Prior art

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent No. 11,644,693

This analysis identifies and examines the prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 11,644,693 ("the '693 patent"). The following references were considered by the USPTO examiner and are listed on the face of the patent. Each entry includes the full citation, relevant dates, a brief description of its technology, and an analysis of the claims in the '693 patent it might be considered to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

The '693 patent, titled "Wearable audio system supporting enhanced hearing support," describes a pair of eyeglasses with integrated electronics, including a speaker, a wireless receiver, a battery, and a processor. The core of the invention lies in the processor's ability to apply a user's specific hearing profile to wirelessly received audio signals, thereby providing personalized hearing enhancement.

Cited U.S. Patent Documents

1. U.S. Patent No. 6,694,034 B1 (Hanson)

• Full Citation: US 6,694,034 B1, "Personal audio system using bone conduction"
• Publication Date: February 17, 2004
• Filing Date: June 15, 2001
• Description: Hanson discloses a personal audio system integrated into an eyeglass frame. It includes a receiver for wireless audio signals, a processor, and a bone conduction transducer that transmits sound to the user through vibration against the skull. The system is designed to provide audio to the user without occluding the ear canal.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This patent is highly relevant to the concept of integrating an audio system into eyewear.
  • Claim 1: Hanson describes many elements of claim 1, including a wireless receiver and a processor within an eyeglass frame. However, Hanson's primary embodiment focuses on bone conduction transducers rather than a traditional "speaker" that generates airborne sound waves. A key distinction is whether Hanson's system is explicitly "configured to apply a hearing profile of the user to enhance the received audio signals." While it processes audio, it may not inherently disclose the personalization aspect central to claim 1.
  • Claim 16: Similarly, Hanson's method involves receiving and processing wireless audio in a head-worn device. The step of "applying a hearing enhancement to the processed audio signals based on a hearing profile of the user" is the critical element. If Hanson's "processor" is interpreted broadly to include any form of audio signal modification, an argument for anticipation could be made, but the specific personalization based on a "hearing profile" is not explicitly detailed.

2. U.S. Patent No. 7,787,643 B2 (Chiang)

• Full Citation: US 7,787,643 B2, "Headset device"
• Publication Date: August 31, 2010
• Filing Date: April 21, 2006
• Description: Chiang describes a headset device, which can be integrated into eyeglasses, featuring a microphone, speaker, and wireless communication capabilities (e.g., Bluetooth). The device is designed for hands-free communication with a mobile phone.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1: Chiang discloses a wearable audio system with a speaker, wireless receiver, and power source integrated into a temple. However, the focus is on communication rather than hearing enhancement. The claims of the '693 patent require the processor to be specifically configured to apply a "hearing profile." Chiang does not appear to describe this functionality.
  • Claim 16: The method described by Chiang includes wirelessly receiving audio and outputting it through a speaker in a head-worn device. It lacks the specific step of applying a personalized "hearing enhancement" based on a user's profile, which is a central limitation of claim 16.

3. U.S. Patent No. 8,666,099 B2 (Goldberg et al.)

• Full Citation: US 8,666,099 B2, "Ergonomic and user-configurable ear-level audio communication and hearing-aid device"
• Publication Date: March 4, 2014
• Filing Date: August 20, 2008
• Description: Goldberg et al. detail a hearing-aid device that can be worn at the ear, with some embodiments attachable to or integrated with eyeglasses. It describes using digital signal processing to customize the audio output to a user's specific hearing loss characteristics, which are determined through an audiogram. The device can also receive wireless audio streams.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is highly relevant as it explicitly combines hearing aid functionality with a wearable, eyeglass-compatible form factor.
  • Claim 1: Goldberg et al. appear to disclose all elements of this claim. It describes a head-worn device (attachable to eyeglasses) containing a wireless receiver, a processor that applies a hearing correction based on user data (an audiogram, which is a hearing profile), a power source, and a speaker. The integration "within one of the first and second temples" is the main point of potential differentiation, as Goldberg's device is more "ear-level" and attachable, but the '693 claim language of being "housed" within the temple might be interpreted broadly.
  • Claim 16: The method described by Goldberg et al. strongly aligns with the steps of claim 16, including receiving wireless signals, processing them, and applying a user-specific hearing correction before outputting the sound.

4. U.S. Patent No. 9,414,141 B2 (Sliwa)

• Full Citation: US 9,414,141 B2, "Self-fitting hearing aid and methods for processing sound"
• Publication Date: August 9, 2016
• Filing Date: November 22, 2013
• Description: Sliwa discloses a hearing aid system that allows a user to perform their own hearing test (audiogram) and automatically adjust the device's audio processing to compensate for their specific hearing loss. The system includes a processor for implementing these adjustments. While not exclusively designed for eyeglasses, the principles are directly applicable to personal sound amplification products.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 16: Sliwa's invention centers on the concept of creating and applying a "hearing profile" to modify sound output, which is a core feature of the '693 patent. However, Sliwa's disclosure is focused on a more traditional hearing aid form factor. To anticipate the '693 claims, one would need to argue that integrating Sliwa's self-fitting technology into a standard pair of electronic eyeglasses (as taught by prior art like Chiang or Hanson) would have been obvious. It is less likely to be considered a direct anticipation under § 102 unless an embodiment within Sliwa specifically describes integration into an eyeglass temple.

5. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0156598 A1 (Glezerman)

• Full Citation: US 2015/0156598 A1, "Eyeglasses with Integrated Hearing Assistance"
• Publication Date: June 4, 2015
• Filing Date: November 28, 2014
• Description: Glezerman describes eyeglasses with an integrated hearing assistance system. This system includes microphones, speakers, a digital signal processor (DSP), and a power source, all housed within the eyeglass frame. The system is designed to amplify and clarify ambient sounds for the wearer and can be adjusted to the user's hearing needs.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1: Glezerman teaches the integration of all necessary components for a hearing enhancement system—processor, speaker, power source—into the temples of eyeglasses. The disclosure discusses adjusting audio for the user's needs, which aligns with the concept of applying a "hearing profile." This reference presents a strong challenge to the novelty of claim 1.
  • Claim 16: The method described in Glezerman, which involves capturing sound, processing it according to the user's needs, and delivering it via speakers in the glasses, is very similar to the method claimed in claim 16. The primary difference may lie in the '693 patent's emphasis on processing wirelessly received audio, whereas Glezerman's primary focus is on amplifying ambient sound from the device's own microphones. However, if Glezerman also discloses processing of wirelessly received audio, it would be highly relevant.

Based on this analysis, U.S. Patent No. 8,666,099 to Goldberg et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0156598 to Glezerman appear to be the most relevant prior art references. They both describe eyeglasses or head-worn devices that incorporate electronic components to provide audio to a user, with specific capabilities for personalizing or enhancing that audio based on the user's hearing deficiencies. These references would likely be central to any validity challenge against U.S. Patent No. 11,644,693, particularly concerning the core concepts of integrating personalized hearing enhancement into a wearable, eyeglass-style device.