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 .
Claims Pending
Claims 1-26 are currently under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, “different that the” (line 6), should read -different than the-
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 22 and 24-26 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein attenuating air conducted hearing includes applying earplugs, ear muffs or other physical sound attenuating structures to one or more ears of the subject.”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to what is included with the phrase “physical sound attenuating structures”. The applicant’s specification merely further indicates “earplugs, ear muffs or other physical sound attenuating structures to one or more ears of the subject” (Par. 27 of applicant’s spec.), with no further detail provided. As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as ear muffs or earplugs (Par. 27 of applicant’s spec.).
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as ear muffs or earplugs (Par. 27 of applicant’s spec.).
Regarding claim 26, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, the limitations of “ the outer ear, middle ear, or inner ear”, following the “for example”, will be interpreted as not being required for the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “for diagnosing tinnitus.” This is a “use” claim that is indefinite, as the applicant fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. The applicant merely recites the use, without providing further detail as to how the use is practiced, and as such the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the patient having tinnitus.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “for diagnosing a site of lesion in the subject's ear organ, for example the outer ear, middle ear, or inner ear.” This is a “use” claim that is indefinite, as the applicant fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. The applicant merely recites the use, without providing further detail as to how the use is practiced, and as such the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the patient having a lesion in the ear.
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.
The claims are generally directed towards an audiometry method comprising applying a first electrical stimulation to stimulate hearing perception, applying a second electrical stimulation different from the first electrical stimulation, receiving one or more characteristics of the perceived hearing, and recording the characteristics.
Claim(s) 1-9, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (“Binaural sensitivity as a function of interaural electrode position with a bilateral cochlear implant user”, 2003) hereinafter Long.
Regarding claim 1, Long discloses An audiometry method (Abstract (bilateral cochlear implant)) (Page 1566-1569 (methods and results))), comprising:
applying first test electrical stimulation to a subject, wherein the first test electrical stimulation is configured to stimulate hearing perception in the subject (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, (stimulus generation for the first of two intracochlear electrodes)) (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position by bilateral stimulation)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode));
applying second test electrical stimulation to the subject, wherein the second test electrical stimulation is configured to stimulate hearing perception in the subject and is different than the first test electrical stimulation (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, (stimulus generation for the second of two intracochlear electrodes)) (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position by bilateral stimulation)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode));
receiving from the subject an identification of one or more characteristics of the perceived hearing produced by the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation, wherein the one or more characteristics includes an origin location of the perceived hearing (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate location)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode)); and
Long highly suggests but fails to explicitly disclose recording the one or more characteristics of the perceived hearing identified by the subject in association with the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation (Examiner's Note: Long highly suggests that the data is recorded, as the results are presented, but fails to explicitly indicate the exact method step).
Long does disclose results of the one or more characteristics of the perceived hearing identified by the subject in association with the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation (Page 1568, III. Results: Section B (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 represent the recorded lateral position judgements from the II. Methods)).
Long further discloses analysis of data results (Page 1570, IV. Data Analysis and Discussion)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Long to include recording the one or more characteristics of the perceived hearing identified by the subject in association with the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation through the combination of embodiments as it would have yielded the predictable result of providing the exact method step for saving the data for future analysis (Long (Page 1568, III. Results) (Page 1570, IV. Data Analysis)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Long further discloses wherein applying the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation includes simultaneously applying the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, Par. 1, (stimulus generation for the two intracochlear electrodes)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Long further discloses wherein applying the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation includes sequentially applying the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, Par. 3, (delayed stimulus generation for the two intracochlear electrodes)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Long further discloses wherein applying the first test electrical stimulation and/or the second test electrical stimulation includes applying electrical stimulation corresponding to one or more of (1) a tone, (2) a range of tones, (3) speech, or (4) background noise (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section C, (pitch ordering test)) (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate location for representative sound sensations)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Long further discloses wherein:
applying the first test electrical stimulation and/or the second test electrical stimulation includes applying the electrical stimulation corresponding to a range of intensities (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate location, with intensity corresponding to the lateralization scale)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode)); and
receiving from the subject an identification of characteristics of the perceived hearing includes an identification of a threshold intensity at which the subject perceives the hearing (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate location, with intensity corresponding to the lateralization scale)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Long further discloses wherein applying the first test electrical stimulation includes applying stimulation configured to at least predominately stimulate hearing on a first lateral side of the subject (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate location)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode)) (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, (stimulus generation for the first of two intracochlear electrodes in one cochlea)); and
applying the second test electrical stimulation includes applying stimulation configured to at least predominately stimulate hearing on a second lateral side of the subject that is different than the first lateral side (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate location)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode)) (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, (stimulus generation for the second of two intracochlear electrodes in the other cochlea)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Long further discloses wherein:
applying the first test electrical stimulation includes applying the first electrical stimulation to a first lateral side mastoid region of the subject (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, (stimulus generation for the first of two intracochlear electrodes, located in one cochlea, which is in a first lateral side mastoid region)); and
applying the second test electrical stimulation includes applying the second electrical stimulation to a second lateral side mastoid region of the subject (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, (stimulus generation for the second of two intracochlear electrodes, located in the second cochlea, which is in the second lateral side mastoid region)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Long further discloses wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing on a first lateral side of the subject (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate stimulus location that corresponds to sound sensation)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Long further discloses wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing on a second lateral side of the subject (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate stimulus location that corresponds to sound sensation)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Long further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
applying at least a third test electrical stimulation to the subject, wherein the third test electrical stimulation is different than the first and second test electrical stimulation (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes for 25 sets of 15 stimuli presented));
receiving from the subject an identification of characteristics of perceived hearing produced by the first, second and third test electrical stimulation (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate stimulus location that corresponds to sound sensation)).
Long highly suggests but fails to explicitly disclose recording the characteristics of the perceived hearing identified by the subject in association with the first, second and third test electrical stimulation (Examiner's Note: Long highly suggests that the data is recorded, as the results are presented, but fails to explicitly indicate the exact method step).
Long does disclose results of the characteristics of the perceived hearing identified by the subject in association with the first, second and third test electrical stimulation (Page 1568, III. Results: Section B (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 represent the recorded lateral position judgements from the II. Methods)).
Long further discloses analysis of data results (Page 1570, IV. Data Analysis and Discussion)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Long to include recording the characteristics of the perceived hearing identified by the subject in association with the first, second and third test electrical stimulation for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Long further discloses wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation comprises applying first and second stimulation having alterations in timing between the first and second stimulation (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, (stimuli temporally delayed)) (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position by bilateral stimulation)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode)).
Regarding claim 18, modified Long further discloses wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation comprises applying first and/or second test electrical stimulation corresponding to increasing intensity with changing frequency (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, (stimuli generated)) (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position by bilateral stimulation)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode)).
Regarding claim 20, modified Long further discloses wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation includes:
applying the stimulation to at least predominately stimulate hearing on a first lateral side of the subject (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate location)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode with differing positions)) (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, (stimulus generation)) (Page 1568, III. Results: Section B (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 represent the recorded lateral position judgements from the II. Methods, which includes alternating sides of stimulation)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode)); and
applying the stimulation to mask the hearing on a second lateral side of the subject that is different that the first lateral side and that is produced by the stimulation on the first lateral side of the subject (Page 1568, III. Results: Section B (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 represent the recorded lateral position judgements from the II. Methods, which includes alternating sides of stimulation)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode)).
Claim(s) 10-15, 19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chalupper (US Pub. No. 20220191627) hereinafter Chalupper.
Modified Long teaches the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chalupper teaches wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation (Par. 40, 44, (stimulation by sound processor)) (Par.21 (output frequencies)) comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing on an anterior side of the subject (Par. 62, 68, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 (sounds from multiple angles))(Fig. 8, Par. 83, (sound from angle of 0 degrees”)) (Par. 83-87 (sound angle identification)).
Long and Chalupper are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with cochlear devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Chalupper to include wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing on an anterior side of the subject through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of determining subject identification of stimuli from additional angles (Chalupper (Par. 83)) and allow for the improvement of speech localization (Chalupper (Par. 84)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chalupper teaches wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation (Par. 40, 44, (stimulation by sound processor)) (Par.21 (output frequencies)) comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing on a posterior side of the subject (Par. 62, 68, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 (sounds from multiple angles))(Fig. 8, Par. 83, (sound from angle of 0 degrees)) (Par. 84-87 (sound angle identification)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Chalupper to include wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing on a posterior side of the subject for the reasoning as indicated in claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chalupper teaches wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation (Par. 40, 44, (stimulation by sound processor)) (Par.21 (output frequencies)) comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing above the subject (Par. 62, 68, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 (sounds from multiple angles))(Fig. 8, Par. 83, (sound from elevation angles) (Par. 84-87 (sound angle identification)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Chalupper to include wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing above the subject for the reasoning as indicated in claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 13, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chalupper teaches wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation (Par. 40, 44, (stimulation by sound processor)) (Par.21 (output frequencies)) comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing below the subject comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing below the subject (Par. 62, 68, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 (sounds from multiple angles)) (Fig. 8, Par. 83, (sound from elevation angles)) (Par. 84-87 (sound angle identification)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Chalupper to include wherein applying the first and second test electrical stimulation comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a source of perceived hearing below the subject for the reasoning as indicated in claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 14, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chalupper teaches wherein applying the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a stationary source of perceived hearing (Par. 40, 44, (stimulation by sound processor)) (Par.21 (output frequencies)) (Par. 62, 68, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 (sounds from multiple angles)) (Par. 59, (static and moving sources)) (Fig. 8, Par. 83, (source movement)) (Par. 84-87 (sound angle identification)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Chalupper to include wherein applying the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a stationary source of perceived hearing through the combination of references as moving and stationary sources are known (Chalupper (Par. 59 and 83)) and as it would have yielded the predictable result of determining subject identification of stimuli from additional angles (Chalupper (Par. 83)) and allow for the improvement of speech localization (Chalupper (Par. 84)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chalupper teaches wherein applying the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a moving source of perceived hearing. (Par. 40, 44, (stimulation by sound processor)) (Par.21 (output frequencies)) (Par. 62, 68, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 (sounds from multiple angles)) (Par. 59, (static and moving sources)) (Fig. 8, Par. 83, (source movement)) (Par. 84-87 (sound angle identification)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Chalupper to include wherein applying the first test electrical stimulation and the second test electrical stimulation comprises applying electrical stimulation corresponding to a moving source of perceived hearing through the combination of references as moving and stationary sources are known (Chalupper (Par. 59 and 83)) and as it would have yielded the predictable result of determining subject identification of stimuli from additional angles (Chalupper (Par. 83)) and allow for the improvement of speech localization (Chalupper (Par. 84)).
Regarding claim 19, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Long does disclose further comprising:
applying one or more of:
test stimulation to the subject, wherein the test stimulation is configured to stimulate hearing perception in the subject (Page 1566, II. Methods: Section B, (stimulus generation)) (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position by bilateral stimulation)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode));
receiving from the subject an identification of characteristics of perceived hearing produced by the first and second test electrical stimulation (Page 1567, II. Methods: Section E (lateral position elicited with the electrodes, with subject assigning a number to indicate location)) (Fig. 1 (stimuli varied between each electrode)); and
recording the characteristics of the perceived hearing identified by the subject in association with the first and second test electrical stimulation (Page 1568, III. Results: Section B (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 represent the recorded lateral position judgements from the II. Methods)) (as indicated in claim 1 above).
Chalupper teaches further comprising:
applying one or more of:
test air-conducted stimulation to the subject, wherein the test air-conducted stimulation is configured to stimulate hearing perception in the subject (Par. 48 (hybrid stimulation device with both air and electrical)) (Par. 40, 44, (stimulation by sound processor)) (Par. 48, 80 (hybrid stimulation)) (Par. 97, (user input of perception data));
receiving from the subject an identification of characteristics of perceived hearing produced by the first and second test electrical stimulation and the one or more of the test bone conduction stimulation and the test air-conducted stimulation (Par. 40, 44, (stimulation by sound processor)) (Par. 48, 80 (hybrid stimulation)) (Par. 97, (user input of perception data)); and
recording the characteristics of the perceived hearing identified by the subject in association with the first and second test electrical stimulation and the one or more of the test bone conduction stimulation or the test air-conducted stimulation (Par. 40, 44, (stimulation by sound processor)) (Par. 48, 80 (hybrid stimulation)) (Par. 97 (generation of perception data based on user input)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Chalupper to include further comprising: applying one or more of: test bone conduction stimulation to the subject, wherein the test bone conduction stimulation is configured to stimulate hearing perception in the subject; or test air-conducted stimulation to the subject, wherein the test air-conducted stimulation is configured to stimulate hearing perception in the subject; receiving from the subject an identification of characteristics of perceived hearing produced by the first and second test electrical stimulation of Long and the one or more of the test bone conduction stimulation and the test air-conducted stimulation; and recording the characteristics of the perceived hearing identified by the subject in association with the first and second test electrical stimulation of Long and the one or more of the test bone conduction stimulation or the test air-conducted stimulation through the combination of references and combining the electrical stimulation with that of the acoustic stimulation as it would have yielded the predictable result of serving as a hybrid system (Chalupper (Par. 2, 48)).
Regarding claim 21, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chalupper teaches further comprising attenuating air conducted hearing of the subject while performing the method (Par. 59 (attenuating sounds from particular directions)) (Par. 71, “As illustrated by directional polar pattern 604-L, sounds emanating directly from the left of recipient 502 (i.e., from 90°) may be detected without any attenuation at the left ear, while sounds emanating directly from the right (i.e., from 270°) may be detected with extreme attenuation or may be blocked completely…”) (Par. 102, “Specifically, system 100 may implement a binaural gain coupling between the cochlear implant and hearing aid devices…” “… the binaural gain coupling may be performed for automatic gain control (“AGC”) processing, noise cancelation processing, wind cancelation processing…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Chalupper to include further comprising attenuating air conducted hearing of the subject while performing the method through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of improving sound capture (Chalupper (Par. 59)).
Regarding claim 23, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chalupper further teaches wherein attenuating air conducted hearing includes applying sound cancelling air conducted stimulation to one or more ears of the subject (Chalupper (Par. 71, “As illustrated by directional polar pattern 604-L, sounds emanating directly from the left of recipient 502 (i.e., from 90°) may be detected without any attenuation at the left ear, while sounds emanating directly from the right (i.e., from 270°) may be detected with extreme attenuation or may be blocked completely…”) (Par. 102, “Specifically, system 100 may implement a binaural gain coupling between the cochlear implant and hearing aid devices…” “… the binaural gain coupling may be performed for automatic gain control (“AGC”) processing, noise cancelation processing, wind cancelation processing…”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long and Chalupper with that of Chalupper to include wherein attenuating air conducted hearing includes applying sound cancelling air conducted stimulation to one or more ears of the subject through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of improving the capture of sounds (Chalupper (Par. 59)) and providing noise cancellation (Chalupper (Par. 102)).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Chalupper as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Boesen (US Pub. No. 20190090044) hereinafter Boesen.
Modified Long teaches the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 22, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Boesen teaches wherein attenuating air conducted hearing includes applying earplugs, ear muffs or other physical sound attenuating structures to one or more ears of the subject (Par. 4 (ear plugs)).
Long, Chalupper, and Boesen are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with ear devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long and Chalupper with that of Boesen to include wherein attenuating air conducted hearing includes applying earplugs, ear muffs or other physical sound attenuating structures to one or more ears of the subject through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of providing passive noise cancellation (Boesen (Par. 4)).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boesen.
Modified Long teaches the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 24, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Boesen teaches wherein the method of Long is performed while the subject's ears are protected from ambient sound, for example by earmuffs, earplugs or noise cancellation (Par. 4 (ear plugs)).
Long and Boesen are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with ear devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Boesen to include wherein the method of Long is performed while the subject's ears are protected from ambient sound, for example by earmuffs, earplugs or noise cancellation through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of providing passive noise cancellation (Boesen (Par. 4)).
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dalton (US Pub. No. US 20110295166) hereinafter Dalton.
Modified Long teaches the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 25, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Dalton teaches for diagnosing tinnitus (Par. 18, 39, 45, and 46 (tinnitus and hearing loss)).
Long and Dalton are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with ear devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Dalton to include for diagnosing tinnitus through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of assessing hearing loss and tinnitus in a user (Dalton (Par. 18, 45)).
Regarding claim 26, modified Long fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Dalton teaches for diagnosing a site of lesion in the subject's ear organ, for example the outer ear, middle ear, or inner ear (Par. 18, 45, and 46 (tinnitus and hearing loss)) (Par. 39 (lesions)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Long with that of Dalton to include for diagnosing a site of lesion in the subject's ear organ, for example the outer ear, middle ear, or inner ear through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of assessing ear health of the user (Dalton (Par. 18, 39)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARI SINGH KANE PADDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571) 272-7540. 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.
/ARI S PADDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights