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
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 2, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kofman et al. (US2019/0052951).
As to Claim 2, Kofman teaches a method ( a method of operating an earbud 100, [0068]) comprising: determining, based on a sensor of an earphone( capacitive earbud insertion sensor, Figure 3a) that an ear tip of the earphone has been at least partially inserted into an ear canal of an ear of a user( for determining if the earbud 100 is inserted into the ear of the user, [0053]); receiving an audio signal, [0050] teaches The earbud 100 may receive audio through a wired or wireless coupling with another device. Accordingly, electrical and electronic components such as, but not limited to, a wireless receiver and/or transmitter, processor (optionally including ANR circuitry), battery, microphone, and acoustic driver may be included within the concha portion 120 and/or canal portion 110 of the earbud 100. Kofman further teaches determining whether present conditions of the earphone are adequate for a fitting measurement, ( [0010], teaches the method comprises determining whether the earbud is inserted into an ear of a user based on a measurement of capacitance of one of at least one conductive trace disposed on the earbud relative to ground or different conductive traces disposed on the earbud relative to one another and causing the earbud to transition from an active state to an inactive state responsive to determining that the earbud is not inserted into the ear of the user for more than a threshold amount of time, responsive to the present conditions being adequate while the ear tip of the earphone has been at least partially inserted into the ear canal,( [0068] teaches a threshold amount of capacitance change, for example, at least about 90% or at least about 75% change in capacitance as compared to an expected change in capacitance may be set for determining if the earbud is inserted into the ear of the user) determining the fitting measurement for the ear tip of the earphone based on the audio signal; and causing a notification to be output, ( [0045] teaches acoustic processing circuitry associated with an earbud may modify one or more parameters of audio provided through the earbud based at least in part on a degree of fit or degree of insertion of the earbud into the ear of a user determined by the capacitance measurements made by the capacitive sensor. For example, the acoustic processing circuitry may modify one or more parameters of audio provided through the earbud to account for acoustic leakage associated with the earbud having a less-than-optimal degree of fit or insertion in the ear of the user. The one or more parameters of the audio may include, for example, volume or different equalization applied to different frequencies of audio rendered by the earbud, the notification indicating that the ear tip is not properly inserted into the ear canal based on the fitting measurement, ( [0070] teaches if the earbud was not determined to be properly inserted in the ear of the user in decision act 620 or prior to expiration of the timer, the earbud may optionally provide an indication of improper insertion (act 635), for example, a pattern of clicks or a tone different from that used to provide an indication of proper insertion of the earbud in the ear of the user.)
As to Claim 4, Koffman teaches the limitations of Claim 2, and wherein determining the fitting measurement comprises: transmitting a request to the earphone to start the fitting measurement for measuring a fit parameter for the ear tip based on the audio signal ( in decision act 650 the earbud controller determines that the earbud is properly inserted into the ear of the user it may optionally provide an indication of proper insertion being detected, for example, by emitting a click or a tone (act 625) and the earbud may begin to render audio content (act 630), [0070]) ; and receiving the fit parameter from the earphone responsive to the earphone performing the fitting measurement ( [0045] teaches the acoustic processing circuitry may modify one or more parameters of audio provided through the earbud to account for acoustic leakage associated with the earbud having a less-than-optimal degree of fit or insertion in the ear of the user. The one or more parameters of the audio may include, for example, volume or different equalization applied to different frequencies of audio rendered by the earbud.)
As to Claim 5, Koffman teaches the limitations of Claim 2, and, wherein determining whether the present conditions of the earphone are adequate for the fitting measurement comprises determining that a period of time has passed since a determination that the ear tip has been at least partially inserted into the ear canal, ( Kofmann teaches on [[0070] and steps 635-650, Figure 6)
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 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 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.
1. Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kofman et al. (US2019/0052951) in view of Tiscareno et al. (US 2011/0116643A1), hereinafter Tiscareno.
As to Claim 3, Koffman teaches the limitations of Claim 2, but does not explicitly teach, wherein the sensor comprises a microphone, wherein the present conditions are based on whether noise captured by the microphone within the ear canal exceeds a threshold. However, Tiscareno in related field (Hearing devices) teaches earbuds including an in-ear microphone used for sound amplitude measurements. [0008] Tiscareno teaches on [0045]- [0047]. Acoustic seal-quality measurements may be made using a speaker to generate sound and a corresponding microphone to measure sound. For example, an earbud speaker or other transducer may be used to generate an audio signal such as a test tone while the earbud is in the user's ear. A microphone in the earbud may be used to make real time measurements to assess seal quality.
[0046] The frequencies at which sound amplitude is most sensitive to seal quality tend to be low (e.g., about 5 Hz, 10 Hz, less than 15 Hz, etc). This allows seal quality to be assessed by generating a 5 Hz tone (for example) with the earbud speaker while measuring the resulting sound amplitude at 5 Hz with the earbud microphone. If the measured sound level is high, seal quality is high. If the measured sound level is low, seal quality is low.
[0047] Once seal quality has been evaluated, appropriate actions may be taken. As illustrated in FIG. 7, for example, the amount of response that is made may vary as a function of measured sound quality level. Examples of parameters that may be varied as a function of measured earbud seal level include, sound volume, equalization (i.e., frequency-dependent sound volumes), balance (i.e., sound volumes of the left speaker relative to the right speaker in a stereo headset), noise cancellation level (e.g., active noise cancellation in situations in which the seal is adequate and disabled noise cancellation in situations in which the seal is poor), etc. If desired, low seal quality levels (e.g., levels below one or more different thresholds) may result in warnings. For example, if the seal quality level drops below a first threshold, display 14 of FIG. 1 may be used to present a warning such as "your earbuds are not seated properly, please adjust for optimum sound quality." If the seal quality level drops below a second threshold, device 10 may use display 14 to display a more severe warning such as "earbuds are not sufficiently sealed, noise cancellation has been turned off." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the earphone device to further use the in-ear microphone to detect the seal quality of the in-ear device once it is inserted into the ear canal of the user.
As to Claim 7, Koffman teaches the limitations of Claim 2, but does not explicitly teach wherein determining whether the present conditions of the earphone are adequate for the fitting measurement comprises determining whether energy levels of portions of the audio signal at one or more frequency bands are above a threshold level, However, Tiscareno in related field (Hearing devices) teaches earbuds including an in-ear microphone used for sound amplitude measurements. [0008] Tiscareno teaches on [0045]- [0047]. Acoustic seal-quality measurements may be made using a speaker to generate sound and a corresponding microphone to measure sound. For example, an earbud speaker or other transducer may be used to generate an audio signal such as a test tone while the earbud is in the user's ear. A microphone in the earbud may be used to make real time measurements to assess seal quality. If seal quality is high, the amplitude of the sound that is generated in the user's ear may be characterized by a curve such as solid curve 64 of FIG. 6. For example, at frequency fm, the amplitude of the sound that is measured by the microphone may be represented by point 68 on line 64. If seal quality drops, the amplitude of the sound that is present in the user's ear may be characterized by a curve such as dashed curve 66 of FIG. 6. For example, at frequency fm, the amplitude of the measured sound may be represented by point 70 on line 66. [0046] The frequencies at which sound amplitude is most sensitive to seal quality tend to be fairly low (e.g., about 5 Hz, 10 Hz, less than 15 Hz, etc.). This allows seal quality to be assessed by generating a 5 Hz tone (for example) with the earbud speaker while measuring the resulting sound amplitude at 5 Hz with the earbud microphone. If the measured sound level is high, seal quality is high. If the measured sound level is low, seal quality is low. The sound at 5 Hz (or other suitable low frequency) can be produced using a 5 Hz test tone or measurements may be performed during normal audio playback (e.g., by filtering the audio output signal to determine signal strength at 5 Hz and by filtering the corresponding microphone to determining the corresponding sound amplitude at 5 Hz).[0047] Once seal quality has been evaluated, appropriate actions may be taken. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to include an in-ear microphone used for sound amplitude measurements to make real time measurements to assess seal quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-21. The independent Claim 10, identifies a uniquely distinct feature of “ determine, based on a sensor of a headset, that an ear tip of the headset has been at least partially inserted into an ear canal of an ear of a user, determine whether noise within the ear canal of the user is below a threshold; responsive to a determination that the noise is below the threshold while the ear tip is at least partially inserted into the ear canal, determine a fitting measurement for the ear tip of the headset; and cause a notification to be output to suggest that the user try a different ear tip with the headset.”
The independent Claim 16, identifies a uniquely distinct feature of “..determine, based on a sensor of an earphone, that an ear tip of the earphone has been at least partially inserted into an ear canal of an ear of a user, determine a parameter for the ear tip of the earphone while the ear tip is at least partially inserted into the ear canal, and cause a second notification to be output, which indicates whether the ear tip has been properly inserted into the ear canal or whether to try a different ear tip with the earphone based on a comparison between the parameter and a threshold.”
The closest prior art to Usher et al. (US 20180132048A1) teaches a device such as headphones, ear terminals, ear buds, behind ear devices or other acoustic devices for determining earpiece is sealed correctly in ear canal. Audio processing circuitry produces an audio signal for driving a speaker in the device and to measure sound level using output from the microphone in the device while the speaker is being driven by the audio signal. The device or method further includes control circuitry to evaluate a seal quality of the device. See at least abstract.
Tiscareno et al. (US 20110116643) teaches electronic devices and accessories for electronic devices such as headsets are provided. The electronic devices may produce audio output. The headsets may include earbuds with speakers that play the audio output for a user while the earbuds are located in the user's ears. Circuitry in an electronic device and a headset may be used in evaluating how well the earbuds are sealed to the user's ears. In response to seal quality measurements, informative messages can be generated for the user, overall earbud volume may be increased, balance adjustments may be made to correct for mismatched balance between left and right earbuds, equalization settings may be adjusted, and noise cancellation circuitry settings can be changed. Electrical impedance measurements and acoustic measurements can be used in evaluating seal quality. See at least abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA JOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7227. The examiner can normally be reached 8-3.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 5712727503. 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.
/SUNITA JOSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights