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 . This Office action is based on the communications filed April 30, 2025. Claims 1 – 17 are currently pending and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2026, IDS submitted on 01/05/2026, IDS submitted on 12/19/2025, IDS submitted on 12/12/2025, IDS submitted on 11/24/2025, IDS submitted on 11/14/2025, IDS submitted on 10/17/2025, IDS submitted on 09/15/2025, IDS submitted on 09/05/2025, IDS submitted on 08/13/2025, IDS submitted on 07/22/2025, IDS submitted on 06/30/2025, IDS submitted on 06/17/2025, IDS submitted on 06/09/2025, IDS submitted on 05/30/2025, IDS submitted on 04/28/2025, IDS submitted on 04/10/2025, IDS submitted on 03/26/2025, IDS submitted on 02/28/2025, IDS submitted on 02/18/2025, IDS submitted on 01/17/2025, IDS submitted on 01/08/2025, IDS submitted on 12/17/2024, IDS submitted on 12/09/2024, IDS submitted on 11/14/2024, and IDS submitted on 10/25/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 11 and 14 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yonovitz et al. (US 2004/0190729 A1), hereinafter Yonovitz.
Claim 1: Yonovitz discloses a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component (see at least, “Preferably, a display is provided to indicate whether hearing protection equipment has been designated, and the type (eg. ear muffs, ear plugs, both, etc),” Yonovitz [0031], “In use, the device is preferably worn so that the display is visible, so that other persons in the workplace may see the display and determine whether the person wearing the device is complying by wearing the hearing protection equipment that is designated,” Yonovitz [0032], “A schematic block diagram of a noise monitoring system in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention is shown in FIG. 9. The noise monitoring system may be implemented by a desktop computer system or laptop computer. The components may include an interface, including a keyboard 40 and mouse 41, and a visual display
unit 42. A processing means 43 is connected to the interface and also to a database 44. Where the system is implemented via a desktop computer system, the database 44 and processing means 43 will be implemented by computer hardware and software, as will be appreciated by the skilled person. An infrared (IR) port 45 is arranged for IR communication with IR port 9 on devices 1,” Yonovitz [0109]) and one or more input devices (see at least, “The device is preferably provided with an acknowledgment means enabling the wearer to acknowledge that they are aware that a predetermined noise dose value has been reached. In a preferred embodiment, the acknowledgment means includes an input key, which is actuated by the user. This has the advantage that an administrator/manager can ascertain that a user was aware that the noise dose value has been reached. Preferably, the predetermined noise dose value is an allowable noise dose ie. a noise dose which it has been determined a user should not exceed. Allowable noise doses may be regulated by governing authorities. An administrator/manager can therefore ascertain that a user was aware that their maximum allowable noise dose had been reached,” Yonovitz [0028], Yonovitz FIGS. 8 – 10), comprising:
one or more processors (see at least, “The microprocessor logs that the user has acknowledged receiving the 100% noise dose,” Yonovitz [0108], “The noise monitoring system may be implemented by a desktop computer system or laptop computer,” Yonovitz [0109]); and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (see at least, “A computer program including instructions for controlling a computing device to implement a noise monitoring system,” Yonovitz claim 56):
receiving, via the one or more input devices, an input corresponding to a request to display audio exposure data (see at least, “In response to the indication that 100% level has been reached, the worker actuates the acknowledgment key 7. The microprocessor logs that the user has acknowledged receiving the 100% noise dose. This provides an indication to management that the user is aware that their allowable noise dose has been reached. It will be documented (by storage of data in the device 1) if the worker continues working under the same conditions. The memory 23 is arranged to store up to 60 days worth of logged data. This data can be periodically uploaded to a noise management system. The data may be uploaded at the end of each shift, weekly or at any convenient period within the ambit of the memory 23,” Yonovitz [0108]); and in response to receiving the input corresponding to the request to display audio exposure data (see at least, “This provides an indication to management that the user is aware that their allowable noise dose has been reached,” Yonovitz [0108]), displaying, via the display generation component, an audio exposure interface, including concurrently displaying (see at least, “FIGS. 12A and 12B are examples of reports on employees noise exposure and non compliance and exposure, produced by the noise monitoring system of FIG. 7,” Yonovitz [0053], Yonovitz FIGS 12A and 12B):
an indication of audio exposure data over a first period of time (see at least, “EMPLOYEES SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE GREATER THAN 100% BETWEEN 1/1/03 - 30/6/03,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A); and a first visual indication of a first alert provided as a result of a first audio exposure value exceeding an audio exposure threshold, the first visual indication of the first alert including an indication of a time at which the first alert was provided (see at least, “DATE OF EXPOSURE EXPOSURE % COMPLIANCE %,” “9/2/03 125% YES,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A).
Claim 2: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the audio exposure interface further includes a second visual indication of a second alert provided as a result of a second audio exposure value exceeding the audio exposure threshold, the second visual indication of the second alert including an indication of a time at which the second alert was provided (see at least, “12/2/03 112% YES,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A).
Claim 3: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 2, wherein: displaying the indication of audio exposure data over the first period of time includes: displaying a first subset of the audio exposure data corresponding to a first subset of the first period of time and including the first audio exposure value (see at least, “9/2/03 125% YES,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A); and displaying a second subset of the audio exposure data corresponding to a second subset of the first period of time and including the second audio exposure value (see at least, “12/2/03 112% YES,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A); the first visual indication of the first alert is displayed with the first subset of the audio exposure data (see at least, “9/2/03 125% YES,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A); and the second visual indication of the second alert is displayed with the second subset of the audio exposure data (see at least, “12/2/03 112% YES,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A).
Claim 4: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the audio exposure interface includes an indication of one or more days that the first alert was provided (see at least, “DATE OF EXPOSURE,” “9/2/03,” “12/2/03,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A).
Claim 5: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the indication of audio exposure data includes a representation of audio exposure data aggregated over the first period of time (see at least, “EMPLOYEES SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE GREATER THAN 100% BETWEEN 1/1/03 - 30/6/03,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A);
Claim 6: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 5, wherein the representation of audio exposure data aggregated over the first period of time includes: a graphical representation of the aggregated audio exposure data displayed over the first period of time relative to an indication of the audio exposure threshold (see at least, “EMPLOYEES SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE GREATER THAN 100% BETWEEN 1/1/03 - 30/6/03,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A).
Claim 7: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 5, wherein the aggregated audio exposure data is calculated on a repeating schedule (see at least, “The device 1 may be calibrated before every monitoring period (eg. workshift), by the user,” Yonovitz [0102], “It will be documented (by storage of data in the device 1) if the worker continues working under the same conditions. The memory 23 is arranged to store up to 60 days worth of logged data. This data can be periodically uploaded to a noise management system. The data may be uploaded at the end of each shift, weekly or at any convenient period within the ambit of the memory 23. “1. Present noise levels that workers are exposed to throughout a pre-determined time period (eg. Their work shift),” Yonovitz [0112]).
Claim 8: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein :the first audio exposure value corresponds to an aggregate audio exposure value over a period of time (see at least, “3. The percentage noise dose values received during a pre-determined time period,” Yonovitz [0114], “EMPLOYEES SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE GREATER THAN 100% BETWEEN 1/1/03 - 30/6/03,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A); and the first visual indication includes an indication of the period of time of the aggregate audio exposure that corresponds to the first alert (see at least, “DATE OF EXPOSURE,” “9/2/03,” “12/2/03,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A).
Claim 9: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein displaying the audio exposure interface further includes displaying a user interface object including an indication of a sum of alerts provided during the first period of time (see at least, “EMPLOYEES SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE GREATER THAN 100% BETWEEN 1/1/03 - 30/6/03,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A).
Claim 10: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 9, wherein the sum of alerts includes a sum of alerts generated in response to exceeding an aggregate audio exposure limit (see at least, “3. The percentage noise dose values received during a pre-determined time period,” Yonovitz [0114], “EMPLOYEES SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE GREATER THAN 100% BETWEEN 1/1/03 - 30/6/03,” Yonovitz FIG. 12A).
Claim 11: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: receiving, via the one or more input devices, an input corresponding to a request to display a listing of audio exposure alerts; and in response to receiving the input corresponding to the request to display a listing of audio exposure alerts, displaying a list that includes: an indication of a first audio exposure alert provided as a result of one or more audio exposure values exceeding one or more audio exposure thresholds, the indication of the first audio exposure alert including first audio sample data corresponding to the first audio exposure alert; and an indication of a second audio exposure alert provided as a result of one or more audio exposure values exceeding one or more audio exposure thresholds, the indication of the second audio exposure alert including second audio sample data corresponding to the second audio exposure alert (see at least, FIG. 12A, “Site survey information 52 is also input into the noise monitoring system. This information details the noise levels of nominated areas within the workplace. Usually this involves defining sites of interest and collecting noise samples over time from various locations within the site,” Yonovitz [0119], “The primary outputs of the system are as follows: 1. Reports on compliance with wearing hearing protection equipment and exposure to noise (reference numeral 53). 2. A personal noise summary (reference numeral 54). 3. Statistical and interpretive reports (reference numeral 55). 4. A hearing conservation register 56. 5. A site noise summary ("site sound survey") 57,” Yonovitz [0120] – [0125], Yonovitz TABLE 2 [0126], TABLE 3 Yonovitz [0127], “FIGS. 12A and 12B are extracts from example reporting produced by the noise monitoring system,” Yonovitz [0128].
Claim 14: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the audio exposure data corresponds to ambient sound (see at least, “They provide samples of ambient noise from which subsequent calculations are made to estimate noise exposure for personnel,” Yonovitz [0009]).
Claim 15: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the audio exposure data corresponds to audio output generated by the computer system (see at least, “FIG. 7B illustrates a menu screen. A blackened circle 201 indicates a highlighted icon. By default the top (set-up) icon 202 is highlighted. Input key 5 is actuated to toggle the highlighting between top icon 202 and bottom
icon 203. Input key 7 is operated to select a function implied by an icon. If the top icon 2 is selected, the device proceeds to a "setup" routine and if the bottom 203 icon is selected the device proceeds to a "calibration check" routine,” Yonovitz [0098], “The calibrator is battery powered. It utilises a crystal clock to produce a square wave of 1000 hertz. The square wave is applied as input to an eight pole elliptical filter that produces a sign wave signal. The signal is reproduced through a miniature output transducer. Calibrators are known,” Yonovitz [0103], “In operation, data from a plurality of devices 1 (from the devices associated with all the persons being monitored in the workforce) are uploaded periodically to the noise monitoring system via the IR port 45,” Yonovitz [0110]).
Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices, the one or more programs including instructions for performing the steps substantially similar in scope to those of the computing system of claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons (see also at least, “A computer program including instructions for controlling a computing device to implement a noise monitoring system,” Yonovitz claim 56).
Claim 17 is directed to a method, comprising: at a computer system in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices performing the steps substantially similar in scope to those of the computing system of claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons (see also at least, “A computer program including instructions for controlling a computing device to implement a noise monitoring system,” Yonovitz claim 56).
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonovitz in view of Battenberg et al. (US 2005/0244013 A1), hereinafter Battenberg.
Claim 13: Yonovitz discloses the computer system of claim 1, but does not disclose the one or more programs further including instructions for: concurrently displaying: an affordance that, when selected, initiates a process for deleting the audio exposure data; and a notification regarding availability of audio exposure alerts. However, Battenberg discloses a similar noise exposure monitoring device and further teaches concurrently displaying: an affordance that, when selected, initiates a process for deleting the audio exposure data; and a notification regarding availability of audio exposure alerts (see at least, “RESET,” “REVIEW SESSIONS,” Battenberg FIG. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned features of Battenberg in the invention of Yonovitz thereby allowing for an improved user interface (see at least, “The processor 26 sends a signal with data to a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) 80 if the warning is in the form of a digital or a visual symbol. It is preferred that any warning signal be easily recognizable,” Battenberg [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1063. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:00 a.m. - 4 p.m., 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, Carolyn R 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.
/JOSEPH SAUNDERS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights