DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to because the preliminary amendment filed on January 7, 2025 failed to include a title or paragraph number for the CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS section. Correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. The claims recite “derive(d)” nine times. The word derive is interpreted to have its plain meaning: “obtain something from.”
4. A number of pending claims recite the “and/or” phrase. For example, claim 51 recites:
determining, by the first headset and/or the headset enclosure, a condition of the first speaker and/or first transducer based on the first response signal.
This element of claim 51 is interpreted as including any of the following scenarios:
determining, by the first headset and the headset enclosure, a condition of the first speaker and the first transducer based on the first response signal.
determining, by the first headset and the headset enclosure, a condition of the first speaker based on the first response signal.
determining, by the first headset and the headset enclosure, a condition of the first transducer based on the first response signal.
determining, by the first headset, a condition of the first speaker and the first transducer based on the first response signal.
determining, by the first headset, a condition of the first speaker based on the first response signal.
determining, by the first headset, a condition of the first transducer based on the first response signal.
determining, by the headset enclosure, a condition of the first speaker and the first transducer based on the first response signal.
determining, by the headset enclosure, a condition of the first speaker based on the first response signal.
determining, by the headset enclosure, a condition of the first transducer based on the first response signal.
6. Further to the discussion of claim 51 above, it is noted that several other pending claims recite the “and/or” phrase. For example, claims 61(two places), 63, 66, 68 (two places), 69 (two places) and 70 (two places) also recite the “and/or” phrase, and as such, are interpreted in a similar manner.
7. Claim 61 recites features that are not specified or tied together. For example, claim 61 recites:
determining that that the first response signal does not correspond substantially to a template first response signal;
determining the condition of the first microphone as being potentially impaired and the condition of the first speaker as being potentially impaired;
How is the condition of the first microphone determined to be potentially impaired? Is it based on the first response signal not corresponding to the template, or something else? There is no recitation of how the first microphone is determined to be impaired. Claims 62-70 also recite claim features that are not specified or tied together.
8. Claim 70 recites “instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause an electronic apparatus to…”. The word “when” in this claim phrase is given its plain meaning, and the claim elements (steps) are construed to occur at a time when the instructions are executed. Claim 69 includes a similar recitation of “when” and is construed the same way.
Claim Objections
9. Claims 53, 54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 66 and 67 are objected to because of the following informalities:
10. In claim 53 the two “wherein” clauses are separated by a comma rather than a semicolon.
11. Claims 54, 55, 57, 58 (three places) 60 and 61 each recite “that that” which appears to be a typographical error.
12. Claim 57 uses a comma between the first two “determining” elements rather than a semicolon.
13. Claim 58 lacks a semicolon between the first two “determining” elements.
14. Claim 66 recites an extra “and” at the end of the “detecting” element.
15. Claim 67 recites “to a template first response signal, determining…” It seems as though a word or phrase is missing before “to a template” or elsewhere in the preamble.
16. Correction is required. Correction of these minor scrivener’s errors is not thought to affect the scope of the claims for the purposes of determining prosecution history estoppel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following are quotations of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(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.
35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Claims 51, 52 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the joint inventor(s) regard as the invention. Claims 53, 54 and 56-68 are rejected by virtue of their dependency to the rejected claims.
Claim 51 recites “a condition” which has antecedent basis in the preamble. But claim 1 does not recite the requisite article—e.g., “the” or “said”—indicating antecedent basis for “condition”. Claim 51 also recites “and/or first transducer based” which has antecedent basis in the detecting element but does not recite the requisite article—e.g., “the” or “said”—indicating antecedent basis for “first transducer”.
Claim 53 recites “comparing one or more features extracted features.” The meaning of this phrase is vague and uncertain.
Claim 53 recites “corresponding template feature” and immediately following that recites “the corresponding template features”. The claim term “feature” should either be plural in both places or singular in both places, or perhaps the words “each of” could be inserted before “the corresponding template features” (“each of the corresponding template features”).
Claim 54 recites “the first response signal does not correspond substantially to a template first response signal.” The phrase “correspond substantially” is vague and indefinite. If the first response signal and template signal have the same length of time, do they correspond substantially? If the first response signal and template signal have the same energy over a given frequency band, do they correspond substantially?
Claims 55, 57 (twice), 58 (thrice), 60 (twice), 61-62, 64-65, 66 (twice), 67 and 68 also recite “correspond(s) substantially” and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 55 recites “the template second response signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 60 recites “potentially impaired” in two places. The one sentence in the pending specification (¶[0125]) that discusses the meaning of “potentially impaired” relies on the vague and uncertain phrase “substantially correspond,” thus rendering “potentially impaired” vague and uncertain.
Claim 69 recites “non-transitory machine-readable which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the apparatus to” in the preamble. What is it that is executed? It appears that a word or phrase is missing between “machine-readable” and “which” or elsewhere in the preamble.
Claim 69 recites “by the headset” in the “determining” element. Does “the headset” refer to “the first headset” recited earlier in the claim? If so, claim 69 should recite “the first headset” in the “determining” element. If not, the “determining” element should not recite “the” in “the headset”.
35 U.S.C. §112(a)
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter—namely, the recitation of “correspond(s) substantially”—which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification mentions “correspond(s) substantially” nineteen times but does not explain how a practitioner would determine whether two signals correspond substantially.
Claims 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 each also recite “correspond(s) substantially” and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for the same reason as claim 54.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Claim 60 contains subject matter—namely, the phrase “potentially impaired” (recited twice)—which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The one sentence in the specification (¶[0125]) that discusses the meaning of “potentially impaired” relies on the vague and uncertain phrase “substantially correspond,” thus rendering “potentially impaired” vague and uncertain as well. (Note: The mentions of “potentially impaired” in the Summary section are merely a paraphrasing of claim features, and do not explain the concept.)
Claims 61 (twice), 64, 66 (twice) and 67 (four times) also each recite “potentially impaired” and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for the same reason as claim 60.
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.
Claim 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention in view of U.S. patent 10,972,834 (Yen et al.).
Yen et al. teaches:
diagnosing a condition of a first headset (Yen et al. Abstract; col. 12, lines 40-42) by playing a first audio stimulus through a first speaker of the headset (Yen et al. Abstract; Fig. 2 #206);
detecting a first response signal derived by a first transducer (Yen et al. Fig. 2 #116 and 202(1): col. 11, lines 44-45: “inner microphone 116 that generates a first audio signal 202(1) (based on in-ear sound)”); and
determining, by the first headset and/or the headset enclosure, a condition of the first speaker and/or first transducer based on the first response signal. (Yen et al. col. 12, lines 40-42: “used to determine a level of seal of the ear-based device”).
Claims 69 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention in view of published U.S. patent application 2014/0241553 (Tiscareno et al.).
Regarding claim 69, Tiscareno et al. teaches an apparatus that:
plays first audio through a first headset speaker (Tiscareno et al. Abstract, Fig. 1);
detects a first response signal derived by a first transducer (Tiscareno et al. Abstract: “acoustic measurements”; Fig. 5); and
determines, by the headset and/or the headset enclosure, a condition of the first speaker and/or the first transducer based on the first response signal (Tiscareno et al. Abstract: “seal quality” Fig. 5).
Hi Scott,
Claim 70 includes the following claimed limitations: A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors…we should address these claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 70, Tiscareno et al. teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 2; ¶[33]) that:
plays first audio through a first headset speaker (Tiscareno et al. Abstract: Fig. 1);
detect a first response signal derived by a first transducer (Tiscareno et al. Abstract: “acoustic measurements”; Fig. 5); and
determine, by the headset and/or the headset enclosure, a condition of the first speaker and/or the first transducer based on the first response signal (Tiscareno et al. Abstract: “seal quality”; Fig. 5).
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.
Claims 52-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over the Yen et al. patent, as discussed above, taken in view of Tiscareno et al.
Regarding claim 52, Yen et al. teaches the features of claim 51, as discussed above, but does not teach use of a template of the first response signal. Tiscareno et al.—in the same art as Yen et al. and the pending application—teaches comparison of the received signal to a template of the signal for an ideally sealed ear bud. (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5, #44; ¶[0040]). Comparison of the received signal with the template allows determination of the extent that the ear bud is sealed—which directly affects the quality of sound heard by the user. In order to detect the extent of earbud seal, and thus the quality of the sound heard by the user, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use the comparison of signals taught by Tiscareno et al. in conjunction with method for diagnosing a condition taught by Yen et al.
Regarding claim 53, Tiscareno et al. teaches to extract and compare impedances to a template. (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5; #44, ¶[0042] & ¶[0046]).
Regarding claim 54, Tiscareno et al. teaches using the first speaker as a transducer by using the speaker tap coil current to evaluate seal conditions (Tiscareno et al. Figs. 9 and 12, ¶[0066]). Yen et al. teaches determining the condition of the first speaker as being not impaired (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 44-46: “determines [a] good seal”). Yen et al. also teaches determining the condition of the first speaker to be impaired. (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”) (See Tiscareno et al. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 #46).
Regarding claim 55, Tiscareno et al. teaches the first speaker as a transducer (Figs. 9 and 12, ¶[0066]), and the first response signal corresponding to a template; (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #44; ¶[0040]). Yen et al. teaches determining the first speaker to not be impaired (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 44-46: “determines [a] good seal”) (See Tiscareno et al. Fig. 3), while Tiscareno et al. teaches detecting a second response signal to the first audio stimulus derived by a second speaker; (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 1: two ear buds) and determining that the second response signal does not correspond to the template (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #46; ¶[0043]: “frequency f3”) (See Yen et al. Fig. 2; col. 12, lines 40-42: “used to determine a level of seal of the ear-based device”). Finally, Yen et al. teaches determining a second speaker condition to be impaired. (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”) (See Tiscareno et al. Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 56, Tiscareno et al. teaches using the first speaker to compensate for the second speaker. (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0047] and Abstract: “balance adjustments may be made to correct for mismatched balance between left and right earbuds”).
Regarding claim 57, Tiscareno et al. teaches the first speaker as a transducer (Tiscareno et al. Figs. 9 and 12, ¶[0066]). Tiscareno et al. teaches a first response signal that doesn’t correspond to a template, (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #50), and Yen et al. teaches determining the condition of the first speaker to be impaired (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”) (See Tiscareno et al. Fig. 4). Tiscareno et al. teaches playing a second audio stimulus through a second speaker of the headset; (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0007]: “test tones.”), detecting a third response signal to the second audio stimulus derived by the second speaker; (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0043]: frequency f4), and determining the third response signal corresponds to the template third response signal; and (Tiscareno et al. Figs. 3 and 5 #60; ¶[0043]: frequency f4)(See Yen et al. col. 5, lines 44-46: “determines [a] good seal”). Tiscareno et al. teaches using the second speaker to compensate for the first speaker. (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0047] and Abstract: “balance adjustments may be made”).
Regarding claim 58, Tiscareno et al. teaches the first speaker as a transducer (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0066]), and the first response signal corresponding to a template (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #48, ¶[0040]). (Yen et al. teaches a condition of the first speaker as being not impaired; (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 44-46: “determines [a] good seal”) (See Tiscareno et al. Fig. 3). Tiscareno et al. teaches a fourth response signal to the first audio stimulus derived by a first microphone (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0043]: “10-20 kHz”) and a condition of the first microphone based on the fourth response signal; (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0040] and frequency f4) (see Yen et al. col. 5, lines 44-46: “determines [a] good seal”). Tiscareno et al. teaches determining a condition of the first microphone based on the fourth response signal in which the fourth signal corresponds to a template fourth response signal, determining the condition of the first microphone as being not impaired (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 3, ¶[0040] - ¶[0043]; Fig. 5 #60 above frequency f4) (See Yen et al. col. 5, lines 44-46: “determines [a] good seal”). Yen et al. teaches determining the fourth response signal does not correspond substantially to the template fourth response signal, determining the condition of the first microphone as being impaired. (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”) (See Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #46 above frequency f4).
Regarding claim 59, Tiscareno et al. uses the first speaker to compensate for the first microphone. (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0047] and Abstract: “balance adjustments may be made”).
Regarding claim 60, Yen et al. teaches a first microphone (Yen et al. Fig. 2 #202(1)) and Tiscareno et al. teaches the first signal corresponding to a template (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5, #48; ¶[0040] - ¶[0043]), to determine the first microphone as being not impaired and the first speaker as being not impaired; and (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 44-46: “determines [a] good seal”). Tiscareno et al. teaches that, from the first response signal not corresponding to a template the first microphone may be impaired and the first speaker may be impaired (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #50; ¶[0040] - ¶[0043]) (See Yen et al. Fig. 2; col. 12, lines 40-42: “used to determine a level of seal of the ear-based device”).
Regarding claim 61, Tiscareno et al. teaches the first response signal not corresponding to a template (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #50; ¶[0040] - ¶[0043]). Yen et al. teaches that the first microphone may be impaired and the first speaker may be impaired (Yen et al. Fig. 2; col. 12, lines 40-42: “used to determine a level of seal of the ear-based device”). Yen et al. teaches determining a poor condition of the first speaker (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”). Tiscareno et al. teaches that the first microphone and first speaker may be impaired and the first signal not corresponding to a template (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #50; ¶[0040] - ¶[0043]).
Regarding claim 62, Tiscareno et al. teaches a second response signal that corresponds to a template (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #56; ¶[0040] - ¶[0043]) and Yen et al. teaches a first microphone being impaired (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”) and a first speaker being not impaired and a second microphone is not impaired. (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 44-46: “determines [a] good seal”).
Regarding claim 63, Tiscareno et al. teaches using the first speaker and/or the second microphone to compensate for the first microphone. (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0047] and Abstract).
Regarding claim 64, Tiscareno et al. teaches the second response signal not corresponding to a template (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #58; ¶[0040] - ¶[0043]) and Yen et al. teaches the second microphone being impaired (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”).
Regarding claim 65, Tiscareno et al. teaches the second signal not corresponding to a template (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #58; ¶[0040] - ¶[0043]) and Yen et al. teaches the first speaker being impaired (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”) and the first and second microphones being unimpaired (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 44-46: “determines [a] good seal”).
Regarding claim 66, Yen et al. teaches the first transducer is a first microphone (Yen et al. Fig. 2 #202(1)), Tiscareno et al. teaches the first response signal not corresponding to a template (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #46; ¶[0040]), Yen et al. teaches determining the first microphone and the first speaker to be impaired (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”), Tiscareno et al. teaches playing a second audio stimulus through a second speaker and detecting a fifth response signal to the second audio stimulus (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0043]: frequency f3), Tiscareno et al. teaches that the fifth response corresponds to the template fifth response (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #46; ¶[0040]), Tiscareno et al. teaches using the second speaker to compensate for the first speaker and/or the first microphone. (Tiscareno et al. ¶[0047] and Abstract)
Regarding claim 67, Tiscareno et al. teaches the first transducer being a second speaker (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 1, two ear buds). Tiscareno et al. teaches to determining first and second speakers as not being impaired based on comparing signals (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #46; ¶[0040]), and Yen et al. teaches first and second speakers being impaired (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”).
Regarding claim 68, Tiscareno et al. teaches the first transducer being a second speaker (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 1, two ear buds). Tiscareno et al. teaches a first signal that doesn’t correspond to a template signal (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 5 #46; ¶[0040]), Yen et al. teaches first and second speakers as being impaired (Yen et al. col. 5, lines 54-55: “determines [a] poor seal”), Tiscareno et al. teaches detecting a second response signal derived by a first microphone (Tiscareno et al. Fig. 1: two ear buds) and Tiscareno et al. teaches determining the condition of the first speaker and/or the first microphone and/or the second speaker based on the second response signal (Tiscareno et al. Abstract, Fig. 11 #120).
Conclusion
Regarding claim 68, Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Scott Richardson whose telephone number is (571)270-2083. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00am - 6:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/Scott Charles Richardson/
Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights