Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Step 1 analysis for all claims:
Claims 1-11, and claims 13-15 are directed to a method (process), and claims 16-21 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention (process, manufacture, composition of matter or machine). As such, the claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s) in part:
• “computing, using the machine learning model, a predicted hearing performance for the user based on the hearing aid dataset of the user in the training example;”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses predicting a patients hearing performance based on their data metrics. This would be seen as a mental process because a person having ordinary skill of the art would be able to view the patient’s data and make a prediction of their hearing performance.
• “computing a feedback value based on the predicted hearing performance of the user and the cochlear implant dataset of the user in the training example;”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses generating a feedback value after determining the user’s predicted hearing performance and implant dataset. This would be seen as a mental process because a person having ordinary skill of the art would be able to view both articles of data and compute a corresponding feedback value.
• “and adjusting one or more model parameters of the machine learning model based on the feedback value”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses determining how to adjust the parameters of a learning model based on a corresponding value. This would be seen as a mental process because a person having ordinary skill of the art would be able to determine the feedback value and adjust the learning models parameters accordingly.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of A method comprising: aggregating, by a hearing performance prediction system, a plurality of training examples, a training example in the plurality of training examples including a hearing aid dataset and a cochlear implant dataset associated with a user, the hearing aid dataset collected from a clinical facility of the user, a hearing aid device of the user, and an electronic device of the user, the cochlear implant dataset collected from the clinical facility of the user, a cochlear implant of the user, and an electronic device of the user; which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
“Training, by the hearing performance prediction system, a machine learning model using the plurality of training examples” by is/are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim further recites “computing, using the machine learning model, a predicted hearing performance for the user based on the hearing aid dataset of the user in the training example;”. No detail is given as to how the training is performed or the task that it is trained to perform. Consequently, this limitation merely appears to be a generic training process performed on the general purpose computer to apply the abstract idea and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• The additional element “a hearing aid device of the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• The additional element “an electronic device of the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• The additional element ““a cochlear implant of the user” ” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of A method comprising: aggregating, by a hearing performance prediction system, a plurality of training examples, a training example in the plurality of training examples including a hearing aid dataset and a cochlear implant dataset associated with a user, the hearing aid dataset collected from a clinical facility of the user, a hearing aid device of the user, and an electronic device of the user, the cochlear implant dataset collected from the clinical facility of the user, a cochlear implant of the user, and an electronic device of the user; which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
“Training, by the hearing performance prediction system, a machine learning model using the plurality of training examples” by is/are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim further recites “computing, using the machine learning model, a predicted hearing performance for the user based on the hearing aid dataset of the user in the training example;”. No detail is given as to how the training is performed or the task that it is trained to perform. Consequently, this limitation merely appears to be a generic training process performed on the general purpose computer to apply the abstract idea and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• The additional element “a hearing aid device of the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• The additional element “an electronic device of the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• The additional element ““a cochlear implant of the user” ” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the aggregating the plurality of training examples includes: collecting the hearing aid dataset that is generated during a first time period prior to a-the cochlear implant being implanted in the user, the user being associated with a the hearing aid device during the first time period;” which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• As discussed above, the additional elements of ”and collecting the cochlear implant dataset that is generated during a second time period subsequent to the cochlear implant being implanted in the user, the user being associated with the cochlear implant during the second time period.”; which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• The additional element “the cochlear implant” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As
discussed above, the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the aggregating the plurality of training examples includes: collecting the hearing aid dataset that is generated during a first time period prior to a-the cochlear implant being implanted in the user, the user being associated with a the hearing aid device during the first time period;” which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• As discussed above, the additional elements of ”and collecting the cochlear implant dataset that is generated during a second time period subsequent to the cochlear implant being implanted in the user, the user being associated with the cochlear implant during the second time period.”; which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• The additional element “the cochlear implant” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• As discussed above, the additional elements of the hearing aid dataset includes one or more of: one or more fitting parameters of the hearing aid device, a usage pattern of the user in using the hearing aid device, one or more hearing performance results of the user with the hearing aid device during the first time period, or one or more hearing performance results of the user without the hearing aid device during the first time period.” which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
• The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• As discussed above, the additional elements of the hearing aid dataset includes one or more of: one or more fitting parameters of the hearing aid device, a usage pattern of the user in using the hearing aid device, one or more hearing performance results of the user with the hearing aid device during the first time period, or one or more hearing performance results of the user without the hearing aid device during the first time period.” which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of collecting the hearing aid dataset includes one or more of: receiving, from the clinical facility, one or more fitting parameters of the hearing aid device; which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• As discussed above, the additional elements of receiving, from one or more of the clinical facility or an the electronic device of the user, one or more hearing performance results of the user with the hearing aid device during the first time period and one or more hearing performance results of the user without the hearing aid device during the first time period; which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• As discussed above, the additional elements of receiving, from the hearing aid device, usage data of the hearing aid device and determining a usage pattern of the user in using the hearing aid device based on the usage data of the hearing aid device. Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• The additional element “electronic device of the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of collecting the hearing aid dataset includes one or more of: receiving, from the clinical facility, one or more fitting parameters of the hearing aid device; which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• As discussed above, the additional elements of receiving, from one or more of the clinical facility or an the electronic device of the user, one or more hearing performance results of the user with the hearing aid device during the first time period and one or more hearing performance results of the user without the hearing aid device during the first time period; which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• As discussed above, the additional elements of receiving, from the hearing aid device, usage data of the hearing aid device and determining a usage pattern of the user in using the hearing aid device based on the usage data of the hearing aid device. Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• The additional element “electronic device of the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of the cochlear implant dataset include one or more of: one or more fitting parameters of the cochlear implant, a usage pattern of the user in using the cochlear implant, one or more hearing performance results of the user with the cochlear implant during the second time period, or one or more hearing performance results of the user without the cochlear implant during the second time period. Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• The additional element “cochlear implant” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of the cochlear implant dataset include one or more of: one or more fitting parameters of the cochlear implant, a usage pattern of the user in using the cochlear implant, one or more hearing performance results of the user with the cochlear implant during the second time period, or one or more hearing performance results of the user without the cochlear implant during the second time period. Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• The additional element “cochlear implant” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements “the collecting the cochlear implant dataset includes one or more of: receiving, from the clinical facility, one or more fitting parameters of the cochlear implant; receiving, from one or more of the clinical facility or an the electronic device of the user, one or more hearing performance results of the user with the cochlear implant during the second time period and one or more hearing performance results of the user without the cochlear implant during the second time period;” Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• As discussed above, the additional elements “and receiving, from the cochlear implant, usage data of the cochlear implant and determining a usage pattern of the user in using the cochlear implant based on the usage data of the cochlear implant.” Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• The additional element “cochlear implant” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• The additional element “electronic device of the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements “the collecting the cochlear implant dataset includes one or more of: receiving, from the clinical facility, one or more fitting parameters of the cochlear implant; receiving, from one or more of the clinical facility or an the electronic device of the user, one or more hearing performance results of the user with the cochlear implant during the second time period and one or more hearing performance results of the user without the cochlear implant during the second time period;” Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• As discussed above, the additional elements “and receiving, from the cochlear implant, usage data of the cochlear implant and determining a usage pattern of the user in using the cochlear implant based on the usage data of the cochlear implant.” Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• The additional element “cochlear implant” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
• The additional element “electronic device of the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
“the training example further includes one or more of user data of the user or clinic data of the clinical facility associated with the user;” is/are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) ; The claim further recites and the computing the predicted hearing performance for the user is further based on one or more of the user data of the user or the clinic data of the clinical facility.” No detail is given as to how the training is performed or the task that it is trained to perform. Consequently, this limitation merely appears to be a generic training process performed on the general-purpose computer to apply the abstract idea and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
“the training example further includes one or more of user data of the user or clinic data of the clinical facility associated with the user;” is/are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) ; The claim further recites and the computing the predicted hearing performance for the user is further based on one or more of the user data of the user or the clinic data of the clinical facility.” No detail is given as to how the training is performed or the task that it is trained to perform. Consequently, this limitation merely appears to be a generic training process performed on the general-purpose computer to apply the abstract idea and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
• As discussed above, the additional elements “wherein: the user data of the user includes one or more of: an age of the user, a language of the user, a hearing impairment start point of the user, a hearing impairment duration of the user, a cause of hearing impairment of the user, or one or more test results of one or more tests performed on the user; and the clinic data of the clinical facility includes a performance metric of the clinical facility.” Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
• As discussed above, the additional elements “wherein: the user data of the user includes one or more of: an age of the user, a language of the user, a hearing impairment start point of the user, a hearing impairment duration of the user, a cause of hearing impairment of the user, or one or more test results of one or more tests performed on the user; and the clinic data of the clinical facility includes a performance metric of the clinical facility.” Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s) in part:
• “determining, by the hearing performance prediction system, that the one or more model parameters of the machine learning model have been sufficiently adjusted;”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a model’s parameters and identifying if they have been sufficiently adjusted. This would be seen as a mental process because a person having ordinary skill of the art would be able to view the parameters and determine if they have been correctly adjusted or require further adjustment.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “machine learning model” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
• “hearing performance prediction system” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
• The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
• “machine learning model” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
• “hearing performance prediction system” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
• The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s) in part:
• “determining, by the application executed by the computing device, that the input dataset of the user includes a hearing performance result satisfying a hearing performance threshold;”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses comparing a value to a threshold and determining if it is satisfactory. This would be seen as a mental process because a person having ordinary skill of the art would be able to view the performance result, compare it to the threshold and determine whether it is satisfactory or not.
• “computing, in response to the determining that the input dataset of the user includes the hearing performance result satisfying the hearing performance threshold and by the application executed by the computing device using a trained machine learning model that was trained with one or more hearing aid datasets and one or more cochlear implant datasets, a predicted hearing performance of the user in a second user state based on the input dataset, wherein the user will be associated with a cochlear implant in the second user state;”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses computing a prediction utilizing user data. This would be seen as a mental process because a person having ordinary skill of the art would be able to consider all data metrics of a user and generate a hearing prediction in correspondence to the user data.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements “A method comprising: receiving, by an application executed by a computing device, an input dataset of a user in a first user state, wherein the user is associated with a hearing aid device in the first user state;” Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• “computing device” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The additional element “cochlear implant” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements “A method comprising: receiving, by an application executed by a computing device, an input dataset of a user in a first user state, wherein the user is associated with a hearing aid device in the first user state;” Which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
• “computing device” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The additional element “cochlear implant” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites the abstract ideas and extra solution components as claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim 13:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein: the predicted hearing performance of the user includes one or more hearing performance results at one or more timestamps that are predicted for the user in the second user state;” which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein: the predicted hearing performance of the user includes one or more hearing performance results at one or more timestamps that are predicted for the user in the second user state;” which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “the computing device” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
• The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
• “the computing device” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
• The additional element “hearing aid device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s) in part:
• “the application is configured to perform one or more of a hearing performance test for the user or a fitting operation for the hearing aid device of the user.”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing user-based tests. This would be seen as a mental process because a person having ordinary skill of the art would be able to perform the mentioned tests on a user to obtain the required data.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
The additional element “hearing aid device of the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
The additional element “hearing aid device of the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16:
Step 2A prong 1 Analysis:
The remaining parts of claim 16 recite the same as claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “A system comprising: a memory storing instructions;.” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
• “a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to:” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
• “A system comprising: a memory storing instructions;” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
• “ a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to:” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites the same as claim 2, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites the same as claim 3, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites the same as claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the same as claim 5, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 21:
Claim 21 recites the same as claim 6, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Mauger et. Al, (US20180160984A1, referred to as Mauger hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1:
Mauger teaches:
A method comprising: aggregating, by a hearing performance prediction system, a plurality of training examples, a training example in the plurality of training examples including a hearing aid dataset and a cochlear implant dataset associated with a user, the hearing aid dataset collected from a clinical facility of the user, a hearing aid device of the user, and an electronic device of the user, the cochlear implant dataset collected from the clinical facility of the user, a cochlear implant of the user, and an electronic device of the user; (Mauger)[0074]” Thus, in this exemplary embodiment of the predictive model, both the input and the output is collected and provided to the model to train the model. In at least this exemplary embodiment, (i) the person's speech and (ii) a hearing health measure such as that person's audiogram are provided as input for the training.” [0121]” It is noted that in an exemplary embodiment, the input data for any of the methods detailed herein can be obtained via a dedicated speech testing regime, which can include sitting in front of a personal computer or tablet or the like, or can include the subject speaking into a telephone and/or inputting non-speech data/biographic data, into a computer. Such can be executed in so called “point of care” sessions in the clinical setting and/or in so-called “remote care” settings, at home or remote from a central care provider.” Mauger teaches obtaining hearing and speech data from individuals seeking a hearing aid device implementation, to train a model that predicts the users hearing performance. Mauger also teaches collecting the data from a clinic and/ or from a user device as claimed.
training, by the hearing performance prediction system, a machine learning model using the plurality of training examples by: computing, using the machine learning model, a predicted hearing performance for the user based on the hearing aid dataset of the user in the training example; ; (Mauger)[0074]” Thus, in this exemplary embodiment of the predictive model, both the input and the output is collected and provided to the model to train the model. In at least this exemplary embodiment, (i) the person's speech and (ii) a hearing health measure such as that person's audiogram are provided as input for the training.” As taught by the claim, Mauger teaches of training a predictive model with user input that generates a prediction for the users hearing performance.
computing a feedback value based on the predicted hearing performance of the user and the cochlear implant dataset of the user in the training example; (Mauger)[0092]”…the input measures are provided to the model. Then the outcome is estimated. This is compared to the subject's actual outcome, and an error value is calculated.” It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art that the error value calculated by Mauger is the feedback value taught by the claim that determines how accurate the model’s prediction is.
and adjusting one or more model parameters of the machine learning model based on the feedback value. (Mauger)[0092] “Then the reverse process is performed using the actual subject's outcome and their scaled estimation error to propagate backwards through the model and adjust the weights between neurons, and improving its accuracy” Mauger teaches adjusting the models weights to improve the models’ predictions as taught by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 3 are rejected in view of Mauger, and in further view of Carpenter et. Al, (US20140324458A1, referred to as Carpenter hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 2:
Carpenter teaches:
collecting the hearing aid dataset that is generated during a first time period prior to the cochlear implant being implanted in the user, the user being associated with the hearing aid device during the first time period; and collecting the cochlear implant dataset that is generated during a second time period subsequent to the cochlear implant being implanted in the user, the user being associated with the cochlear implant during the second time period. (Carpenter)[0005] “(i) pre-implantation data entered before hearing device implantation in the person, representing pre-implantation self-characterizations of hearing performance and hearing improvement goals and (ii) post-implantation data entered after hearing device implantation in the person, representing post-implantation self-characterizations of hearing performance.” Here, Carpenter teaches collecting data from the user prior to the cochlear hearing aid implementation, then collecting data from the user after implementing the hearing aid, as taught by the claim.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the collecting of pre and post hearing aid device implementation data as taught by Carpenter, with the obtaining of speech and hearing data from a user as taught by Mauger. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals.(Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.
(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data.
Regarding claim 3:
Mauger teaches:
the hearing aid dataset includes one or more of: one or more fitting parameters of the hearing aid device, a usage pattern of the user in using the hearing aid device, (Mauger)[0074]”the input can also include or instead be the person's speech and that person's hearing aid fitting prescription/fit hearing aid settings ” Mauger teaches of the dataset or user input being comprised of the users hearing aid fitment details as well as their usage pattern, as taught by the claims.
However, Mauger fails to teach:
one or more hearing performance results of the user with the hearing aid device during the first time period, or one or more hearing performance results of the user without the hearing aid device during the first time period.
However, Carpenter teaches:
one or more hearing performance results of the user with the hearing aid device during the first time period, or one or more hearing performance results of the user without the hearing aid device during the first time period. (Carpenter)[0005] “(i) pre-implantation data entered before hearing device implantation in the person, representing pre-implantation self-characterizations of hearing performance and hearing improvement goals and (ii) post-implantation data entered after hearing device implantation in the person, representing post-implantation self-characterizations of hearing performance.” Carpenter teaches of including the users hearing performance metrics with and without the hearing device, as taught by the claim.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the obtaining of fitting parameters for a hearing device from the user as taught by Mauger, with the collecting of pre and post hearing aid device implantation data as taught by Carpenter. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals. (Mauger)[Abstract] and computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract].
Claims 4-21 are rejected in view of Mauger, in further view of Carpenter, and in further view of Lineaweaver et. Al, (US20160140873A1, referred to as Lineaweaver hereinafter)
Regarding claim 4
Mauger teaches:
receiving, from the clinical facility, one or more fitting parameters of the hearing aid device; receiving, from one or more of the clinical facility or the electronic device of the user (Mauger)[0136] “ the portable handheld device 2240 is configured to communicate with the cloud as detailed above and/or with the clinic as detailed above.” Mauger teaches of a cloud connection to a clinic to transmit data, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art that a cloud connection is able to receive and transmit data therefore, although not explicitly stated it would be obvious that the clinic is able transmit data back, as taught by the claim.
However, Mauger fails to teach:
one or more hearing performance results of the user with the hearing aid device during the first time period and one or more hearing performance results of the user without the hearing aid device during the first time period
However, Carpenter teaches:
one or more hearing performance results of the user with the hearing aid device during the first time period and one or more hearing performance results of the user without the hearing aid device during the first time period (Carpenter)[0005] “(i) pre-implantation data entered before hearing device implantation in the person, representing pre-implantation self-characterizations of hearing performance and hearing improvement goals and (ii) post-implantation data entered after hearing device implantation in the person, representing post-implantation self-characterizations of hearing performance.” Carpenter teaches of including the users hearing performance metrics with and without the hearing device, as taught by the claim.
A person having ordinary skill of the art would be able to combine the use of a device to transmit and receive patient data from a clinic as taught by Mauger, with the recording of pre and post implantation data as taught by Carpenter. A person having ordinary skill of the art would be motivated to do so to achieve computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract].
However, Lineaweaver teaches:
receiving, from the hearing aid device, usage data of the hearing aid device and determining a usage pattern of the user in using the hearing aid device based on the usage data of the hearing aid device. (Lineaweaver)[0098]System 1206 is thereafter bi-directionally coupled by a data communication link 1208 with speech processor 116. While the embodiment depicted in FIG. 10 depicts a system 1206 and a hearing prosthesis connected via a cable, any communications link that will enable the teachings detailed herein that will communicably couple the implant and system can be utilized in at least some embodiments. Lineaweaver teaches establishing a data communication link between the hearing aid device and the processor to share data bilaterally. It would be obvious that one of the data metrics shared from the hearing aid would be the usage pattern of the user, as taught by the claim.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the obtaining of data from a clinic as taught by Mauger, with the hearing test pre and post implantation of a hearing device as taught by Carpenter, with the determining of a user’s usage and coupling of an implant to a system as taught by Lineaweaver. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals. (Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future.(Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Regarding claim 5:
Lineaweaver teaches:
the cochlear implant dataset includes one or more of: one or more fitting parameters of the cochlear implant, (Lineaweaver)[0035]”An exemplary embodiment entails fitting a device, such as a cochlear implant, to a recipient based at least in part on the ability of the recipient to perceive sound.” Lineaweaver teaches fitting a patient for a hearing implant, it would be obvious that the recipients fitting parameters would be recorded, as taught by the claim.
However, Lineaweaver fails to teach:
a usage pattern of the user in using the cochlear implant,
However, Carpenter teaches:
a usage pattern of the user in using the cochlear implant, (Carpenter)[0047] “ Further, the post-implantation data entered by each person in the set (i.e., each recipient) also amounts to self-characterization data, in that the person similarly enters their own perception of their hearing performance and perhaps additional data regarding how the person's hearing performance, goals and expectations have changed since hearing device implantation.” Carpenter teaches of documenting the user’s hearing performance with and without the hearing aid Implantation as taught by the claim.
one or more hearing performance results of the user with the cochlear implant during the second time period, or one or more hearing performance results of the user without the cochlear implant during the second time period. Carpenter)[0005] “(i) pre-implantation data entered before hearing device implantation in the person, representing pre-implantation self-characterizations of hearing performance and hearing improvement goals and (ii) post-implantation data entered after hearing device implantation in the person, representing post-implantation self-characterizations of hearing performance.” Carpenter teaches of including the users hearing performance metrics with and without the hearing device, as taught by the claim.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the collecting of a patient’s fitting parameters, as taught by Lineaweaver with the collecting of pre and post hearing aid device implantation data as taught by Carpenter, with the obtaining of fitting parameters for a hearing device from the user as taught by Mauger. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals.(Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future. (Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Regarding claim 6
Lineaweaver teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the collecting the cochlear implant dataset includes one or more of: receiving, from the clinical facility, one or more fitting parameters of the cochlear implant; Mentioned above (Lineaweaver)[0037]”… system that can enable the hearing prosthesis at issue to be fitted to the recipient.”[0095]” …utilize standard clinician mediated testing software and a standard quantitative scoring paradigm, where the standard quantitative scoring paradigm is utilized to obtain data indicative of the results of the aural tests provided to the recipient.” Lineaweaver teaches collecting fitting parameters from a patient, as well as performing tests and receiving the outcomes from a clinic, as taught by the claim.
However, Carpenter teaches:
receiving, from one or more of the clinical facility or the electronic device of the user, one or more hearing performance results of the user with the cochlear implant during the second time period and one or more hearing performance results of the user without the cochlear implant during the second time period; (Carpenter)[0005] “(i) pre-implantation data entered before hearing device implantation in the person, representing pre-implantation self-characterizations of hearing performance and hearing improvement goals and (ii) post-implantation data entered after hearing device implantation in the person, representing post-implantation self-characterizations of hearing performance.” Carpenter teaches collecting the user’s thoughts pre and post implantation of the device, it is obvious that these two data metrics are recorded at different time points. It is also obvious that these metrics are collected and received from a clinic or user device, as taught by the claim.
In addition, Lineaweaver also teaches:
and receiving, from the cochlear implant, usage data of the cochlear implant and determining a usage pattern of the user in using the cochlear implant based on the usage data of the cochlear implant. Mentioned above (Lineaweaver)[0098] “ the cochlear implant system can be directly connected to system 1206 to establish a data communication link 1208 between the speech processor 116 and system 1206. System 1206 is thereafter bi-directionally coupled by a data communication link 1208 with speech processor 116.” Lineaweaver teaches establishing a data communication link to receive data from the implant, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art that the user’s usage pattern would be part of the data transmitted from the implant.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the collecting of pre and post hearing aid device implantation data as taught by Carpenter, with the obtaining of fitting parameters for a hearing device from the user as taught by Mauger, with the coupling of a cochlear implant with a data link to collect data as taught by Lineaweaver. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals.(Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future. (Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Regarding claim 7
Mauger teaches:
the training example further includes one or more of user data of the user or clinic data of the clinical facility; and the computing the predicted hearing performance for the user is further based on one or more of the user data of the user or the clinic data of the clinical facility. (0053)[Mauger] “FIG. 5 presents a conceptual schematic of a DNN system depicting inputs therein and the output (prediction of hearing loss). As can be seen, in this exemplary embodiment, information such as age, data relating to the onset of deafness (how long ago, how long since birth, type, suddenness, etc.), the gender of the recipient, and the raw speech of the recipient is inputted into the DNN.” Mauger teaches utilizing user data to train a machine learning model to generate a prediction based on the data, as taught by the claim.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the training of a learning model using user information to predict hearing performance as taught by Mauger, with collecting of pre and post hearing aid device implantation data as taught by Carpenter, with the coupling of a cochlear implant with a data link to collect data as taught by Lineaweaver. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals.(Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future. (Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Regarding claim 8
Mauger teaches:
the user data of the user includes one or more of: an age of the user, a language of the user, a hearing impairment start point of the user, a hearing impairment duration of the user, a cause of hearing impairment of the user, or one or more test results of one or more tests performed on the user; (Mauger)[0050]” By way of example only, such biographical data can be non-speech or non-hearing related data, such as age, gender, native language, intelligence,… such biographical data can be the time since the person has lost his or her hearing or at least has had hearing problems, the time that the person had hearing prior to losing hearing (or starting to lose hearing), the number of years that the person was lingual prior to losing hearing, whether the person is lingual, etc.” [0074]” hearing health measure such as that person's audiogram are provided as input for the training.” [0121]” which additional data can be...patient specific information such as age, etiology” Mauger explicitly teaches using user information such as age, language, hearing impairment start, duration and cause (etiology), as well as the results of the user’s audiogram.
However, Carpenter teaches:
and the clinic data of the clinical facility includes a performance metric of the clinical facility. (Carpenter)[0051]” Optimally, providing the output to the candidate may help set or adjust the candidate's expectations regarding the results of hearing device implantation, based on the post-implantation results experienced by recipients who had pre-implantation self-characterizations similar to those of the candidate.” Carpenter teaches sending the users data to a clinic for analysis and recommendations moving forward, and mentions returning the data back to the user so that they can get a better understanding of their results based on other users who had similar situations or experiences. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art that the clinic shares a performance or accuracy metric to the user, as taught by the claim.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the collecting of user data as taught by Mauger, with collecting the clinics performance data as taught by Carpenter, with the coupling of a cochlear implant with a data link to collect data as taught by Lineaweaver. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals.(Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future. (Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Regarding claim 9
Mauger teaches:
determining, by the hearing performance prediction system, that the one or more model parameters of the machine learning model have been sufficiently adjusted; (Mauger)[0090] “After training and testing, the model would be well understood to operate in predicting people's outcomes” [0092]” the input measures are provided to the model. Then the outcome is estimated. This is compared to the subject's actual outcome, and an error value is calculated. Then the reverse process is performed using the actual subject's outcome and their scaled estimation error to propagate backwards through the model and adjust the weights between neurons, and improving its accuracy” Mauger teaches retraining the model until the prediction outcome is accurate as taught by the claim.
the machine learning model in an application associated with a hearing aid device. (Mauger)[0122] “The smart phone or other remote component can analyze the data stream thereto to extract data and/or can act as a medium to pass the data stream thereto to the cloud for cloud computing. That is, the smart phone or other remote device passes the collected information from the remote device to the cloud.” As taught by the claim, Mauger teaches utilizing an application that is synced to the hearing device that shares information back and forth between the device and application.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the adjusting of a model parameter and associating a learning model with a hearing device as taught by Mauger, with collecting of pre and post hearing aid device implantation data as taught by Carpenter, with the coupling of a cochlear implant with a data link to collect data as taught by Lineaweaver. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals.(Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future. (Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Regarding claim 10:
Carpenter teaches:
receiving, by an application executed by a computing device, an input dataset of a user in a first user state, wherein the user is associated with a hearing aid device in the first user state; (Carpenter)[0005] “In one respect, for instance, the computing system may receive and store training data entered by a set of people, where the training data includes, for each person, (i) pre-implantation data entered before hearing device implantation in the person,” Carpenter teaches receiving user input before the hearing aid is implemented, as taught by the claim.
determining, by the application executed by the computing device, that the input dataset of the user includes a hearing performance result satisfying a hearing performance threshold; (Carpenter)[0055] “ the progression of pictorial representations in tabs labeled “Level 1” through “Level 5”, where “Level 1” represents a scenario with a lowest level of hearing-complexity and “Level 5” represents a scenario with a highest level of hearing-complexity.” Carpenter teaches of the user selecting a difficulty level for hearing scenarios, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art that the selection of the level would determine the performance result to satisfy a hearing performance threshold.
computing, in response to the determining that the input dataset of the user includes the hearing performance result satisfying the hearing performance threshold and by the application executed by the computing device using a trained machine learning model that was trained with one or more hearing aid datasets and one or more cochlear implant datasets, a predicted hearing performance of the user in a second user state based on the input dataset, wherein the user will be associated with a cochlear implant in the second user state; (Carpenter)[Claim 1] “receiving, into a computing system, training data entered by a set of people, the training data including, respectively for each person of the set, (i) pre-implantation data entered by the person before hearing device implantation in the person, … (ii) post-implantation data entered by the person after hearing device implantation in the person, ” Carpenter teaches using user data pre and post implantation to compute a hearing performance prediction of the patient, as taught by the claim.
generating, by the application executed by the computing device, a visual representation of the predicted hearing performance of the user in the second user state; (Carpenter)[0080] “Finally, FIG. 11 provides an example of a graphical user interface that the computer system may output for presentation of the predicted outcome. In this example, the graphical user interface depicts in bar graph form, a predicted outcome alongside the user's entered level selections made in accordance for example with the interface shown in FIG. 8” Carpenter teaches of generating a graphical representation of the predicted outcome, as taught by the claim.
and presenting, by the application executed by the computing device, the visual representation of the predicted hearing performance on a display device. (Carpenter)[0050] “by generating and returning a web page or updated web page content that includes text descriptions and/or other representations of one or more post-implantation characterizations that were entered by the identified recipients, for display by a client device.” As taught by the claim, Carpenter teaches using a display device to present the generated predicted hearing performance graph.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the receiving of user info pre and post implantation, generating a visual representation of the hearing performance prediction, and presenting the predicted hearing outcome on a display device as taught by Carpenter with the training of a learning model using user information to predict hearing performance as taught by Mauger, with the coupling of a cochlear implant with a data link to collect data as taught by Lineaweaver. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals.(Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future. (Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Claim 11:
Mauger teaches:
wherein the input dataset of the user in the first state includes one or more of: a hearing aid dataset of the user including one or more of: one or more fitting parameters of the hearing aid device or; a usage pattern of the user in using the hearing aid device (Mauger)[0074] “ the person's speech and that person's hearing aid fitting prescription/fit hearing aid settings (after 6 months of hearing aid acclimatization and fine tuning) for fitting output models” )[0050]”such biographical data can be the time since the person has lost his or her hearing or at least has had hearing problems, the time that the person had hearing prior to losing hearing (or starting to lose hearing), the number of years that the person was lingual prior to losing hearing, whether the person is lingual, etc.” Mauger teaches using the users hearing aid fitting parameters as input as well as how long they have needed a hearing aid.
or user data of the user including one or more of: an age of the user, a language of the user, a hearing impairment start point of the user, a hearing impairment duration of the user, a cause of hearing impairment of the user, or one or more test results of one or more tests performed on the user. (Mauger)[0050]” By way of example only, such biographical data can be non-speech or non-hearing related data, such as age, gender, native language, intelligence,… such biographical data can be the time since the person has lost his or her hearing or at least has had hearing problems, the time that the person had hearing prior to losing hearing (or starting to lose hearing), the number of years that the person was lingual prior to losing hearing, whether the person is lingual, etc.” [0074]” hearing health measure such as that person's audiogram are provided as input for the training.” [0121]” which additional data can be...patient specific information such as age, etiology” Mauger explicitly teaches using user information such as age, language, hearing impairment start, duration and cause (etiology), as well as the results of the user’s audiogram.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the collecting of user data as taught by Mauger, with collecting of pre and post hearing aid device implantation data as taught by Carpenter, with the coupling of a cochlear implant with a data link to collect data as taught by Lineaweaver. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals.(Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future. (Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Regarding claim 13:
Carpenter teaches:
the predicted hearing performance of the user includes one or more hearing performance results at one or more timestamps that are predicted for the user in the second user state; (Carpenter)[0080]” each predicted outcome bar in this graphical user interface is based on post-implantation data taken from identified hearing device implant recipients. For instance, each bar may represent an average or other statistical measure of the post-implantation level data entered by the one or more identified people whose entered pre-implantation data most closely matches that entered by the user.”
and the visual representation of the predicted hearing performance visualizes the one or more hearing performance results at the one or more timestamps. (Carpenter)[0080]” each predicted outcome bar in this graphical user interface is based on post-implantation data taken from identified hearing device implant recipients. For instance, each bar may represent an average or other statistical measure of the post-implantation level data entered by the one or more identified people whose entered pre-implantation data most closely matches that entered by the user.” Carpenter teaches of generating a visual representation of the predictions made using the user’s data. It would be obvious to person having ordinary skill of the art that, although not explicitly described, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art that the different bar graphs depict metrics at different time points, as described by the claim.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the predicting and visualization of hearing performance at different time stamps as taught by Carpenter, with the collecting of user data as taught by Mauger, with the coupling of a cochlear implant with a data link to collect data as taught by Lineaweaver. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals.(Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future. (Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Regarding claim 14:
Mauger teaches:
the application is executed by the computing device associated with the hearing aid device of the user. (Mauger)[0124]” a schematic diagram illustrating one exemplary arrangement in which a system 1206 can be used to execute one or more or all of the method actions detailed herein in conjunction with the use of a device 100, which can be a hearing prosthesis, or can be a personal computer or a phone, etc.” Mauger teaches coupling a computing device with the hearing aid to execute the application.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the executing of the application using a computing device as taught by Mauger, with collecting of pre and post hearing aid device implantation data as taught by Carpenter, with the coupling of a cochlear implant with a data link to collect data as taught by Lineaweaver. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals.(Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future. (Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Regarding claim 15:
Lineaweaver teaches:
the application is configured to perform one or more of a hearing performance test for the user or a fitting operation for the hearing aid device of the user. (Lineaweaver)[0037]” That said, in alternative embodiments, alternate methods and/or systems of fitting the hearing prosthesis to the recipient can be utilized. ”[0113]“that is configured to provide the recipient of the hearing prosthesis with a plurality of aural tests, the aural tests evoking respected hearing percepts with the hearing prosthesis.” Lineaweaver teaches performing aural and fitting tests on a user, as taught by the claim.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the use of audiograms and fitting tests on a user as taught by Lineaweaver, with collecting of pre and post hearing aid device implantation data as taught by Carpenter, with the collecting of user data as taught by Mauger. A person having ordinary skill of the art would motivated to do so to predicts hearing loss based on input indicative of speech of a hearing-impaired person who is not one of the individuals. (Mauger)[Abstract], computing system outputs as a predicted outcome of hearing device implantation a representation of post-implantation self-characterizations entered by the identified recipients.(Carpenter)[Abstract] and forecasting second data based on the first data, wherein the second data are indicative of the recipient's ability to hear with the hearing prosthesis at one or more temporal locations in the future. (Lineaweaver)[Abstract]
Regarding claim 16
Mauger teaches:
A system comprising: a memory storing instructions; a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to (Mauger)[0127]” System 1206 can comprise a system controller 1212 as well as a user interface 1214. Controller 1212 can be any type of device capable of executing instructions such as, for example, a general or special purpose computer, a handheld computer (e.g., personal digital assistant (PDA)), digital electronic circuitry, integrated circuitry, specially designed ASICs (application specific integrated circuits), firmware, software, and/or combinations thereof. As will be detailed below, in an exemplary embodiment, controller 1212 is a processor. Controller 1212 can further comprise an interface for establishing the data communications link 1208 with the hearing prosthesis 100” Mauger teaches of a device capable of executing instructions. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art that the computer devices mentioned are made up of the same components taught by the claim.
The remaining limitations of claim 16 recite the same as claim 1, therefore they are rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 recites the same as claim 2 therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 recites the same as claim 3 therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 recites the same as claim 4 therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the same as claim 5 therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 recites the same as claim 6 therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYAAN AYAZ SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-4643. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 7:30-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/AYAAN AYAZ SHEIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights