DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Examiner notes: for brevity, economy, and clarity of reading, select of the claims may be addressed jointly herein when instances of limitations with verbatim or near-verbatim similarity are recited in the body of differently numbered claims and/or when multiple different limitations are clearly addressed by a same/similar citation to/within a reference.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barbour (US 20180042541 A1).
For claim(s) 1 and 19, Barbour teaches
A hearing device system for testing a hearing capability of a user, [entire disclosure – see at least abstract] the hearing device system comprising:
A hearing device for compensating for a hearing loss of a user, the hearing device is configured to be worn at an ear of the user, [portions of 104 and 106 in Fig(s). 1 per ¶25]
a processing unit [102] configured to determine a plurality of tones, and determine an order of the plurality of tones; [¶¶29-37]
a tone generator [104] configured to output the plurality of tones, where a first set of the plurality of tones will be audible to the user and a second set of the plurality of tones will be inaudible to the user; [¶¶29-37]
an acoustic output transducer [portion of 104] coupled to the tone generator, the acoustic output transducer configured to output audio signals for the user; [¶¶29-37]
and a user interface or a communication unit [106] configured to receive an indication from the user indicating a perception of an audible tone by the user; [¶38]
wherein one of the tones comprises a new tone, and wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the new tone based on: preceding tone(s) audible or inaudible to the user meeting a predefined number, and an estimated probability of whether the new tone will be audible or inaudible to the user. [posterior probability iterative tone delivery for audiogram in ¶¶29-37 then detailed further in ¶¶38-45]
For claim 2, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 1,
wherein the predefined number is anywhere from 1-5,
and wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the new tone by selecting a probable audible tone based on 1-5 preceding tones being inaudible to the user. [tones in Fig(s). 3-4]
For claim 3, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 1,
wherein the predefined number is anywhere from 2-8,
and wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the new tone by selecting a probable inaudible tone based on 2-8 preceding tones being audible to the user. [tones in Fig(s). 3-4]
For claim(s) 4-5, Barbour teaches
wherein the estimated probability of whether the new tone is audible to the user is between 75% and 95%
wherein the estimated probability of whether the new tone is inaudible to the user is between 5% and 25%. [R function values between 0 and 1 (unity-based percentage) in ¶¶30-32]
For claim 6, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of tones comprises audiometric frequencies in a range from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. [tones in Fig(s). 3-4]
For claim 7, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of tones comprises at least 10 tones having audiometric frequencies relating to speech. [tones in Fig(s). 3-4]
For claim 8, Barbour teaches The hearing device according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of tones is in a range from 1 kHz to 4 kHz. [tones in Fig(s). 3-4]
For claim 9, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of tones is for a complete test, and is dependent of a predetermined confidence interval of the test. [see § 112b rejection — consider at least R function in ¶¶30-32 and Gaussian confidence discussion in ¶¶9-10 and ¶35]
For claim 10, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 1,
wherein the hearing device system is configured to determine a hearing threshold curve representing the hearing capability of the user. [Fig(s). 3-4]
For claim 11, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 10,
wherein the hearing device system is configured to determine the hearing threshold curve by Bayesian pure tone audiometry (BPTA). [¶29 ¶36]
For claim 13, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 10,
wherein the hearing threshold curve comprises a continuous function of frequency versus hearing threshold. [Fig(s). 3-4]
For claim 14, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 1,
wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the plurality of tones by adaptively determining the plurality of tones. [¶¶29-37]
For claim 15, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 14,
wherein the processing unit is configured to adaptively determine the plurality of tones by adaptively selecting the plurality of tones. [¶¶29-37]
For claim 16, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 1,
wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the order of the plurality of tones by adaptively determining the order of the plurality of tones. [¶¶29-37]
For claim 17, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 16,
wherein the processing unit is configured to adaptively determine the order of the plurality of tones by adaptively selecting the order of the plurality of tones. [¶¶29-37]
For claim 18, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of tones comprises at least 20 tones. [plus-shaped and diamond icons in Fig(s). 3-4 which are each tones per ¶¶41-45]
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.
Examiner notes: for brevity, economy, and clarity of reading, select of the claims may be addressed jointly herein when instances of limitations with verbatim or near-verbatim similarity are recited in the body of differently numbered claims and/or when multiple different limitations are clearly addressed by a same/similar citation to/within a reference.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour in view of Guan (NPL publication Bayesian Optimal Pure Tone Audiometry with Prior Knowledge).
For claim 12, Barbour teaches The hearing device system according to claim 11,
wherein the Bayesian pure tone audiometry (BPTA) comprises a probabilistic approach to estimate a hearing threshold of the user based on a weighted combination of Gaussian process components. [¶¶9-11, ¶¶29-35]
Barbour fails to teach the weights of the GP are based on an age and gender of the user.
Guan teaches a system and method of assessing hearing loss including using weights in a Gaussian process which are based on age and gender of a user. [p. 1, pp. 19-20 detailing putting age and gender into the GMM]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify the GP of Barbour to incorporate age and gender weights as taught by Guan in order to improve analytic efficiency of the device. As motivated by Guan p. 1, p. 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 2/6/26 arguments with respect to the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in remarks p. 12 that Barbour fails to teach amended claim(s) 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Barbour teaches throughout the iterative stimulus method of ¶¶29-45 esp. ¶36 that a number of tones are presented in an array and where the processor then selects stimuli levels based on which tones have maximum quality across all tested frequency levels as detailed at the end of ¶29 and then again in ¶45 which details that more than 6 frequencies are tested. Accordingly, Barbour teaches at least some form of the system as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S MELHUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/BENJAMIN S MELHUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights