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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2026; 02/17/2026; 10/02/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 01/27/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 17, 20, 22-24, 26-27, 30, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitz et al (US 2014/0185850 A1) in view of Cai (CN 105118519 A).
Regarding claim 15, Fitz et al disclose a method of using music to isolate hearing loss, comprising: receiving an audio recording including a sustained note or tone (Fitz et al; Para [0036][0018]); processing the audio recording to produce a processed audio recording, wherein a harmonic is attenuated in the processed audio recording (Fitz et al; Para [0036]); presenting the audio recording and the processed audio recording to an individual (Fitz et al; Para [0036]); but do not expressly disclose and determining a frequency dependent hearing loss of the individual based on a detected difference. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai discloses a method comprising and determining a frequency dependent hearing loss of the individual based on a detected difference (Cai; Page 2; lines 25-35; Page 4; lines 20-30). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the hearing evaluation taught by Cai as hearing evaluation in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an accurate and comprehensive evaluation information for a diagnosis (Cai; abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the method of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: repeating one or more steps with a different harmonic to determine the frequency dependent hearing loss. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai discloses a method comprising and determining a frequency dependent hearing loss of the individual based on a detected difference (Cai; Page 2; lines 25-35; Page 4; lines 20-30; timbre interpreted as harmonic). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the hearing evaluation taught by Cai as hearing evaluation in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an accurate and comprehensive evaluation information for the diagnosis of doctors (Cai; abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the audio recording is generated by a synthesized sound (Fitz et al; Para [0036]).
Regarding claim 22, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the method of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the audio recording and the processed audio recording include a difference in timbre. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai discloses a method wherein the audio recording and the processed audio recording include a difference in timbre (Cai et al; Page 2; lines 25-35; Page 3; lines 20-35). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the hearing evaluation taught by Cai as hearing evaluation in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an accurate and comprehensive evaluation information for the diagnosis of doctors (Cai; abstract).
Regarding claim 23, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the audio recording and the processed audio recording are presented to the individual via an ear canal receiver (Fitz et al; Para [0036]).
Regarding claim 24, Fitz et al disclose an earphone for using music to isolate hearing loss, comprising: an ear canal receiver (Fitz et al; Para [0018]); and a processor configured to: receive an audio recording including a sustained note or tone (Fitz et al; Para [0036][0018]); process the audio recording to produce a processed audio recording, wherein a harmonic is attenuated in the processed audio recording (Fitz et al; Para [0036]); present the audio recording and the processed audio recording to an individual via the ear canal receiver (Fitz et al; Para [0036][0018]); but do not expressly disclose and determine a frequency dependent hearing loss of the individual based on a detected difference. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai discloses a method comprising and determining a frequency dependent hearing loss of the individual based on a detected difference (Cai; Page 2; lines 25-35; Page 4; lines 20-30). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the hearing evaluation taught by Cai as hearing evaluation in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an accurate and comprehensive evaluation information for a diagnosis (Cai; abstract).
Regarding claim 26, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the earphone of claim 24, but do not expressly disclose wherein the processor repeats one or more steps with a different harmonic to determine the frequency dependent hearing loss. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai discloses a device comprising and determining a frequency dependent hearing loss of the individual based on a detected difference (Cai; Page 2; lines 25-35; Page 4; lines 20-30; timbre interpreted as harmonic). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the hearing evaluation taught by Cai as hearing evaluation in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an accurate and comprehensive evaluation information for the diagnosis of doctors (Cai; abstract).
Regarding claim 27, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the earphone of claim 24, but do not expressly disclose wherein the processor repeats one or more steps with the harmonic attenuated differently. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai discloses a device wherein the processor repeats one or more steps with the harmonic attenuated differently (Cai; Page 2; lines 25-35; Page 4; lines 20-30; timbre interpreted as harmonic). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the hearing evaluation taught by Cai as hearing evaluation in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an accurate and comprehensive evaluation information for the diagnosis of doctors (Cai; abstract).
Regarding claim 30, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the earphone of claim 24, wherein the processor generates the audio recording by synthesizing a sound (Fitz et al; Para [0036]).
Regarding claim 32, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the earphone of claim 24, but do not expressly disclose wherein the audio recording and the processed audio recording include a difference in quality of sounds with a same loudness and a same pitch. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cai discloses a device wherein the audio recording and the processed audio recording include a difference in quality of sounds with a same loudness and a same pitch (Cai; Page 2; lines 25-35; Page 3; lines 10-35). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the hearing evaluation taught by Cai as hearing evaluation in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to provide an accurate and comprehensive evaluation information for the diagnosis of doctors (Cai; abstract).
Claim(s) 16, 18-19, 25, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitz et al (US 2014/0185850 A1) in view of Cai (CN 105118519 A) and further in view of Raz et al (US 2018/0116565 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the method of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: repeating one or more steps with a different audio recording to determine the frequency dependent hearing loss. However, in the same field of endeavor, Raz et al disclose a method further comprising: repeating one or more steps with a different audio recording to determine the frequency dependent hearing loss (Raz et al; Para [0081][0112]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the sound data taught by Raz as sound data in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to enable generating sounds in a controlled way (Raz et al; Para [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the method of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the audio recording is received from a physical storage device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Raz et al disclose a method wherein the audio recording is received from a physical storage device (Raz et al; Para [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the sound data taught by Raz as sound data in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to enable generating sounds in a controlled way (Raz et al; Para [0067]).
Regarding claim 19, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the method of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the audio recording is from a playlist of the individual. However, in the same field of endeavor, Raz et al disclose a method wherein the audio recording is from a playlist of the individual (Raz et al; Para [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the sound data taught by Raz as sound data in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to enable generating sounds in a controlled way (Raz et al; Para [0067]).
Regarding claim 25, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the earphone of claim 24, but do not expressly disclose wherein the processor repeats one or more steps with a different audio recording to determine the frequency dependent hearing loss. However, in the same field of endeavor, Raz et al disclose a device further comprising: repeating one or more steps with a different audio recording to determine the frequency dependent hearing loss (Raz et al; Para [0081][0112]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the sound data taught by Raz as sound data in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to enable generating sounds in a controlled way (Raz et al; Para [0067]).
Regarding claim 28, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the earphone of claim 24, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a physical storage device from which the audio recording is received. However, in the same field of endeavor, Raz et al disclose a device further comprising: a physical storage device from which the audio recording is received (Raz et al; Para [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the sound data taught by Raz as sound data in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to enable generating sounds in a controlled way (Raz et al; Para [0067]).
Regarding claim 29, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the earphone of claim 24, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a playlist of the individual from which the audio recording is received. However, in the same field of endeavor, Raz et al disclose a device further comprising: a playlist of the individual from which the audio recording is received (Raz et al; Para [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the sound data taught by Raz as sound data in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to enable generating sounds in a controlled way (Raz et al; Para [0067]).
Claim(s) 21, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitz et al (US 2014/0185850 A1) in view of Cai (CN 105118519 A) and further in view of von Kraus et al (US 2016/0135719 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the method of claim 15, but do not expressly disclose wherein the harmonic is principle fundamental harmonic attenuated by at least 15 dB. However, in the same field of endeavor, von Kraus et al disclose a method wherein the harmonic is principle fundamental harmonic attenuated by at least 15 dB (von Kraus et al; Para [0027][0071]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the test signal control taught by von Kraus as test signal control in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to provide accurate results (von Kraus et al; Para [0014]).
Regarding claim 31, Fitz et al in view of Cai disclose the earphone of claim 24, but do not expressly disclose wherein the harmonic is principle fundamental harmonic attenuated by at least 15 dB. However, in the same field of endeavor, von Kraus et al disclose a device wherein the harmonic is principle fundamental harmonic attenuated by at least 15 dB (von Kraus et al; Para [0027][0071]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the application to use the test signal control taught by von Kraus as test signal control in the device taught by Fitz. The motivation to do so would have been to provide accurate results (von Kraus et al; Para [0014]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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 Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
