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
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that claim 4 should read “electrical signal is based on”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is directed to a program product that is not excluded from being stored in a transitory medium. Specifying in the claim that the program product is stored in a non-transitory processor-readable medium would overcome this 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 1-2, 4-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harsch et al. (US 2007/0286441 A1), hereinafter “Harsch.”
As to claim 1, Harsch discloses a hearing device (¶0019, Fig. 1. Hearing aid 10.) comprising:
an electroacoustic transducer having input terminals (¶0019, Fig. 1. Loudspeaker 18 Input terminals inherent/implicit in a loudspeaker.);
a spout associated with the electroacoustic transducer (¶0019, Fig. 1. “an acoustical system 20 located downstream of the loudspeaker 18.”); and
a controller configured to generate an electrical signal (¶0024, Fig. 1. “An analyzer unit 30 is provided which may be activated by the central processing unit 14, 114 and which serves to measure the electrical impedance as a function of frequency of the loudspeaker 18.”).
estimate a first electrical voltage at a first frequency across the input terminals of the electroacoustic transducer by applying the electrical signal (¶0030 and ¶0035 and ¶0040, Figs. 1, 3 and 5. “According to FIG. 3, the voltage on a serial resistor 60 located between the ground and the loudspeaker 18 is measured by voltmeter 62. For such an arrangement the voltage curve (i.e. the voltage as a function of frequency) on the resistor 60 becomes the image of the impedance curve of the loudspeaker 18.”),
estimate a second electrical voltage at a second frequency (¶0030, ¶0035 and ¶0040, Figs. 1, 3 and 5. “According to FIG. 3, the voltage on a serial resistor 60 located between the ground and the loudspeaker 18 is measured by voltmeter 62. For such an arrangement the voltage curve (i.e. the voltage as a function of frequency) on the resistor 60 becomes the image of the impedance curve of the loudspeaker 18.”).
Harasch does not expressly disclose determine a difference between the first electrical voltage and the second electrical voltage, wherein the second frequency is higher than the first frequency;
wherein the controller is configured to:
determine a state of the hearing device as having an open spout if the difference is below a first threshold value,
determine the state of the hearing device as having a fully clogged spout if the difference is above a second threshold value, wherein the second threshold value is above the first threshold value, and
determine the state of the hearing device as having a partially clogged spout if the difference is between the first threshold value and the second threshold value.
Harasch instead discloses determining a difference between the measured voltage as a function of frequency and a reference voltage as a function of frequency (¶0030, ¶0035 and ¶0038, Fig. 5), or the difference between the measured voltage at a resonance frequency and the reference voltage at the resonance frequency (¶0038 and ¶0040, Fig. 5), obtaining different voltage levels at different obstruction levels (¶0038, Fig. 5), and providing an alarm to the user if the difference exceeds a threshold (¶0030 and ¶0040).
Therefore Harasch differs in that the difference is not determined at different frequencies and there are not multiple thresholds.
However, Harasch (¶0030, ¶0040, Fig. 5) discloses stored reference data for impedance and resonant frequency of the unobstructed loudspeaker. The voltage at different frequencies of the reference data is already known, so making a comparison between the measured voltage and the reference voltage at different frequencies is a simple variation in the mathematical interpretation of the voltage as a function of frequency data that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, Harasch. ¶0035, discloses “even if the loudspeaker 18 is only partly blocked (resulting in a relatively small acoustic attenuation), a change in voltage will be observed,” and Fig. 5 shows voltage as a function of frequency for different levels obstruction including partial/intermediate levels. Adding additional thresholds to detect these partial/intermediate levels is trivial and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As to claim 2, Harsch discloses wherein the hearing device is a receiver-in-ear (RIE) hearing device (Harsch, ¶0019-0020 and ¶0023, Fig. 1. “The hearing aid 10 could be of the ITE or CIC type, in which cases the loudspeaker 18 would be located in the ear canal of the user.” “As in the case of FIG. 1, the loudspeaker 118 will be located in or at the ear canal.” Various examples of hearing aid types disclosed (ITE, CIC, BTE). Using RIE type is a simple substitution of one known hearing aid type for another with predictable results.).
As to claim 4, Harsch does not expressly disclose wherein the electrical signal based on a pre-set audio data stored in a memory.
However, Harsch (¶0007) discloses that hearing aids with self-test capability are well-known in the art. It is well-known and conventional in the art for self-tests to comprise test tones/sweeps that are stored on the hearing device. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found a stored test signal obvious as it is applying a known technique to a known device yielding predictable results.
As to claim 5, Harsch discloses wherein the spout is coupled with the electroacoustic transducer (¶0020, Fig. 1. “The loudspeaker 18 may cooperate with an acoustical system 20 located downstream of the loudspeaker 18.”).
As to claim 6, Harsch discloses wherein the first and second electrical voltages reflect a first electrical input impedance and a second electrical input impedance, respectively (¶0030 and ¶0035, Fig. 5. “The measured electrical impedance as a function of frequency will be analyzed by comparing the measured electrical impedance to reference data stored in the hearing device 10.”).
As to claim 7, Harsch discloses wherein the first frequency is below 2500 Hz, and the second frequency is above 2500 Hz (¶0040 and Fig. 5. Most prominent voltage differences shown between ~2KHz and 5KHz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select frequencies withing said range, which overlaps with 2500Hz.).
As to claim 8, Harsch discloses wherein the first frequency and second frequency are based on where the electroacoustic transducer has a pronounced electric input impedance resonance. (¶0038 and ¶0040, Fig. 5. “The voltage difference is obviously the largest at the resonance frequency of the loudspeaker 18.” “the analyzer unit 30 generates the stored resonance frequency and measures the voltage on the resistor 60 at this frequency.”).
As to claim 9, Harsch discloses a filter associated with the spout (¶0020, Fig. 1. “a wax filter 22, acoustical filters 24.”).
As to claim 10, Harsch discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the state of the hearing device as having a missing filter if the difference is below a third threshold value, wherein the third threshold value is below the first threshold value. (¶0030, ¶0037 and ¶0040, Fig. 5. “measurement without filter (open acoustic output, labeled "Nofilter").” Voltage as a function of frequency at different levels of obstruction. Multiple thresholds obvious for same rationale as claim 1 above.).
As to claim 11, Harsch discloses a system comprising the hearing device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and
an external device, wherein the hearing device is configured to communicate the state of the hearing device to the external device. (¶0026, Fig. 1. “The remote device 32 further includes a signal processing unit 40 for processing the signals received by the antenna 38 and a display 40 for displaying the alarm signal received via the inductive link 34, which in this embodiment will be an optical alarm signal rather than an acoustic alarm signal.”).
Claims 12 and 21 are directed towards substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same motivation as claim 1 above.
Claims 13, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under claim 12 using the same motivation as claims 2, 6, 7, 8, 4, 9 and 10 above, respectively.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harsch, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above in view of Higgins et al. (US 2023/0300517 A1), hereinafter “Higgins.”
As to claim 3, Harsch does not expressly disclose wherein the electroacoustic transducer is a balanced-armature transducer.
Higgins discloses wherein the electroacoustic transducer is a balanced-armature transducer (Higgins, ¶0091, Figs. 1 and 3. “Such receiver 46 can include any suitable receiver or receivers, e.g., a balanced armature speaker…”).
Harsch and Higgins are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to hearing devices.
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 balanced-armature transducer, as taught by Harsch. The motivation would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another with predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under claim 12 using the same motivation as claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Meister (WO 2018/103899 A1).
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-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 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, 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
Prosecution Insights