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
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 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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Dalhoff et al. (US 20200268288 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Dalhoff teaches the limitations:
An apparatus comprising (System 1 is an apparatus, see [0130]: “ System 1 includes a probe
unit 20…”, see Fig. 5):
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by
the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (The computer unit 10 inherently contains at least one processor, otherwise, the instructions in memory 16 cannot be carried out, memory 16 is at least one memory storing instructions, [0131]: “The computer unit 10 has a working memory of 15 and a non-volatile memory of 16… The non-volatile memory 16 also contains the instructions for carrying out a procedure described here.”):
cause alternating output of a first audio content and a second audio content, the first audio content comprising a first frequency and the second audio content comprising a different second frequency (the first primary tone f1 is a first frequency, an audio containing f1 is a first audio content; the second primary tone f2 is a second frequency, an audio containing f2 is a second audio content; f1 and f2 are different, see [0018]: “The first primary tone is defined by a first excitation frequency f1…It is also known as the “f1-primary tone”. The second primary tone is defined by a first excitation frequency f2… It is also known as the "f2-primary tone".”, see [0005]: “…f2>f1…”; The pair { f1, L1.1} and { f2, L2.1} can be selected from any number resulting an output of f1, f2, f1, f2…, which causes alternating f1 and f2, see [0034]: “In the method according to the invention, the excitation takes place with at least one pair of primary tones { f1, L1.1} and { f2, L2.1} which are preferably both presented in pulsed form (i.e. as a “pair of pulses”)”, see [0045]: “The number of primary-tone pairs n can be selected from any number, preferably a whole number >=2”).
receive, responsive to output of the first audio content and the second audio content, an
audio signal indicative of otoacoustic emissions (the detected corresponding DPOAE of the individual is an received audio signal indicative of otoacoustic emissions in respond to the output of the first audio content and the second audio content, see [0139]: “system 1 in the second step 120 generates a number of different level pairs. {L1(1…n), L2(1…n)} of an excitation frequency pair { f1, f2} is output or presented to an individual via the sound output means 21, 22 of the probe unit 20 and the corresponding DPOAE of the individual is detected via the sound recording means 23”).
Regarding claim 17, Dalhoff teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 16’s 102 rejection.
Dalhoff further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the output of the first audio content and the output of the second audio content are non-overlapping temporally (The length of f1 , i.e. the output of the first audio content, can be 2ms, and the length of f2 , i.e. the output of the second audio content is longer e.g. 3ms, the time delay tlag between f1 and f2 can be 10ms, therefore f1 and f2 , i.e. the output of the first audio content and the output of the second audio content, can be non-overlapping temporally, [0026]: “The length of the first primary tone { f1, L1.1} can preferably be between 40 ms and 1 ms, even more preferably between 30 ms and 2 ms, even more preferably between 25 ms and 2 ms. The length of the second primary tone { f2, L2.1} is then selected accordingly longer. Thus, the second primary tone { f2, L2.1} can be presented as continuous tone or pulsed”, see [0020]: “tlag can be selected as large as desired, but it can be advantageous to keep the time delay tlag as short as possible in order not to unnecessarily extend the measurement time. Therefore, tlag is preferably selected less than or equal to 10 ms…”).
Regarding claim 18, Dalhoff teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 16’s 102 rejection.
Dalhoff further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the first audio content is a first pure tone and the second audio content is a second pure tone (Each of the pulses of f1 and f2 can be cosine-shaped, i.e. a single frequency cosine sound wave, which is a pure tone. Therefore, the first audio content is a first pure tone and the second audio content is a second pure tone, see [0027]: “The “duration” or “length” of a pulse (also called “pulse length” or “pulse width”) is the so-called full width half maximum (or TFWHM). For this pulse length, the time is determined from which the cosine-shaped rising edge has risen to half of the steady-state until the corresponding time in the switch-off time response. This pulse length results from the preferred pulse shape, according to which the pulses have a cosine-shaped increase of typically 0.1 ms to 4 ms in length…”).
Regarding claim 19, Dalhoff teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 16’s 102 rejection.
Dalhoff further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second frequency is 1. 15 to 1.3 times the first frequency (f2/ f1 = 1.2, so the second frequency f2 is 1. 15 to 1.3 times the first frequency f1, see [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, Dalhoff teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 16’s 102 rejection.
Dalhoff further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein causing alternating output of the first audio content and the second audio content comprises alternating output of the first audio content and the second audio content with gaps between output of the first audio content and output of the second audio content of less than 100 ms (the time delay tlag between f1 and f2 is the gap between output of the first audio content containing f1 and output of the second audio content containing f2, which is less than or equal to 10ms, therefore less than 100ms, see [0020]: “tlag can be selected as large as desired, but it can be advantageous to keep the time delay tlag as short as possible in order not to unnecessarily extend the measurement time. Therefore, tlag is preferably selected less than or equal to 10 ms…”).
Regarding claim 21, Dalhoff teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 16’s 102 rejection.
Dalhoff further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein receiving an audio signal indicative of otoacoustic emissions comprises receiving a microphone input indicative of distortion product otoacoustic emissions (an OAE probe contains a sound recording device 23, e.g. a microphone to record sounds coming from the auditory canal, which corresponds to input indicative of distortion product otoacoustic emissions, see [0130]: ” FIG. 5 shows a system for the automatic determination of an individual function of a DPOAE level map of a human or animal hearing in a possible configuration. System 1 includes a probe unit 20 that can be positioned on one ear, in particular an OAE probe, and a computer unit 10. The probe unit has a probe tip 24 that can be inserted into the ear canal of one ear. The probe unit 20 contains a sound recording device 23, e.g. a microphone, which is set up to record sounds coming from the auditory canal”, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, Dalhoff teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 16’s 102 rejection.
Dalhoff further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein causing alternating output of the first audio content and the second audio content comprises, causing output of the first audio content and the second audio content by a single loudspeaker to enable otoacoustic emissions within a subject's ear to be measured (a probe unit can have only one loudspeaker, and can be inserted in the ear, i.e. causing output of the first audio content and the second audio content by a single loudspeaker to enable otoacoustic emissions within a subject's ear to be measured, see [0130]: ” The probe unit has a probe tip 24 that can be inserted into the ear canal of one ear…for example. It is also possible to provide only one sound output medium or only one loudspeaker…”, see [0132]:” To perform an automatic measurement operation to create an individual function of a DPOAE level map of a human or animal ear, the probe unit 23 is inserted into the ear canal 31 of an ear 30 (indicated in FIG. 5) in the direction of arrow 40. The procedure is explained below with reference to FIGS. 7 and 8”, see Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 23, Dalhoff teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 16’s 102 rejection.
Dalhoff further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein causing alternating output of the first audio content and the second audio content comprises causing output of the first audio content and the second audio content to enable otoacoustic emissions within a subject's ear to be measured, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to determine, based at least on the received audio signal, the health of the subject's ear (the probe unit 23 with the microphone is inserted in a subject’s ear to be measured to receive audio signal by the microphone. Detection of evoked distortion products is inherently based on the received audio signal from the microphone, otherwise, there will be no input source for detection; based on the received audio signal, the at least one processor in the computer unit executes instructions further cause the apparatus at least to determine the individual function of a DPOAE level map, which is an indicator of the health of the subject’s ear, see [0213]: “(b) Detection of evoked distortion products of otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE)”, see [0132]:” To perform an automatic measurement operation to create an individual function of a DPOAE level map of a human or animal ear, the probe unit 23 is inserted into the ear canal 31 of an ear 30 (indicated in FIG. 5) in the direction of arrow 40. The procedure is explained below with reference to FIGS. 7 and 8”, see [0138-0139]: ”DPOAE are then determined, which are used via the procedure for determining the individual function of a DPOAE level map…According to FIG. 7, in a first step 110 of the procedure, the model function already described is first read from the non-volatile memory 16 into the computer unit 10 of system 1 or the working memory 15 of the computer unit 10”)
Regarding claim 24, Dalhoff teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 16’s 102 rejection.
Dalhoff further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein causing alternating output of the first audio content and the second audio content comprises causing output of the first audio content and the second audio content to enable otoacoustic emissions within a subject's ear to be measured, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to determine, based at least on the received audio signal, a configuration for outputting further audio content to the subject's ear (the probe unit 23 with the microphone is inserted in a subject’s ear to be measured to receive audio signal by the microphone. Detection of evoked distortion products is inherently based on the received audio signal from the microphone, otherwise, there will be no input source for detection; based on the received audio signal, the at least one processor in the computer unit executes instructions further cause the apparatus at least to determine an individual function of a DPOAE level map having pdp,I=f(L1, L2), which can be a configuration. The individual function pdp,I=f(L1, L2) and/or their individual parameters can be used for outputting on an output device e.g. a speaker to adjust a hearing aid. Therefore, This configuration is for outputting further audio content to the subject’s ear, see [0213]: “(b) Detection of evoked distortion products of otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE),”, see [0138-0139]: ”DPOAE are then determined, which are used via the procedure for determining the individual function of a DPOAE level map…According to FIG. 7, in a first step 110 of the procedure, the model function already described is first read from the non-volatile memory 16 into the computer unit 10 of system 1 or the working memory 15 of the computer unit 10”, see: “10 Method according to any of the foregoing objects, further comprising the automatic determination of an individual function of a DPOAE level map having pdp,I=f(L1, L2) to determine the optimal DPOAE excitation level”, p.14, Method 10, see [0218]: “Output of the individual function pdp,I=f(L1, L2) and/or their individual parameters on an output device of the computer unit. 11. Use the procedure according to one of the previous objects to adjust a hearing aid”)
Regarding claim 25, Dalhoff teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 24’s 102 rejection.
Dalhoff further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 24, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to cause output of the further audio content based at least in part on the configuration (output of the further audio content is at least based in part on the individual function pdp,I=f(L1, L2), which is the configuration, therefore the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to cause output of the further audio content based at least in part on the configuration, see [0138-0139]: ”DPOAE are then determined, which are used via the procedure for determining the individual function of a DPOAE level map…According to FIG. 7, in a first step 110 of the procedure, the model function already described is first read from the non-volatile memory 16 into the computer unit 10 of system 1 or the working memory 15 of the computer unit 10”, see [0218]: “Output of the individual function pdp,I=f(L1, L2) and/or their individual parameters on an output device of the computer unit. 11. Use the procedure according to one of the previous objects to adjust a hearing aid”)
Regarding claim 26, since the claimed method comprises the same operations conducted by the apparatus in claim 16, claim 26 is rejected as being anticipated over Dalhoff for the reasons mentioned in claim 16’s 102 rejection.
Regarding claim 27, since the claimed method comprises the same operations conducted by the apparatus in claim 18, claim 27 is rejected as being anticipated over Dalhoff for the reasons mentioned in claim 18’s 102 rejection.
Regarding claim 28, since the claimed method comprises the same operations conducted by the apparatus in claim 22, claim 28 is rejected as being anticipated over Dalhoff for the reasons mentioned in claim 22’s 102 rejection.
Regarding claim 29, since the computer-readable medium claim comprises the same operations conducted by the apparatus in claim 16, claim 29 is rejected as being anticipated over Dalhoff for the reasons mentioned in claim 16’s 102 rejection.
Regarding claim 30, since the computer-readable medium claim comprises the same operations conducted by the apparatus in claim 18, claim 30 is rejected as being anticipated over Dalhoff for the reasons mentioned in claim 18’s 102 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dalhoff et al. (US 20170150909 A1) teaches measurement of DPOAE's evoked by pairs of excitation signals (f1, f2) (Abstract)
Shahid et al. “Towards Enabling DPOAE Estimation On Single-Speaker Earbuds” teaches a single speaker earbud for DPOAE (see Fig. 3)
Campbell et al. (US 20170064434 A1) teaches OAE-derived frequency-dependent hearing transfer function (see [0071-0072])
Lee et al. (US 20230225637 A1) teaches DPOAE-derived hearing profile used for volume/equalization changes (see [0087-0090], [0166-0169])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/SHIN LEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
