claim 5: note the device (104) that can be a smart phone includes a display on its front as depicted and as discussed in column 5, lines 37-47 can be implemented to display received information which would include any notification as set forth
Re claim 7: the recommendation to don a hearing protection device is satisfied by the suggestion to use of a specific type of personal protection equipment (figure 2)
Re claim 8: note device (104) is wirelessly connected to an active protection device, such as (102), column 1, lines 44-45 and wherein the recommendation to don a hearing protection device is satisfied by the suggestion to use of a specific type of personal protection equipment (figure 2)
Re claim 9: note that the use of the different types of personal hearing protection equipment as taught is for the purpose of reducing the amounts of noise received at the ear of the user.
Re claim 10: note a possible type of protection equipment used can be an earbud (column 4, lines 38-41)
Re claim 13: note the signals received at device (104) are sound signals that are used for the determination of a hearing protection notification when the audio exceeds a threshold noise level (column 5, lines 10-16)
Re claim 18: note microphone(s) are used to sample the physical environment (column 10, lines 38-43) that are then used in the processing as already discussed in claim 17.
Re claim 20: it is noted that the devices (102 and (104) used do not have to be registered to any single user account and can be from devices of different user accounts
Re claim 22: note that when the arrangement is used with a kiosk as taught in Muggleton et al., that this kiosk has to be within a range of the used wireless protocol in order communications to take place and with this communication including information indicating the noise level
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12, 14-16, 19, 23-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed method including in combination those features of claim 1 wherein the noise notification comprises a first noise notification, and wherein providing the hearing protection notification responsive to receiving the noise notification comprises providing the hearing protection notification responsive to receiving at least the first noise notification from the second electronic device that is located in the noise environment and a second noise notification from a third electronic device that is located in the noise environment as set forth in claim 11 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 12 depend upon those features of claim 11/1. The claimed method including in combination those features of claim 13/1, wherein obtaining the audio sample of the noise environment responsive to receiving the noise notification comprises, by the first electronic device: receiving the noise notification and a plurality of additional noise notifications; and waiting to obtain the audio sample of the noise environment until a threshold number of noise notifications have been received as set forth in claim 14 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 15 depend upon those features of claim 14/13/1. The claimed method including in combination those features of claim 1, wherein providing the hearing protection notification responsive to receiving the noise notification comprises: determining, by the first electronic device, that a microphone of the first electronic device is in a container within the noise environment; and providing the hearing protection notification responsive to receiving the noise notification and responsive to determining, by the first electronic device, that the first electronic device has been removed from the container as set forth in claim 16 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed method including in combination those features of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the noise level responsive to receiving the noise notification from the other device and at least one additional noise notification from at least one additional device as set forth in claim 19 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed method including in combination those features of claim 21, wherein the first electronic device is associated with a first user account, wherein the noise notification advertisement is configured for detection by at least a second electronic device associated with a second user account, different from the first user account as set forth in claim 23 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 24 depend upon those features of claims 23/21. The claimed method including in combination those features of claim 1 wherein, wherein the first electronic device corresponds to a first user, and wherein the second electronic device corresponds to a second user different from the first user as set forth in claim 25 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re claims 1 and 17: applicant argues that the teaching of Muggleton et al. does not teach “wherein the noise notification comprises a wireless advertisement including an indication of the noise level measured by the second electronic device in the noise environment”. Examiner does not agree. Note that claims 1 and 17 do not provide any distinction between a measured noise level and a noise notification that distinguishes over the art as applied. Clearly the calculated weighted A (dBA) and C (dBC), indicated of noise level measured by the second device (102) can be considered as a noise notification provided by a second device (102) to a first device (104) and is a form of indication of noise level measured at the second device (102) and processed within (102) by element (107) when device (102) monitors sounds of the environment. Also, examiner already note that portion in Muggleton et al. including processors for overall processor control of the device in claim 17.
Re claim 21: Examiner does not agree with applicants’ arguments. See above rejection of claim 21 pointing to those teachings in Muggleton et al. satisfying the limitations of claim 21 as broadly as set forth.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 8/13/26
Prosecution Insights