DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/07/20256 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9 and 11-20 remain pending in the application. Amendments to claims 1 and 14 and cancellation of claim 8 is acknowledged. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(a)/(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 04/07/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lotfi et al. (“Spectro-temporal modulation detection and its relation to speech perception in children with auditory processing disorder”), hereinafter Lotfi in view of Nassiri et al. (“Illusory spectrotemporal ripples created with binaurally correlated noise”, as cited by applicant’s IDS filed 05/26/2022), hereinafter Nassiri, in view of He et al. (CN 109076280 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lotfi discloses a spectro-temporal modulation (STM) detection test unit (abstract " the assessment of spectro-temporal modulations sensitivity”) comprising: a headset comprising first and second loudspeakers (section 2.4 paragraph 2: “The test was done monaurally in both ears through headphones”, wherein the headphones uses first and second speakers to deliver sound monoaurally); one or more processors programmed to apply spectro-temporal modulation on a carrier signal to generate a first probe stimulus and a second probe stimulus (section 2.3: “we employed STM stimuli (moving ripples) which represent the spectro-temporal modulation patterns of speech signals”, section 2.4 paragraph 2: “The test was done monaurally in both ears through headphones at 65 dB SPL”, wherein the first stimulus is signal performed in the left ear and the second is performed in the right), and provide the first probe stimulus and the second probe stimulus to the headset (section 2.4 paragraph 2: “The test was done monaurally in both ears through headphones at 65 dB SPL”), the headset simultaneously presenting the first probe stimulus to one ear of a user and the second probe stimulus to another ear of the user (section 2.2 para 1: “which should be presented simultaneously to each ear of the listeners”); and determine, in response to the headset presenting the first and second probe stimuli, a modulation-detection threshold of the user (section 2.4 paragraph 2: “, a total of six STM stimulus combinations were generated to evaluate STM thresholds.”).
Lofti fails to disclose wherein the modulation depth and/or occurrence of the spectro-temporal modulation of the first probe stimulus is different from the modulation depth and/or occurrence of the spectro- temporal modulation of the second probe stimulus.
Nassiri discloses a spectro-temporal modulation (STM) detection test unit (title) comprising a headset comprising first and second loudspeakers (page 3 2. Methods para 1: “Sounds were delivered via calibrated earphones (Senheiser HD 600)”) that is configured to simultaneously present a first probe stimulus to one ear of a user and a second probe stimulus to another ear of the user (Page 4 2.1: “presentation of two consecutive 3-s-long sounds employing a two-alternative-forced-choice paradigm.”, Page 4 2.2: “. Control sounds consisted of RCS signals in which the binaural envelope correlations were set to zero (random envelopes for left-right ears)”), wherein the modulation depth and/or occurrence of the spectro-temporal modulation of the first probe stimulus is different from the spectro-temporal modulation depth and/or occurrence of the second probe stimulus (page 3 2. Methods para 1 “Once the right audio channel was generated, the left audio channel was constrained by the binaural correlation map (Fig. 1(b)). Correlation maps were generated so that the spectrotemporal correlation pattern between the left and right sounds resembled the spectrotemporal envelope of a moving ripple sound… . Finally, is a Bernoulli number that randomly turns each tone-pip on (1) or off (0) at a given time-frequency location.”, wherein the occurrence of the pips may be off or on, and wherein the right and left audio channels are correlated but different).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the detection test unit disclosed by Lofti to include that the spectro-temporal modulation of the first probe stimulus is different from the spectro-temporal modulation of the second probe stimulus as disclosed by Nassiri in order to model environmental conditions wherein patients may be exposed to uneven noise conditions (Nassiri introduction para 1; “cocktail party problem”).
While Lofi discloses reducing the modulation depth (section 2.4 paragraph 2: “modulation depth was decreased in steps of 4 dB”), Lofti as modified by Nassiri fails to specifically disclose wherein the generating of the first probe stimulus and the second probe stimulus by the one or more processors comprises reducing the modulation depth parameter of the first probe stimulus by a modulation reduction parameter, while keeping the modulation depth parameter of the second probe stimulus constant.
He discloses reducing a parameter of the first probe stimulus by a modulation reduction parameter ([0034]: “the right earpiece can carry digitized audio for right-side stereo audio and commands for the right earpiece. Commands for the right earpiece can include the selected volume or amplitude, the earpiece transducer to use, filtering commands, bandwidth commands for each transducer, and center frequency and/or spectral mask for each transducer.’), while keeping the a parameter of the second probe stimulus constant ([0034]: “The left earpiece can carry digitized audio for left stereo audio and commands for the left earpiece… the commands sent to the right and left earpieces can be different to suit user preferences, such as balance or other effects.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the reduction of a modulation parameter disclosed by Lofti as modified by Nassiri to apply to a first stimulus while keeping a second stimulus constant as disclosed by He in order to improve balance or induce desirable audio effects (He [0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Lotfi discloses the STM detection test unit is configured to operate in a plurality of different modes (Section 2.2. paragraph 1: “It is composed of 30 sets of three pure tone patterns with two different pitches (low and high).”) where each mode is characterized by the spectro-temporal modulation of the first probe stimulus being different from the spectro-temporal modulation of the second probe stimulus (section 2.4 paragraph 2: “Different STM stimulus modes and test initiation from the right or left ear were performed randomly for each listener.”).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Nassiri discloses wherein the spectro-temporal modulation of the first probe stimulus being different from the spectro-temporal modulation of the second probe stimulus comprises: the occurrence of the spectro-temporal modulation of the first probe stimulus being different from the occurrence of the spectro-temporal modulation of the second probe stimulus (Fig 2).
Regarding claims 4, 18, and 19, Lotfi discloses the one or more processors are being configured to compare the modulation-detection threshold of the user in response to the stimuli with a reference modulation-detection threshold (Methods:" the STM detection thresholds at these six STM stimulus conditions were measured in both groups and the results were compared. ").
Regarding claim 5, Lotfi discloses comparing the modulation-detection thresholds by the one or more processors comprises: the analysis unit being configured to determine a difference value between the modulation-detection threshold of the user and the reference modulation-detection threshold (Table 2: " mSAAT, DDT and PPS results in children with APD comparing to normal counterparts. There were significant differences for all auditory processing tasks between the two groups using independent T-test.").
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Lotfi discloses wherein a reference modulation-detection threshold comprises one of: a modulation-detection threshold of the user determined in response to presenting the combined probe stimuli of the chosen mode of the STM detection test unit to both ears of the user, a modulation-detection threshold of a normal-hearing subject determined in response to presenting the combined probe stimuli of the chosen mode of the STM detection test unit to both ears of the normal-hearing subject, or a modulation-detection threshold of the user determined in response to presenting similar sparse spectro-temporally modulated probe stimuli to both ears of the user (Section 2.4 paragraphs 1-3, “3 alternative-3 interval adaptive forced-choice (3A-3IFC) paradigm was used to evaluate the detection thresholds of STM stimuli”).
Regarding claim 7, Lotfi discloses the one or more processors being configured to modulate the carrier signal of each of the first probe stimulus and the second probe stimulus by a modulator signal with an adjustable modulation depth parameter, where the modulation depth parameter determines the degree of modulation (section 2.3 : “generate the STM stimuli according to the following equation: S(x,t) = A sin {2π × (ωt + Ωx)} + ϕ (based on previous studies [4,11,14]). In the equation, the x (frequency) is on the logarithmic frequency axis (in octaves) and t is on the time axis (in milliseconds). A is the depth of the rippled spectral modulation, which is defined as an amplitude relative to the flat spectrum.”).
Regarding claim 9, Lotfi discloses the stimulus generation unit being configured to provide a mask on the modulator signal of each of the first probe stimulus and the second probe stimulus (section 2.3 : “generate the STM stimuli according to the following equation: S(x,t) = A sin {2π × (ωt + Ωx)} + ϕ… A has values between 0 and 1, corresponding to 0 (no modulation) to 100% (complete modulation) modulation depths”).
Regarding claim 12, Lotfi discloses an auxiliary device (section 2.3: “laptop”).
Regarding claim 14, Lotfi discloses a method comprising: presenting via first and second loudspeakers, respectively, a first probe stimulus to one ear of a user and presenting a second probe stimulus to another ear of the user, by a stimulus generation unit comprising at least one output unit (section 2.4 paragraph 2: “The test was done monaurally in both ears through headphones at 65 dB SPL”, wherein the headphones have speakers in each side) second probe stimulus to another ear of the user, said first and second loudspeakers being included in a headset (section 2.4 paragraph 2: “The test was done monaurally in both ears through headphones at 65 dB SPL”, wherein the headphones have speakers in each side”), the first and second probe stimulus being generated by a processor (section 2.3 para 1: “MATLAB software (MathWorks, Natick, MA) running on laptop was used to generate the STM stimuli”), determining in response to presenting the probe stimuli, a modulation-detection threshold of the user (section 2.4 paragraph 2: “, a total of six STM stimulus combinations were generated to evaluate STM thresholds.”), wherein each of the first probe stimulus and the second probe stimulus based on a carrier signal with a spectro-temporal modulation added, by the stimulus generation unit is generated by the stimulus generator applying spectro-temporal modulation (section 2.3 paragraph 1: “we employed STM stimuli (moving ripples) which represent the spectro-temporal modulation patterns of speech signals.”)
Nassiri discloses a method comprising simultaneously presenting via first and second loudspeakers, respectively (page 3 2. Methods para 1: “Sounds were delivered via calibrated earphones (Senheiser HD 600)”) a first probe stimulus to one ear of a user and a second probe stimulus to another ear of the user (Page 4 2.1: “presentation of two consecutive 3-s-long sounds employing a two-alternative-forced-choice paradigm.”, Page 4 2.2: “. Control sounds consisted of RCS signals in which the binaural envelope correlations were set to zero (random envelopes for left-right ears)”), and a modulation depth and/or occurrence of the spectro-temporal modulation of the first probe stimulus is different from the modulation depth and/or occurrence of spectro-temporal modulation of the second probe stimulus (“Once the right audio channel was generated, the left audio channel was constrained by the binaural correlation map (Fig. 1(b)). Correlation maps were generated so that the spectrotemporal correlation pattern between the left and right sounds resembled the spectrotemporal envelope of a moving ripple sound”, wherein the right and left audio channels are correlated but different).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the detection test unit disclosed by Lofti to include that the spectro-temporal modulation of the first probe stimulus is different from the spectro-temporal modulation of the second probe stimulus as disclosed by Nassiri in order to model environmental conditions wherein patients may be exposed to uneven noise conditions (Nassiri introduction para 1; “cocktail party problem”).
While Lofi discloses reducing the modulation depth (section 2.4 paragraph 2: “modulation depth was decreased in steps of 4 dB”), Lofti as modified by Nassiri fails to specifically disclose wherein the generating of the first probe stimulus and the second probe stimulus by the one or more processors comprises reducing the modulation depth parameter of the first probe stimulus by a modulation reduction parameter, while keeping the modulation depth parameter of the second probe stimulus constant.
He discloses reducing a parameter of the first probe stimulus by a modulation reduction parameter ([0034]: “the right earpiece can carry digitized audio for right-side stereo audio and commands for the right earpiece. Commands for the right earpiece can include the selected volume or amplitude, the earpiece transducer to use, filtering commands, bandwidth commands for each transducer, and center frequency and/or spectral mask for each transducer.’), while keeping the a parameter of the second probe stimulus constant ([0034]: “The left earpiece can carry digitized audio for left stereo audio and commands for the left earpiece… the commands sent to the right and left earpieces can be different to suit user preferences, such as balance or other effects.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the reduction of a modulation parameter disclosed by Lofti as modified by Nassiri to apply to a first stimulus while keeping a second stimulus constant as disclosed by He in order to improve balance or induce desirable audio effects (He [0034]).
Regarding claim 15, Lotfi discloses comparing the modulation-detection threshold of the user in response to the stimuli with a reference modulation-detection threshold, and determining a difference value between the modulation-detection threshold of the user and the reference modulation-detection threshold (Methods: " the STM detection thresholds at these six STM stimulus conditions were measured in both groups and the results were compared. ").
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotfi in view of Nassiri in view of He in further view of Litvak et al. (US 20220339445 A1), hereinafter Litvak.
Regarding claim 11, Lotfi as modified by Nassiri and He discloses the STM detection test of claim 1, but fails to disclose one or more electrodes, and where the STM detection test unit is configured to determine the modulation-detection threshold of the user based on detecting a physiological response of the user by the one or more electrodes.
Litvak discloses a spectral-temporal modulation detection system (abstract, [0073]: “spectral ripple stimuli”) where the STM detection test unit is configured to determine the modulation-detection threshold of the user based on detecting a physiological response of the user by the one or more electrodes ([0053]: “the cortical potentials detected at operation 404 may be detected by way of one or more electrodes included in the array of electrode”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the detection unit disclosed by Lotfi to include electrodes as disclosed by Litvak in order to take advantage of electrodes already present in patients with cochlear implants (Litvak [0012: “cortical potentials of the recipient that may be detected using electrodes integrated with a cochlear implant system.”).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotfi in view of Nassiri in view of He in further view of Rehmann et al. (US 20220240033 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lotfi as modified by Nassiri and He discloses the STM detection test of claim 5 but fails to disclose Hearing aid adapted for being located at or in an ear of a hearing aid user, or for being fully or partially implanted in the head of a hearing aid user, where the hearing aid comprising: - an input unit for receiving an input sound signal from an environment of a hearing aid user and providing at least one electric input signal representing said input sound signal, and - a processing unit comprising signal processing parameters to provide processed versions of said at least one electric input signal, - where the signal processing parameters are configured by at least the difference value between the modulation-detection threshold of the user and the reference modulation-detection threshold.
Rehmann discloses an STM detection test including a hearing aid adapted for being located at or in an ear of a hearing aid user, or for being fully or partially implanted in the head of a hearing aid user ([0017]: “implemented by a hearing aid configured to amplify audio content to a user”), where the hearing aid comprises an input unit for receiving an input sound signal from an environment of a hearing aid user and providing at least one electric input signal representing said input sound signal ([0023]: “direct a hearing device in any suitable manner to present (e.g., by way of a receiver of an ITE component) STM audio signal 204 to user 202”), and a processing unit comprising signal processing parameters to provide processed versions of said at least one electric input signal, ([0019]: “processor 104 to perform any of the operations associated with implementing a spectro-temporally modulated audio signal”), where the signal processing parameters are configured by at least the difference value between the modulation-detection threshold of the user and the reference modulation-detection threshold ([0033]: “may compare the modulation detection threshold determined at operation 506 to one or more modulation detection thresholds of a person that has normal hearing characteristics within a frequency range associated with STM audio signal 204.” ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Lotfi with the hearing aid disclosed by Rehmann in order to allow for the tailoring of the user’s hearing device based on the determined modulation detection threshold ([0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Lotfi discloses the method of claim 14 but fails to disclose adjusting signal processing parameters of a hearing aid of the user based on the determined difference value between the modulation-detection threshold of the user and the reference modulation-detection threshold.
Rehmann discloses an STM detection method (abstract) the includes adjusting signal processing parameters of a hearing aid ([0044]: “System 100 may then use the individual frequency dependent spectral sensitivity to adjust one or more fitting parameters of hearing device 512 for any suitable number of different frequency regions”) of the user based on the determined difference value between the modulation-detection threshold of the user and the reference modulation-detection threshold ([0033]: “may compare the modulation detection threshold determined at operation 506 to one or more modulation detection thresholds of a person that has normal hearing characteristics within a frequency range associated with STM audio signal 204.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Lotfi with the hearing aid disclosed by Rehmann in order to allow for the tailoring of the user’s hearing device based on the determined modulation detection threshold ([0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vandali et al. (US 20050197832 A1) – discloses reduction of a modulation depth
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 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, Jaqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights