Detailed Action
The present Application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this Application on 20 February 2026 after the Final Rejection (16 December 2025). Since this Application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 February 2026 has been entered.
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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 1–3, 13, 17, 19, 20, 35, 36, 40, 42, 45–50 and 52–54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0293123 (published 01 December 2011) (“Neumeyer”) and US Patent Application Publication 2018/0088900 (filed 27 September 2017) (“Glaser”).
Claims 5, 6, 21, 22, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Neumeyer; Glaser; US Patent Application Publication 2015/0049892 (published 19 February 2015) (“Petersen”) and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0230788 (published 10 August 2017) (“Simonides”).
Claims 8, 14, 23, 24 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Neumeyer; Glaser and Fahad Sohrab and Hakan Erdogan, Recognize and Separate Approach for Speech Denoising Using Nonnegative Matrix Factorization, 23d European Signal Processing Conference 1083 (2015) (“Sohrab”).
Claims 20, 27, 28, 46 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Neumeyer; Glaser and Sohrab.
Claims 29–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Neumeyer, Glaser and Lucas Parra and Clary Spence, Convolutive Blind Separation of Non-Stationary Sources, 8 IEEE Trans. on Speech and Audio Processing 320 (2000) (“Parra”).
Claims 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Neumeyer, Glaser and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0230788 (published 10 August 2017) (“Simonides”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a method performed by a hearing device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method and the Neumeyer reference.
Claim 1
The Neumeyer Reference
“1. A method performed by a hearing device, comprising:
The Neumeyer reference describes a hearing aid processing method. Neumeyer at Abs., ¶¶ 58–75, FIGs.3, 4, 5, 6.
“obtaining an environment parameter; and
Neumeyer’s hearing aid system 100 includes a hearing aid 102 that is in direct communication with a computing device 122 and is linked to a data storage system 142 through network 120 and computing device 122. Id. at ¶¶ 22–52, FIGs.1, 2.
Hearing aid 102 obtains environment parameters, including a location from a GPS receiver 127 and acoustic samples from a microphone 112. Id. at ¶¶ 21, 25, 42, 62, FIG.4. Similarly, the Neumeyer reference describes storing location-specific profiles 109. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 32, 38, 39.
“determining whether the environment parameter satisfies one or more first criteria;
Hearing aid 102 includes a processor 110 that includes profile selection logic 119. Logic 119 compares the hearing aid’s current location and acoustic samples to a database of positions and acoustic profiles to identify and select a hearing aid profile for processing signals. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 23, 62–66, FIG.4.
Hearing aid 102 also includes the ability to transmit a data package, including the current GPS location and acoustic samples, to data storage system 142 over network 120. Id. at ¶¶ 58–61, FIG.3. Data storage system 142 then compares the contents of the data package to stored environmental models to determine if there is a matching environmental model. Id. at ¶¶ 67–71, FIG.5. For example, system 142 determines if the data matches a model for a given time, location and acoustic profile. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 69, FIG.5.
“wherein the method further comprises, if the environment parameter satisfies the one or more first criteria:
“
“obtaining a processing scheme identifier,
If profile selection logic 119 determines that the hearing aid’s current location and/or acoustic samples match a known location, processor 110 will selectively obtain from internal memory 104 an appropriate hearing aid profile 109, or processing scheme identifier, that includes first processing schemes, such as an associated environmental filter 108. Id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, FIG.4.
Neumeyer’s hearing aid profile 109 is obtained from memory 104 by profile selection logic 119 based on the hearing aid’s current location and/or acoustic samples matching a known location. See id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, FIG.4. For example, memory 104 indexes a hearing aid profile with a location. See id. Memory 104 further indexes the location with audio information that is used to identify the location for accessing and obtaining the associated profile. See id. Thus, acoustic samples are compared to indexed audio information to detect a location. Id. Selection logic 119 then selects a co-indexed profile based on the detected location. Id.
“the identifier indicating or being associated with a first processing scheme,
“
Neumeyer’s profile 109, like the claimed processing scheme identifier, indicates or is associated with a processing scheme (e.g., specific noise processing, sound shaping and compression settings) for a location and types of environments. Id. at ¶ 32. In particular, Neumeyer emphasizes the storage and retrieval of location-specific profiles 109. Id. at ¶ 38. Neumeyer also contemplates sharing profiles between locations when the locations are similar—i.e., when two or more locations are the same type of environment. Id. This describes storing environment type profiles with filters 108 associated for a type of environment.
“performing signal processing
Hearing aid processor 110 reads the data in the selected/obtained hearing aid profile 109 and filter 108, or processing context parameter, and selects a corresponding hearing processing scheme. For example, Neumeyer describes the profile 109 and filter 108 as containing specific noise processing, sound shaping and compression settings that are selected based on the contents of the selected/obtained hearing aid profile 109 and filter 108. Id. at ¶ 32. Hearing aid processor 110 then applies the selected scheme (e.g., specific noise processing, sound shaping and compression settings) to process audio signals recorded by microphone 112. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 24, 32, 36, 50, 64, FIG.4.
“wherein the signal processing is performed to identify a voice, to determine that the identified voice belongs to a specific person predetermined to be of interest, and to prioritize the voice of the specific person based on the first processing scheme.
While Neumeyer performs processing based on a selected scheme, Neumeyer does not describe that the scheme associated with hearing aid profile 109 and filter 108 as prioritizing a voice of a specific person for a location of type of environment. Neumeyer also does not describe identifying a voice, determining that the voice belongs to a specific person predetermined to be of interest and then prioritizing that voice based on a first processing scheme.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Neumeyer reference describes a hearing aid processing method that is very similar to the claimed method. Neumeyer’s method, however, does not anticipate the claimed method. The claim requires obtaining a processing context parameter. The processing context parameter indicates or is associated with a first processing scheme that prioritizes a voice of a specific person for a location or a type of environment. This plain language indicates that the claimed parameter identifies a prioritization scheme. The Specification at ¶ 53 describes a “prioritization scheme identifier” as an identifier that uniquely identifies a prioritization scheme. An example of a prioritization scheme provided by Applicant is an input signal prioritization scheme that prioritizes, or not, the provision of an input signal for emission by the hearing device’s receiver (i.e., speaker). (Spec. at ¶ 91.) For example, the input signal prioritization scheme comprises a beamforming scheme, an amplification and/or a compression scheme. (Id.) It identifies a voice of a particular person and applies the scheme to prioritize the voice. (Id.) Neumeyer’s environmental filters/models do not identify a similar first processing scheme that prioritizes a particular source, such as a person’s voice, for a location or a type of environment.
Identification and Prioritization of a Specific Person’s Voice
The differences between the claimed method and the Neumeyer reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Neumeyer reference describes a system and method for to automatically adjust hearing aid operation to optimize performance in a variety of environments. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 3–5, 17–19. As shown above, Neumeyer describes obtaining a profile 109 or filter 108 based on a hearing aid’s current location.
The Glaser reference, like Neumeyer, teaches a system and method for optimizing hearing aid performance in a variety of environments. Glaser at ¶¶ 2–4, 18, 19. More particularly, the Glaser reference teaches differentially locating and modifying audio sources. Id. at Abs., ¶¶ 18–29. Glaser’s method includes a microphone 110 that records audio from an environment, which may include mixed audio from multiple simultaneous sources. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 31, FIG.1. A spatial audio analyzer 120 identifies and maps the audio sources to a multi-dimensional map. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 36–39. An audio source extraction engine 150 extracts each source’s audio from the mixed audio recording. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 62, 63. The mapping and extraction includes identifying and tracking of specific people and their voice based on the interest of the person to the user. Id. at ¶¶ 43, 51 (discussing identifying sources of a suitable scope, including for particular persons). An audio control configuration system 130 acquires and sets positional audio controls for each identified source based on various manual and automatic factors, including source priority, identity of the speaker and interest to the user. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 40–60, 89. Settings are established for a particular room/environment, location, condition, speaker, person, audio source or other subject of suitable scope. Id. at ¶ 43. And an audio generator 140 reproduces the extracted sources based on the audio controls provided by audio control configuration system 130. Id. at ¶¶ 61–64. For example, in a presentation setting, audio from a presenter located at the front of the room is prioritized over sound from a neighboring speaker sitting next to the user. Id. at ¶ 89. As another example, speech from people near the user is emphasized over speech from people behind the user. Id. at ¶ 84.
Based on their similarity in optimizing hearing aid performance in different environments, the Neumeyer and Glaser references together would have reasonably suggested modifying Neumeyer’s system to include a source prioritization mechanism capable of identifying f, tracking and emphasizing voices of specific people of interest to the user. For example, one of ordinary skill would have added Glaser’s spatial audio analyzer and audio generator to Neumeyer’s hearing aid so that the hearing aid would be able to identify, track and prioritize voices of specifically-identified people.
Moreover, in line with Neumeyer’s location-specific hearing aid configuration method, Glaser suggests storing audio controls for every new environment, such as a room, location, condition, speaker, person, audio source. Id. at ¶ 43. Accordingly, Neumeyer and Glaser reasonably teach and suggest modifying Neumeyer’s method so profile 109 and filter 108 would identify a priority scheme identifier that identifies a scheme for prioritizing specific audio sources (i.e., voices of specific people of interest) in each location, or type of environment. The scheme would reasonably include user-provided preferences, such as which voice to prioritize based on the identity of the speaker and the interest of the speaker to the user. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that doing so would produce a system and method that improves hearing aid performance by prioritizing desired speech for a particular person in a particular location. In operation, the prior art system would record audio in the environment, separate sources to identify voices and classify the sources into specific types of predefined scope, including whether the source is a voice of a person whose voice is set to be enhanced. See Glaser at ¶¶ 43, 51. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more first criteria comprise a location criterion, and wherein the act of determining whether the environment parameter satisfies the one or more first criteria comprises determining whether a location parameter of the environment parameter satisfies the location criterion.”
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and further requires the following:
“wherein the act of determining whether the environment parameter satisfies the location criterion comprises determining whether a location indicated by the environment parameter is comprised in a geographic area stored in a hearing processing database.”
The Neumeyer reference similarly describes determining if hearing aid 102 is located in a geographical location specified among the environmental models 152 stored in memory 148 of data storage system 142. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 21, 32, 64–70, FIGs.1, 4, 5 (blocks 406, 506, 508). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“if the environment parameter does not satisfy the one or more first criteria, further comprising
“recording at least a part of
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“if the environment parameter does not satisfy at least one of the one or more first criteria, further comprising
“storing at least a part of the one or more input signals and/or one or more parameters characterising at least a part of
Neumeyer’s system 100 uses data storage system 142 to assist hearing aid 102 in determining whether a data package corresponds to a known environmental model 152. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 67–71, FIG.5. If data storage system 142 determines that the data package does not correspond to any known environmental model 152 it records/stores the data package, which includes acoustic samples generated by hearing aid microphone 112. Id. System 142 then analyzes the stored data (e.g., analysis of the frequency and amplitudes of the noise that characterizes an acoustic environment at a particular time of day) and generates a new environmental model and corresponding filters (e.g., signal processing settings). Id. at ¶¶ 32, 70, FIG.5. System 142 then transmits those models or filters to hearing aid 102 to select processing functions in for audio signal processing. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 64, 73–75, FIGs.4, 6.
Neumeyer’s process corresponds generally to the acts recited in this claim, but differs since Neumeyer performs the corresponding acts in data storage system 142 instead of in hearing aid 102. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform the claimed acts in hearing aid 102 instead of data storage system 142. Generally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any data processing in a networked system, like Neumeyer’s system 100, may be performed in a distributed manner or a centralized manner, depending on the design preferences of the system designer. See Neumeyer at ¶ 66 (describing the use of a remote processor in place of a local processor); Petersen at ¶¶ 11, 31, 32, 34, 77, 164 (describing design factors and examples of distributed and centralized processing in a hearing aid system); Simonides at ¶¶ 46–54, FIGs.4, 5 (describing a distributed hearing aid architecture for characterizing the environment, where each node characterizes the environment and the server aggregates each node’s output for recommendation). The ultimate choice to centralize or distribute processing would be made based on various design choices, concerning power and communication overhead. See Petersen at ¶¶ 11, 31, 32, 34, 77, 164. But regardless of what may be the most efficient or beneficial, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize that any data processing in the system may be performed in a distributed manner—i.e., at client nodes, like Neumeyer’s hearing aids 102—or a centralized manner—e.g., at Neumeyer’s server 142. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to perform Neumeyer’s recording/storing, noise analysis, selecting and signal processing in hearing aid 102 instead of on data storage system 142. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser, the Petersen and the Simonides references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 8 is drawn to “a method performed by a hearing device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method and the Neumeyer reference.
Claim 8
The Neumeyer Reference
“8. A method performed by a hearing device, comprising:
The Neumeyer reference describes a hearing aid processing method. Neumeyer at Abs., ¶¶ 58–75, FIGs.3, 4, 5, 6.
“obtaining an environment parameter; and
Neumeyer’s hearing aid system 100 includes a hearing aid 102 that is in direct communication with a computing device 122 and is linked to a data storage system 142 through network 120 and computing device 122. Id. at ¶¶ 22–52, FIGs.1, 2.
Hearing aid 102 obtains environment parameters, including a location from a GPS receiver 127 and acoustic samples from a microphone 112. Id. at ¶¶ 21, 25, 42, 62, FIG.4.
“determining whether the environment parameter satisfies one or more first criteria;
Hearing aid 102 includes a processor 110 that includes profile selection logic 119. Logic 119 compares the hearing aid’s current location and acoustic samples to a database of positions and acoustic profiles to identify and select a hearing aid profile for processing signals. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 62–66, FIG.4.
Hearing aid 102 also includes the ability to transmit a data package, including the current GPS location and acoustic samples, to data storage system 142 over network 120. Id. at ¶¶ 58–61, FIG.3. Data storage system 142 then compares the contents of the data package to stored environmental models to determine if there is a matching environmental model. Id. at ¶¶ 67–71, FIG.5. For example, system 142 determines if the data matches a model for a given time, location and acoustic profile. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 69, FIG.5.
“wherein the method further comprises, if the environment parameter satisfies the one or more first criteria:
“
“obtaining a processing scheme identifier,
If profile selection logic 119 determines that the hearing aid’s current location and/or acoustic samples match a known location, processor 110 will selectively obtain from internal memory 104 an appropriate hearing aid profile 109, or processing scheme identifier, that includes first processing schemes, such as an associated environmental filter 108. Id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, FIG.4.
Neumeyer’s hearing aid profile 109 is obtained from memory 104 by profile selection logic 119 based on the hearing aid’s current location and/or acoustic samples matching a known location. See id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, FIG.4. For example, memory 104 indexes a hearing aid profile with a location. See id. Memory 104 further indexes the location with audio information that is used to identify the location for accessing and obtaining the associated profile. See id. Thus, acoustic samples are compared to indexed audio information to detect a location. Id. Selection logic 119 then selects a co-indexed profile based on the detected location. Id.
“the identifier indicating or being associated with a first processing scheme; and
Neumeyer’s profile 109, like the claimed processing scheme identifier, indicates or is associated with a processing scheme (e.g., specific noise processing, sound shaping and compression settings) for a location and types of environments. Id. at ¶ 32. In particular, Neumeyer emphasizes the storage and retrieval of location-specific profiles 109. Id. at ¶ 38. Neumeyer also contemplates sharing profiles between locations when the locations are similar—i.e., when two or more locations are the same type of environment. Id. This describes storing environment type profiles with filters 108 associated for a type of environment.
“performing signal processing based on the first processing scheme;
Hearing aid processor 110 then applies the processing scheme (e.g., specific noise processing, sound shaping and compression settings) to process audio signals recorded by microphone 112. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 24, 32, 36, 50, 64, FIG.4.
“wherein the signal processing is performed to identify sound for which noise cancellation is to be applied, and
Neumeyer describes performing noise cancellation based on the recognition of specific noise sources. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 33.
“wherein the signal processing involves an un-mixing matrix associated with a noise distribution assumed to be based on noise dependent dictionaries obtained by non-negative matrix factorization.”
Neumeyer does not describe the performing of signal processing using an un-mixing matrix associated with a noise distribution assumed to be based on noise dependent dictionaries obtained by non-negative matrix factorization.
Table 2
The table above shows that the Neumeyer reference describes a hearing aid that is very similar to the claimed hearing device. Neumeyer’s hearing aid, however, does not anticipate the claimed device. Neumeyer does not describe the performing signal processing using an un-mixing matrix associated with a noise distribution assumed to be based on noise dependent dictionaries obtained by non-negative matrix factorization.
The differences between the claimed device and the Neumeyer reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. Sohrab teaches and suggests a technique for denoising a speech signal. Sohrab’s technique involves the use of noise dictionaries obtained by non-negative matrix factorization. Sohrab at Abs., § 1. In particular, Sohrab uses non-negative matrix factorization to train a set of dictionaries to create a speech dictionary
W
s
and a noise dictionary
W
n
. Id. at § 4. The dictionaries are combined into an un-mixing matrix
W
used to extract a speech estimate
S
e
and noise estimate
N
e
, respectively. Id. at § 5. Sohrab further teaches and suggests the application of Wiener filtering based on the speech and noise estimates to denoise the speech. Id. Read in the context of Neumeyer, Sohrab’s teachings reasonably suggest performing denoising. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that denoising the speech would improve the audibility of desired speech signals. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Sohrab references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 is drawn to “a hearing device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed hearing device and the Neumeyer reference.
Claim 13
The Neumeyer Reference
“13. A hearing device comprising
Neumeyer’s hearing aid system 100 includes a hearing aid 102 that is in direct communication with a computing device 122 and is linked to a data storage system 142 through network 120 and computing device 122. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 22–52, FIGs.1, 2.
“a memory, an interface, a processor configured to compensate for hearing loss, a receiver, and one or more microphones,
Hearing aid 102 similarly includes the claimed memory 104, interface 116, hearing loss processor 110, receiver 114 and microphones 112. Id. at ¶¶ 22–25, FIG.1.
“wherein the hearing device is configured to:
“obtain an environment parameter;
Hearing aid 102 obtains environment parameters, including a location from a GPS receiver 127 and acoustic samples from a microphone 112. Id. at ¶¶ 21, 25, 42, 62, FIG.4.
“determine whether the environment parameter satisfies one or more first criteria, and
Hearing aid 102 includes a processor 110 that includes profile selection logic 119. Logic 119 compares the hearing aid’s current location and acoustic samples to a database of positions and acoustic profiles to identify and select a hearing aid profile for processing signals. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 62–66, FIG.4.
Hearing aid 102 also includes the ability to transmit a data package, including the current GPS location and acoustic samples, to data storage system 142 over network 120. Id. at ¶¶ 58–61, FIG.3. Data storage system 142 then compares the contents of the data package to stored environmental models to determine if there is a matching environmental model. Id. at ¶¶ 67–71, FIG.5. For example, system 142 determines if the data matches a model for a given time, location and acoustic profile. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 69, FIG.5.
“if the environment parameter satisfies the one or more first criteria:
“
“obtain a processing scheme identifier,
If profile selection logic 119 determines that the hearing aid’s current location and/or acoustic samples match a known location, processor 110 will selectively obtain from internal memory 104 an appropriate hearing aid profile 109, or processing scheme identifier, that includes first processing schemes, such as an associated environmental filter 108. Id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, FIG.4.
Neumeyer’s hearing aid profile 109 is obtained from memory 104 by profile selection logic 119 based on the hearing aid’s current location and/or acoustic samples matching a known location. See id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, FIG.4. For example, memory 104 indexes a hearing aid profile with a location. See id. Memory 104 further indexes the location with audio information that is used to identify the location for accessing and obtaining the associated profile. See id. Thus, acoustic samples are compared to indexed audio information to detect a location. Id. Selection logic 119 then selects a co-indexed profile based on the detected location. Id.
“the identifier indicating or being associated with a first processing scheme,
“
Neumeyer’s profile 109, like the claimed processing scheme identifier, indicates or is associated with a processing scheme (e.g., specific noise processing, sound shaping and compression settings) for a location and types of environments. Id. at ¶ 32. In particular, Neumeyer emphasizes the storage and retrieval of location-specific profiles 109. Id. at ¶ 38. Neumeyer also contemplates sharing profiles between locations when the locations are similar—i.e., when two or more locations are the same type of environment. Id. This describes storing environment type profiles with filters 108 associated for a type of environment.
“perform signal processing
Hearing aid processor 110 then applies the selected scheme (e.g., specific noise processing, sound shaping and compression settings) to process audio signals recorded by microphone 112. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 24, 32, 36, 50, 64, FIG.4.
“wherein the hearing device is configured to perform the signal processing a voice, to determine that the identified voice belongs to a specific person predetermined to be of interest, and to prioritize the voice of the specific person based on the first processing scheme.”
While Neumeyer performs processing based on a selected scheme, Neumeyer does not describe that the scheme associated with hearing aid profile 109 and filter 108 as prioritizing a voice of a specific person for a location of type of environment. Neumeyer also does not describe identifying a voice, determining that the voice belongs to a specific person predetermined to be of interest and then prioritizing that voice based on a first processing scheme.
Table 3
The table above shows that the Neumeyer reference describes a hearing aid that is very similar to the hearing device. Neumeyer’s hearing aid, however, does not anticipate the claimed device. The claim requires obtaining a processing context parameter. The processing context parameter indicates or is associated with a first processing scheme that prioritizes a voice of a specific person for a location or a type of environment. This plain language indicates that the claimed parameter identifies a prioritization scheme. The Specification at ¶ 53 describes a “prioritization scheme identifier” as an identifier that uniquely identifies a prioritization scheme. An example of a prioritization scheme provided by Applicant is an input signal prioritization scheme that prioritizes, or not, the provision of an input signal for emission by the hearing device’s receiver (i.e., speaker). (Spec. at ¶ 91.) For example, the input signal prioritization scheme comprises a beamforming scheme, an amplification and/or a compression scheme. (Id.) It identifies a voice of a particular person and applies the scheme to prioritize the voice. (Id.) Neumeyer’s environmental filters/models do not identify a similar first processing scheme that prioritizes a particular source, such as a person’s voice, for a location or a type of environment.
Identification and Prioritization of a Specific Person’s Voice
The differences between the claimed method and the Neumeyer reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Neumeyer reference describes a system and method for to automatically adjust hearing aid operation to optimize performance in a variety of environments. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 3–5, 17–19. As shown above, Neumeyer describes obtaining a profile 109 or filter 108 based on a hearing aid’s current location.
The Glaser reference, like Neumeyer, teaches a system and method for optimizing hearing aid performance in a variety of environments. Glaser at ¶¶ 2–4, 18, 19. More particularly, the Glaser reference teaches differentially locating and modifying audio sources. Id. at Abs., ¶¶ 18–29. Glaser’s method includes a microphone 110 that records audio from an environment, which may include mixed audio from multiple simultaneous sources. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 31, FIG.1. A spatial audio analyzer 120 identifies and maps the audio sources to a multi-dimensional map. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 36–39. An audio source extraction engine 150 extracts each source’s audio from the mixed audio recording. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 62, 63. The mapping and extraction includes identifying and tracking of specific people and their voice based on the interest of the person to the user. Id. at ¶¶ 43, 51 (discussing identifying sources of a suitable scope, including for particular persons). An audio control configuration system 130 acquires and sets positional audio controls for each identified source based on various manual and automatic factors, including source priority, identity of the speaker and interest to the user. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 40–60, 89. Settings are established for a particular room/environment, location, condition, speaker, person, audio source or other subject of suitable scope. Id. at ¶ 43. And an audio generator 140 reproduces the extracted sources based on the audio controls provided by audio control configuration system 130. Id. at ¶¶ 61–64. For example, in a presentation setting, audio from a presenter located at the front of the room is prioritized over sound from a neighboring speaker sitting next to the user. Id. at ¶ 89. As another example, speech from people near the user is emphasized over speech from people behind the user. Id. at ¶ 84.
Based on their similarity in optimizing hearing aid performance in different environments, the Neumeyer and Glaser references together would have reasonably suggested modifying Neumeyer’s system to include a source prioritization mechanism capable of identifying f, tracking and emphasizing voices of specific people of interest to the user. For example, one of ordinary skill would have added Glaser’s spatial audio analyzer and audio generator to Neumeyer’s hearing aid so that the hearing aid would be able to identify, track and prioritize voices of specifically-identified people.
Moreover, in line with Neumeyer’s location-specific hearing aid configuration method, Glaser suggests storing audio controls for every new environment, such as a room, location, condition, speaker, person, audio source. Id. at ¶ 43. Accordingly, Neumeyer and Glaser reasonably teach and suggest modifying Neumeyer’s method so profile 109 and filter 108 would identify a priority scheme identifier that identifies a scheme for prioritizing specific audio sources (i.e., voices of specific people of interest) in each location, or type of environment. The scheme would reasonably include user-provided preferences, such as which voice to prioritize based on the identity of the speaker and the interest of the speaker to the user. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that doing so would produce a system and method that improves hearing aid performance by prioritizing desired speech for a particular person in a particular location. In operation, the prior art system would record audio in the environment, separate sources to identify voices and classify the sources into specific types of predefined scope, including whether the source is a voice of a person whose voice is set to be enhanced. See Glaser at ¶¶ 43, 51. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 8 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first processing scheme also comprises a noise cancellation scheme.”
Neumeyer’s environmental filters 153 similarly include noise cancellation identifiers and output signal indicators (e.g., filter bandwidth settings). Neumeyer at ¶ 32. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser and the Sohrab references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first processing scheme comprises a speech processing scheme.”
Claim 19 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first processing scheme comprises a speech processing scheme.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of modifying Neumeyer’s method to similarly select a speech prioritization scheme that, for example, prioritizes speech coming from a prioritized source located in a particular position relative to the user. See Glaser at ¶¶ 83–89. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 20 is drawn to “a hearing device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed hearing device and the Neumeyer reference.
Claim 20
The Neumeyer Reference
“20. A hearing device comprising
Neumeyer’s hearing aid system 100 includes a hearing aid 102 that is in direct communication with a computing device 122 and is linked to a data storage system 142 through network 120 and computing device 122. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 22–52, FIGs.1, 2.
“a memory, an interface, a processor configured to compensate for hearing loss, a receiver, and one or more microphones,
Hearing aid 102 similarly includes the claimed memory 104, interface 116, hearing loss processor 110, receiver 114 and microphones 112. Id. at ¶¶ 22–25, FIG.1.
“wherein the hearing device is configured to:
“obtain an environment parameter;
Neumeyer’s hearing aid system 100 includes a hearing aid 102 that is in direct communication with a computing device 122 and is linked to a data storage system 142 through network 120 and computing device 122. Id. at ¶¶ 22–52, FIGs.1, 2.
Hearing aid 102 obtains environment parameters, including a location from a GPS receiver 127 and acoustic samples from a microphone 112. Id. at ¶¶ 21, 25, 42, 62, FIG.4.
“determine whether the environment parameter satisfies one or more first criteria, and
Hearing aid 102 includes a processor 110 that includes profile selection logic 119. Logic 119 compares the hearing aid’s current location and acoustic samples to a database of positions and acoustic profiles to identify and select a hearing aid profile for processing signals. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 62–66, FIG.4.
Hearing aid 102 also includes the ability to transmit a data package, including the current GPS location and acoustic samples, to data storage system 142 over network 120. Id. at ¶¶ 58–61, FIG.3. Data storage system 142 then compares the contents of the data package to stored environmental models to determine if there is a matching environmental model. Id. at ¶¶ 67–71, FIG.5. For example, system 142 determines if the data matches a model for a given time, location and acoustic profile. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 69, FIG.5.
“if the environment parameter satisfies the one or more first criteria:
“
“obtain a processing scheme identifier,
If profile selection logic 119 determines that the hearing aid’s current location and/or acoustic samples match a known location, processor 110 will selectively obtain from internal memory 104 an appropriate hearing aid profile 109, or processing scheme identifier, that includes first processing schemes, such as an associated environmental filter 108. Id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, FIG.4.
Neumeyer’s hearing aid profile 109 is obtained from memory 104 by profile selection logic 119 based on the hearing aid’s current location and/or acoustic samples matching a known location. See id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, FIG.4. For example, memory 104 indexes a hearing aid profile with a location. See id. Memory 104 further indexes the location with audio information that is used to identify the location for accessing and obtaining the associated profile. See id. Thus, acoustic samples are compared to indexed audio information to detect a location. Id. Selection logic 119 then selects a co-indexed profile based on the detected location. Id.
“the identifier indicating or being associated with a first processing scheme; and
Neumeyer’s profile 109, like the claimed processing scheme identifier, indicates or is associated with a processing scheme (e.g., specific noise processing, sound shaping and compression settings) for a location and types of environments. Id. at ¶ 32. In particular, Neumeyer emphasizes the storage and retrieval of location-specific profiles 109. Id. at ¶ 38. Neumeyer also contemplates sharing profiles between locations when the locations are similar—i.e., when two or more locations are the same type of environment. Id. This describes storing environment type profiles with filters 108 associated for a type of environment.
“perform signal processing based on the first processing scheme to identify sound for which noise cancellation is to be applied;
Hearing aid processor 110 then applies the selected scheme (e.g., specific noise processing, sound shaping and compression settings) to process audio signals recorded by microphone 112. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 24, 32, 36, 50, 64, FIG.4. Neumeyer describes performing noise cancellation based on the recognition of specific noise sources. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 33.
“wherein the signal processing involves an un-mixing matrix associated with a noise distribution assumed to be based on noise dependent dictionaries obtained by non-negative matrix factorization.”
Neumeyer does not describe the performing of signal processing using an un-mixing matrix associated with a noise distribution assumed to be based on noise dependent dictionaries obtained by non-negative matrix factorization.
Table 4
The table above shows that the Neumeyer reference describes a hearing aid that is very similar to the claimed hearing device. Neumeyer’s hearing aid, however, does not anticipate the claimed device. The claim requires obtaining a processing context parameter. The processing context parameter indicates or is associated with a first processing scheme that prioritizes a voice of a specific person for a location or a type of environment. This plain language indicates that the claimed parameter identifies a prioritization scheme. The Specification at ¶ 53 describes a “prioritization scheme identifier” as an identifier that uniquely identifies a prioritization scheme. An example of a prioritization scheme provided by Applicant is an input signal prioritization scheme that prioritizes, or not, the provision of an input signal for emission by the hearing device’s receiver (i.e., speaker). (Spec. at ¶ 91.) For example, the input signal prioritization scheme comprises a beamforming scheme, an amplification and/or a compression scheme. (Id.) It identifies a voice of a particular person and applies the scheme to prioritize the voice. (Id.) Neumeyer’s environmental filters/models do not identify a similar first processing scheme that prioritizes a particular source, such as a person’s voice, for a location or a type of environment. And Neumeyer does not base the specific person for prioritization based on the environment parameter satisfying a first criterion. Neumeyer also does not describe the performing of signal processing using an un-mixing matrix associated with a noise distribution assumed to be based on noise dependent dictionaries obtained by non-negative matrix factorization.
Identification and Prioritization of a Specific Person’s Voice
The differences between the claimed device and the Neumeyer reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Neumeyer reference describes a system and method for to automatically adjust hearing aid operation to optimize performance in a variety of environments. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 3–5, 17–19. As shown above, Neumeyer describes obtaining a profile 109 or filter 108 based on a hearing aid’s current location.
The Glaser reference, like Neumeyer, teaches a system and method for optimizing hearing aid performance in a variety of environments. Glaser at ¶¶ 2–4, 18, 19. More particularly, the Glaser reference teaches differentially locating and modifying audio sources. Id. at Abs., ¶¶ 18–29. Glaser’s method includes a microphone 110 that records audio from an environment, which may include mixed audio from multiple simultaneous sources. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 31, FIG.1. A spatial audio analyzer 120 identifies and maps the audio sources to a multi-dimensional map. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 36–39. An audio source extraction engine 150 extracts each source’s audio from the mixed audio recording. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 62, 63. The mapping and extraction includes identifying and tracking of specific people and their voice based on the interest of the person to the user. Id. at ¶ 51. An audio control configuration system 130 acquires and sets positional audio controls for each identified source based on various manual and automatic factors, including source priority, identity of the speaker and interest to the user. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 40–60, 89. And an audio generator 140 reproduces the extracted sources based on the audio controls provided by audio control configuration system 130. Id. at ¶¶ 61–64. For example, in a presentation setting, audio from a presenter located at the front of the room is prioritized over sound from a neighboring speaker sitting next to the user. Id. at ¶ 89. As another example, speech from people near the user is emphasized over speech from people behind the user. Id. at ¶ 84.
Based on their similarity in optimizing hearing aid performance in different environments, the Neumeyer and Glaser references together would have reasonably suggested modifying Neumeyer’s system to include a source prioritization mechanism capable of identifying, tracking and emphasizing voices of specific people of interest to the user. For example, one of ordinary skill would have added Glaser’s spatial audio analyzer and audio generator to Neumeyer’s hearing aid so that the hearing aid would be able to identify, track and prioritize voices of specifically-identified people.
Moreover, in line with Neumeyer’s location-specific hearing aid configuration method, Glaser suggests storing audio controls in a profile for every room/environment, location, condition, speaker, person, audio source or other suitable scope. Id. at ¶ 43.
Accordingly, Neumeyer and Glaser reasonably teach and suggest modifying Neumeyer’s system and method so profile 109 and filter 108 would include a priority scheme identifier that identifies a scheme for prioritizing specific audio sources (i.e., voices of specific people of interest) in each location, or type of environment, or to not prioritize audio sources. The scheme would reasonably include user-provided preferences, such as which voice, if any, to prioritize based on the identity of the speaker and the interest of the speaker to the user. Neumeyer’s hearing aid, which operates based on environmental profiles, would then operate as otherwise described in the Neumeyer reference by determining which environmental profile should be selected and used for the current environmental setting. If the selected environmental profile further includes Glaser’s suggested voice settings for particular speakers/persons, then signal processing would include identifying the particular speaker’s voice. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that doing so would produce a system and method that improves hearing aid performance by prioritizing desired speech for a particular person in a particular location.
Signal Processing with an Un-Mixing Matrix Associated with a Noise Dictionary Obtained by Non-Negative Matrix Factorization
Sohrab teaches and suggests a technique for denoising a speech signal. Sohrab’s technique involves the use of noise dictionaries obtained by non-negative matrix factorization. Sohrab at Abs., § 1. In particular, Sohrab uses non-negative matrix factorization to train a set of dictionaries to create a speech dictionary
W
s
and a noise dictionary
W
n
. Id. at § 4. The dictionaries are combined into an un-mixing matrix
W
used to extract a speech estimate
S
e
and noise estimate
N
e
, respectively. Id. at § 5. Sohrab further teaches and suggests the application of Wiener filtering based on the speech and noise estimates to denoise the speech. Id. Read in the context of Neumeyer, Sohrab’s teachings reasonably suggest performing denoising. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that denoising the speech would improve the audibility of desired speech signals. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser and the Sohrab references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 21 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the environment parameter is obtained by the hearing device wirelessly receiving the environment parameter.”
Claim 22 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the environment parameter is obtained by the hearing device receiving the environment parameter transmitted by an accessory device.”
Claim 23 depends on claim 8 and further requires the following:
“wherein the environment parameter is obtained by the hearing device wirelessly receiving the environment parameter.”
Claim 24 depends on claim 8 and further requires the following:
“wherein the environment parameter is obtained by the hearing device receiving the environment parameter transmitted by an accessory device.”
Claim 25 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the environment parameter is obtained by the hearing device wirelessly receiving the environment parameter.”
Claim 26 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the environment parameter is obtained by the hearing device receiving the environment parameter transmitted by an accessory device.”
Claim 27 depends on claim 20 and further requires the following:
“wherein the environment parameter is obtained by the hearing device wirelessly receiving the environment parameter.”
Claim 28 depends on claim 20 and further requires the following:
“wherein the environment parameter is obtained by the hearing device receiving the environment parameter transmitted by an accessory device.”
Claims 21–28 commonly recite limitations pertaining to the wireless receipt of environment parameters from an accessory device.
The obviousness rejections of claims 1, 8, 13 and 20, incorporated herein, show that Neumeyer’s hearing aid 100 obtains an environment parameter (e.g., environmental filters 108 or hearing aid profiles 109) from local memory 104 after determining that the hearing aid’s current location matches a stored location. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 62–65, FIG.4. In the flow of FIG.4, Neumeyer does not describe wirelessly receiving an environment parameter transmitted from an accessory device. Rather, as just stated, the obtaining that occurs involves accessing a parameter from local memory 104. As explained in the obviousness rejections of claims 5–7, incorporated herein, it would have been obvious to distribute functions however the designer sees fit, which includes locating relevant data in a remote device and obtaining it from the remote device when needed. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser, the Petersen and the Simonides references makes obvious all limitations of claims 21, 22, 25 and 26. For the foregoing reasons, the various combinations of the Neumeyer and the Sohrab references makes obvious all limitations of claims 23 and 24. And for the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser and the Sohrab references makes obvious all limitations of claims 27 and 28.
Claim 29 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first processing scheme comprises a blind source separation scheme.”
The art rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of modifying Neumeyer’s system to include the specific-voice priority scheme described by Glaser. Glaser’s scheme relies on a spatial audio analyzer 120 and extraction engine 150 that separate audio sources from a mixed input signal. The Parra reference provides a detailed description of a blind source separation (BSS) algorithm that would be useful in Glaser’s scheme for extracting multiple non-stationary audio sources from a mixed signal recorded by multiple microphones. Parra at Abs., § 1. Parra recognizes the potential of exploiting non-stationary signals in BSS to separate, or extract, multiple talkers as contemplated by Glaser. Id. Further, Parra explains that the BSS algorithm assumes that the source signals are statistically independent. Id. Signals that are statistically independent are, by definition, uncorrelated. This would have reasonably suggested implementing Glaser’s analyzer 120 and extraction engine 150 with a BSS algorithm like the one described by Parra. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser and the Parra references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 30 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first processing scheme comprises a blind source separation scheme.”
The art rejection of claim 13, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of modifying Neumeyer’s system to include the specific-voice priority scheme described by Glaser. Glaser’s scheme relies on a spatial audio analyzer 120 and extraction engine 150 that separate audio sources from a mixed input signal. The Parra reference provides a detailed description of a blind source separation (BSS) algorithm that would be useful in Glaser’s scheme for extracting multiple non-stationary audio sources from a mixed signal recorded by multiple microphones. Parra at Abs., § 1. Parra recognizes the potential of exploiting non-stationary signals in BSS to separate, or extract, multiple talkers as contemplated by Glaser. Id. Further, Parra explains that the BSS algorithm assumes that the source signals are statistically independent. Id. Signals that are statistically independent are, by definition, uncorrelated. This would have reasonably suggested implementing Glaser’s analyzer 120 and extraction engine 150 with a BSS algorithm like the one described by Parra. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser and the Parra references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 31 depends on claim 29 and further requires the following:
“wherein the blind source separation scheme involves an assumption of a non-stationary sound source.”
Claim 32 depends on claim 30 and further requires the following:
“wherein the blind source separation scheme involves an assumption of a non-stationary sound source.”
The art rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of modifying Neumeyer’s system to include the specific-voice priority scheme described by Glaser. Glaser’s scheme relies on a spatial audio analyzer 120 and extraction engine 150 that separate audio sources from a mixed input signal. The Parra reference provides a detailed description of a blind source separation (BSS) algorithm that would be useful in Glaser’s scheme for extracting multiple non-stationary audio sources from a mixed signal recorded by multiple microphones. Parra at Abs., § 1. Parra recognizes the potential of exploiting non-stationary signals in BSS to separate, or extract, multiple talkers as contemplated by Glaser. Id. Further, Parra explains that the BSS algorithm assumes that the source signals are statistically independent. Id. Signals that are statistically independent are, by definition, uncorrelated. This would have reasonably suggested implementing Glaser’s analyzer 120 and extraction engine 150 with a BSS algorithm like the one described by Parra. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser and the Parra references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 35 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“the environment parameter is determined as satisfying the one or more first criteria when the environment parameter indicates a home location or a home environment.”
Claim 36 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the hearing device is configured to determine the environment parameter is determined as satisfying the one or more first criteria when the environment parameter indicates a home location or a home environment.”
Neumeyer similarly describes recognizing the user’s home. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 19, 38. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 39 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more first criteria comprise an environment type criterion, and wherein the act of determining whether the environment parameter satisfies the one or more first criteria comprises determining whether an environment type parameter of the environment parameter satisfies the environment type criterion.”
The Neumeyer reference similarly describes obtaining GPS coordinates and an associated label/tag identifying a particular location. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 17, 21, 27, 38, 39. The Simonides reference teaches and suggests obtaining location parameters, such as GPS coordinates that indicate where the user is located. Simonides at ¶¶ 40, 41. Simonides further teaches obtaining an associated label or tag for the GPS coordinates. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 40, 41. The label/tag could be a specific location as described by Neumeyer. Id. Alternatively, Simonides teaches associating GPS coordinates with a location type corresponding to the claimed environment type parameter. Id. at ¶ 12. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably recognized that environments types are useful for treating similar environments in a similar manner without having to store additional data. This teaching would have reasonably suggested modifying Neumeyer’s system to also obtain GPS coordinates and associated environment types (e.g., GPS coordinates are associated with a coffee shop, generally) rather than specific environment identities (e.g., the GPS coordinates are associated with a specific coffee shop). Neumeyer’s profiles would then be fetched by mapping the GPS coordinates to an environment type and an appropriate profile being chosen for the environment type. For example, the system would associate GPS coordinates with an environment type, such as a coffee shop in general. See Simonides at ¶ 12. The user’s presence in a coffee shop would be used to then select an appropriate hearing aid profile. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser and the Simonides references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 40 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more first criteria comprise a time criterion.”
The Neumeyer reference similarly describes selecting appropriate hearing aid profiles based on a time in which the user is located in a location. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 32, 34, 38, 39. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 41 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more first criteria comprise an environment type criterion, and wherein the hearing device is configured to determine whether the environment parameter satisfies the one or more first criteria by determining whether the environment type parameter of the environment parameter satisfies the environment type criterion.”
The Neumeyer reference similarly describes obtaining GPS coordinates and an associated label/tag identifying a particular location. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 17, 21, 27, 38, 39. The Simonides reference teaches and suggests obtaining location parameters, such as GPS coordinates that indicate where the user is located. Simonides at ¶¶ 40, 41. Simonides further teaches obtaining an associated label or tag for the GPS coordinates. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 40, 41. The label/tag could be a specific location as described by Neumeyer. Id. Alternatively, Simonides teaches associating GPS coordinates with a location type corresponding to the claimed environment type parameter. Id. at ¶ 12. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably recognized that environments types are useful for treating similar environments in a similar manner without having to store additional data. This teaching would have reasonably suggested modifying Neumeyer’s system to also obtain GPS coordinates and associated environment types (e.g., GPS coordinates are associated with a coffee shop, generally) rather than specific environment identities (e.g., the GPS coordinates are associated with a specific coffee shop). Neumeyer’s profiles would then be fetched by mapping the GPS coordinates to an environment type and an appropriate profile being chosen for the environment type. For example, the system would associate GPS coordinates with an environment type, such as a coffee shop in general. See Simonides at ¶ 12. The user’s presence in a coffee shop would be used to then select an appropriate hearing aid profile. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser and the Simonides references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 42 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more first criteria comprise a time criterion.”
The Neumeyer reference similarly describes selecting appropriate hearing aid profiles based on a time in which the user is located in a location. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 32, 34, 38, 39. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 45 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the specific person is a family member of a user of the hearing device, and wherein the hearing device is configured to identify the voice of the family member, and to prioritize the voice of the family member.”
The combination of Neumeyer and Glaser discussed in the rejection of claim 13, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of modifying Neumeyer’s system to identify, track and prioritize the voice of a specific person of interest to the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any person would be suitable, such as a friend, teacher or parent—in short, any person the user wants to hear better. See Glaser at ¶¶ 21, 51. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 46 depends on claim 20 and further requires the following:
“wherein the specific person is a family member of a user of the hearing device, and wherein the hearing device is configured to identify the voice of the family member, and to prioritize the voice of the family member.”
The combination of Neumeyer and Glaser discussed in the rejection of claim 13, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of modifying Neumeyer’s system to identify, track and prioritize the voice of a specific person of interest to the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any person would be suitable, such as a friend, teacher or parent—in short, any person the user wants to hear better. See Glaser at ¶¶ 21, 51. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 47 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the specific person, of whom the signal processing is performed to prioritized the voice, is based on the environment parameter satisfying the one or more first criteria.”
The combination of Neumeyer and Glaser similarly suggests modifying Neumeyer’s environmental hearing aid profiles to include settings for each environment location and to include settings for a particular speaker’s voice. See Neumeyer at ¶¶ 17; Glaser at ¶¶ 43, 51, 52. Accordingly, Neumeyer and Glaser reasonably teach and suggest modifying Neumeyer’s system and method so profile 109 and filter 108 would include a priority scheme identifier that identifies a scheme for prioritizing specific audio sources (i.e., voices of specific people of interest) in each location, or type of environment, or to not prioritize audio sources. The scheme would reasonably include user-provided preferences, such as which voice, if any, to prioritize based on the identity of the speaker and the interest of the speaker to the user. Neumeyer’s hearing aid, which operates based on environmental profiles, would then operate as otherwise described in the Neumeyer reference by determining which environmental profile should be selected and used for the current environmental setting. If the selected environmental profile further includes Glaser’s suggested voice settings for particular speakers/persons, then signal processing would include identifying the particular speaker’s voice. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that doing so would produce a system and method that improves hearing aid performance by prioritizing desired speech for a particular person in a particular location. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 48 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the specific person, of whom the hearing device is configured to prioritize the voice, is based on the environment parameter satisfying the one or more first criteria.”
The combination of Neumeyer and Glaser similarly suggests modifying Neumeyer’s environmental hearing aid profiles to include settings for each environment location and to include settings for a particular speaker’s voice. See Neumeyer at ¶¶ 17; Glaser at ¶¶ 43, 51, 52. Accordingly, Neumeyer and Glaser reasonably teach and suggest modifying Neumeyer’s system and method so profile 109 and filter 108 would include a priority scheme identifier that identifies a scheme for prioritizing specific audio sources (i.e., voices of specific people of interest) in each location, or type of environment, or to not prioritize audio sources. The scheme would reasonably include user-provided preferences, such as which voice, if any, to prioritize based on the identity of the speaker and the interest of the speaker to the user. Neumeyer’s hearing aid, which operates based on environmental profiles, would then operate as otherwise described in the Neumeyer reference by determining which environmental profile should be selected and used for the current environmental setting. If the selected environmental profile further includes Glaser’s suggested voice settings for particular speakers/persons, then signal processing would include identifying the particular speaker’s voice. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that doing so would produce a system and method that improves hearing aid performance by prioritizing desired speech for a particular person in a particular location. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 49 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the act of obtaining the processing scheme identifier comprises accessing a database storing a timestamp that is indexed identifier and
Neumeyer describes storing timestamps in order to identify a hearing profile corresponding to a particular time and location, determined by audio information. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 32, 34, 38, 39. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 50 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the hearing device is configured to obtain the processing scheme identifier by accessing a database storing a timestamp that is indexed identifier and
Neumeyer describes storing timestamps in order to identify a hearing profile corresponding to a particular time and location, determined by audio information. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 32, 34, 38, 39. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 51 depends on claim 8 and further requires the following:
“wherein the act of obtaining the processing scheme identifier comprises accessing a database storing a timestamp that is indexed identifier and
Neumeyer describes storing timestamps in order to identify a hearing profile corresponding to a particular time and location, determined by audio information. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 32, 34, 38, 39. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer, the Glaser and the Sohrab references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 52 depends on claim 20 and further requires the following:
“wherein the hearing device is configured to obtain the processing scheme identifier by accessing a database storing a timestamp that is indexed together with the processing scheme identifier and
Neumeyer describes storing timestamps in order to identify a hearing profile corresponding to a particular time and location, determined by audio information. Neumeyer at ¶¶ 32, 34, 38, 39. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 53 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the specific person is predetermined to be of interest before the hearing device detects the voice.”
Similarly, Glaser teaches and suggests storing settings for particular people—storage strongly suggests determining specific persons to be of interest before detecting their voice. See Glaser at ¶¶ 43, 51. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 54 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein the hearing device is configured to determine the specific person to be of interest before the hearing device detects the voice.”
Similarly, Glaser teaches and suggests storing settings for particular people—storage strongly suggests determining specific persons to be of interest before detecting their voice. See Glaser at ¶¶ 43, 51. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Neumeyer and the Glaser references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 17, 19–32, 35, 36, 39–42 and 45–54 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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 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.
This Application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (06 February 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 11–22 further includes comments pertaining to the rejections and prior art cited in the Final Rejection (16 December 2025). The Examiner has considered those comments.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Applicant comments that the Neumeyer and Glaser references do not describe, teach or suggest determining that the identified voice belongs to a specific person predetermined be of interest. The updated rejection of claims 1 and 13, above, shows that Glaser teaches and suggests storing settings for particular persons. Glaser at ¶¶ 43, 51. This strongly suggests not simply identifying particular persons, but identifying a predetermined set of persons in order to recall settings specific to those persons.
Regarding the other claims, Applicant’s comments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant has not persuasively demonstrated any error in the Office action. All rejections will be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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 on 571-270-7136. The fax phone number for the organization where this Application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2655
3/16/2026