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 . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Anticipation
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.
Claims 1–3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Audioscan Verifit User’s Guide 3.26, https://docs.audioscan.com/userguides/vf1manual.pdf (last accessed 15 April 2026) (January 2022) (“Verifit”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a directivity measurement method.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method and the Verifit reference.
Claim 1
The Verifit Reference
“1. A directivity measurement method for a multiple sound source microphone comprising:
The Verifit reference similarly describes a system and method for measuring the directivity of a directional microphone included in a hearing aid. Verifit at p.6.
“providing a first sound source;
“providing a second sound source;
The Verifit reference describes the Audioscan Verifit hearing aid analyzer device. Id. at p.6, ¶¶ 3–8. The analyzer device includes first and second loudspeakers corresponding to the claimed first sound source and second sound source. Id. at p. 6, ¶ 4, p. 56 (figure depicts inside of the analyzer, with a left speaker and a right speaker). See also Figure 1, below.
“disposing a microphone to be tested at a measurement position;
A user will place a hearing aid having a microphone in a test box having a measurement position located between the two loudspeakers. Id. at pp. 46–47.
“turning on the first sound source and the second sound source,
“wherein a first sound wave generated by the first sound source overlaps and interferes with a second sound wave generated by the second sound source, and
“a transmission range of the overlapped and interfered with first and second sound waves encompasses the measurement position;
The Verifit reference describes activating the left-hand loudspeaker and the right-hand loudspeaker to generate respective first and second sound waves corresponding to different types of hearing aid analysis tests. Id. at pp. 48–63. For example, in a directional function test, a user will turn on both loudspeakers to generate audio simultaneously. Id. at pp. 56–59. Due to the positioning of a hearing aid between the two loudspeakers and the orientation of the speakers towards the hearing aid, the first and second sound waves will inherently overlap and interfere at the measurement position of the hearing aid’s microphones. See id. at pp. 46–47, 56–59.
“measuring an electronic signal of the microphone to be tested at the measurement position to obtain a directivity of the microphone to be tested.”
Likewise, the Verifit device uses its coupler mic to measure the electronic signal recorded by the hearing aid’s directional microphone to obtain the directional performance of the hearing aid’s directional microphone. See id.
Table 1
PNG
image1.png
100
100
image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up version of Verifit at p.56 (marked-up to highlight correspondence with claimed invention).
For the foregoing reasons, the Verifit reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the measurement position is located on a vertical line passing through a midpoint of a line connecting the first sound source and the second sound source.”
As seen in Figure 1, above, the Verifit device includes a hearing aid microphone measurement located on a vertical line passing through a midpoint of a line that connects the left-hand loudspeaker and the right-hand loudspeaker. For the foregoing reasons, the Verifit reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“further comprising: rotating the microphone to be tested, wherein a recording port of the microphone to be tested at the measurement position has a first angle relative to the vertical line.”
Similarly, the Verifit reference describes rotating a hearing aid so that the axis of maximum sensitivity of its microphone is oriented towards the left-hand loudspeaker (i.e., the axis should be perpendicular to the left-hand speaker’s grille, meaning the axis will be rotated away from a vertical line subdividing a line connecting the two speakers). Verifit at pp. 46, 57–58. For the foregoing reasons, the Verifit reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 is drawn to “a directivity measurement device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed device and the Verifit reference.
Claim 9
The Verifit Reference
“9. A directivity measurement device for a multiple sound source microphone, comprising:
The Verifit reference similarly describes a system and method for measuring the directivity of a directional microphone included in a hearing aid. Verifit at p.6.
“a first sound source for generating a first sound wave;
“a second sound source for generating a second sound wave;
The Verifit reference describes the Audioscan Verifit hearing aid analyzer device. Id. at p.6, ¶¶ 3–8. The analyzer device includes first and second loudspeakers corresponding to the claimed first sound source and second sound source. Id. at p. 6, ¶ 4, p. 56 (figure depicts inside of the analyzer, with a left speaker and a right speaker). See also Figure 1, above.
“a carrier platform disposed at a measurement position, wherein the carrier platform is used for carrying a microphone to be tested;
A user will place a hearing aid having a microphone in a test box, or carrier platform, that includes a measurement position located between the two loudspeakers. Id. at pp. 46–47.
“a signal measurement module electrically connected to the microphone to be tested, wherein the signal measurement module measures an electronic signal of the microphone to be tested at the measurement position for obtaining a directivity of the microphone to be tested;
Likewise, the Verifit device uses its coupler mic to measure the electronic signal recorded by the hearing aid’s directional microphone to obtain the directional performance of the hearing aid’s directional microphone. See id.
“wherein the first sound wave overlaps and interferes with the second sound wave, and a transmission range of the overlapped and interfered with first and second sound waves encompasses the measurement position.”
The Verifit reference describes activating the left-hand loudspeaker and the right-hand loudspeaker to generate respective first and second sound waves corresponding to different types of hearing aid analysis tests. Id. at pp. 48–63. For example, in a directional function test, a user will turn on both loudspeakers to generate audio simultaneously. Id. at pp. 56–59. Due to the positioning of a hearing aid between the two loudspeakers, the first and second sound waves will inherently overlap and interfere at the measurement position of the hearing aid’s microphones. See id. at pp. 46–47, 56–59.
Table 2
For the foregoing reasons, the Verifit reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Obviousness
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.
Claims 4–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Verifit reference.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Verifit and CA 2885980 (published 23 September 2016) (“Cole”).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Verifit, Cole and Audioscan Verifit User’s Guide 4.28, https://web.archive.org/web/20220305130608/https://docs.audioscan.com/userguides/vf2manual.pdf (last accessed 15 April 2026) (“Verifit II”).
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“further comprising: rotating the microphone to be tested, wherein the recording port of the microphone to be tested at the measurement position is rotated from the first angle to a second angle relative to the vertical line.”
Similarly, the Verifit reference describes rotating a hearing aid so that the axis of maximum sensitivity of its microphone is oriented towards the left-hand loudspeaker (i.e., the axis should be perpendicular to the left-hand speaker’s grille, meaning the axis will be rotated away from a vertical line subdividing a line connecting the two speakers). Verifit at pp. 46, 57–58. This reasonably teaches and suggests rotating the microphone again (as necessary) to ensure it stays in the correct orientation after fitting a coupler microphone to the hearing aid. For the foregoing reasons, the Verifit reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein a distance between the measurement position and the first sound source is greater than 5 cm and a distance between the measurement position and the second sound source is greater than 5 cm.”
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein a distance between the measurement position and the first sound source is 10 cm and a distance between the measurement position and the second sound source is 10 cm.”
Claims 5 and 6 are treated together because they recite similar subject matter. The Verifit reference does not expressly describe the claimed dimensions. However, based on the pictures of the Verifit device, which depict a typical pair of over-the-head headphones, and assuming that the widest portion of the depicted pair of headphones corresponds to the average human head width (~15 cm1), the distance between the measurement position and the two loudspeakers would be approximately 10 cm. See Verifit at p. 56. See also Figure 2, below. Based on these figures, the Verifit reference thus reasonably suggests forming the device with the claimed dimensions as a simple matter of sizing the device as roughly depicted in the manual.
PNG
image2.png
100
100
image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Marked-up version of Verifit at p.56 (marked-up to highlight correspondence with claimed invention).
For the foregoing reasons, the Verifit reference makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“further comprising: providing a third sound source,
“wherein the measurement position is symmetrical to the first sound source, the second sound source and the third sound source.”
The Verifit reference describes a test box with two speakers, not three. The Cole reference is similarly drawn to a test box for measuring the performance of a hearing aid microphone included in a binaural hearing aid system. Cole at Abs., ¶¶ 32, 94, 95. Cole further suggests providing three sound sources in order to perform binaural testing. Id. at Abs., ¶¶ 32, 94, 95. The cross-shaped measurement position has symmetry with each of the three positions. Id. at ¶¶ 94, 95, FIGs.1, 4. Read together, Verifit and Cole reasonably suggest modifying the Verifit test box to include three speakers, arranged, as suggested by Cole. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that doing so would enable directional testing of binaural hearing aids. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Verifit and the Cole references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first sound wave and the second sound wave have the same amplitude and frequency.”
The combination of the Verifit and the Cole references set forth in the obviousness rejection of claim 7, incorporated herein, is drawn to a test box with three speakers. Neither of the references, however, describes operating two of its speakers to generate sound waves having the same amplitude and frequency. The Verifit II reference is similarly drawn to a test box, and describes particular methods for operating the test box to test directionality of hearing aid microphones. In particular, the Verifit II manual teaches and suggests operating the two auxiliary speakers 428a and 428b with the same amplitude and frequency to create noise while testing the on-axis response of the hearing aid microphone and to test binaural response. Verifit II at p. 144. This would have reasonably suggested modifying the Cole reference to support a similar testing technique, where Cole’s two auxiliary speakers would operate simultaneously to produce the same type of noise for directional testing and binaural testing. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Cole and the Verifit II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9, and further requires the following:
“wherein the measurement position is located on a vertical line passing through a midpoint of a line connecting the first sound source and the second sound source, and
“the first sound wave and the second sound wave have the same amplitude and frequency.”
As seen in Figure 1, above, the Verifit device includes a hearing aid microphone measurement located on a vertical line passing through a midpoint of a line that connects the left-hand loudspeaker and the right-hand loudspeaker.
The combination of the Verifit and the Cole references set forth in the obviousness rejection of claim 7, incorporated herein, is drawn to a test box with three speakers. Neither of the references, however, describes operating two of its speakers to generate sound waves having the same amplitude and frequency. The Verifit II reference is similarly drawn to a test box, and describes particular methods for operating the test box to test directionality of hearing aid microphones. In particular, the Verifit II manual teaches and suggests operating the two auxiliary speakers 428a and 428b with the same amplitude and frequency to create noise while testing the on-axis response of the hearing aid microphone and to test binaural response. Verifit II at p. 144. This would have reasonably suggested modifying the Cole reference to support a similar testing technique, where Cole’s two auxiliary speakers would operate simultaneously to produce the same type of noise for directional testing and binaural testing. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Cole and the Verifit II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–10 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
5/21/2026
1 The Examiner takes Official notice of the typical size of a human head and the consequent formation of a headband to accommodate the typical size.
Prosecution Insights