DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the RESPONSE AFTER NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION filed 6 November 2025. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-15, 17-18, and 20, as well as the cancellation of claims 2, 6, 16, and 19. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, 17-18, and 20 are pending.
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 Objections
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 should read “wherein the reference test sound at listening band N” [line 2].
Claim 17 should read “Software encoded in one [[ousr]] or more computer-readable media” [lines 1-2]. The Examiner notes that there was no strikethrough, brackets, or underlines to indicate that claim 17 was amended to read “Software encoded in one ousr more computer-readable media” in lines 1-2 [All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of "currently amended," and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived (37 CFR 1.121)].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Representative claim(s) 14 [representing all independent claims] recite(s):
A device comprising:
one or more processors; and
logic encoded in one or more non-transitory media for execution by the one or more processors and when executed are operable to:
receive a signal from an auditory device adapted to provide frequency-specific assistance for hearing loss;
determine that a user selects to take a hearing test comprising test sections to identify the hearing loss;
administer the test sections of the hearing test including:
implement threshold-level testing;
implement frequency gain balance testing comprising:
instructing the audio device to play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at listening band N+1 at second decibel level;
requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume;
in response to receiving the user input that the perceived volume of the second test sound is not the same as the perceived volume of the reference test sound, changing the second decibel level of the second of the second test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume;
repeatedly advancing the listening band N so that N = N + 1, wherein the second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound and is compared to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band; and
implement speech-clarity testing;
generate a hearing profile based at least in part, on testing result from administering the hearing test [see corresponding § 112(b) interpretation above]; and
provide the hearing profile to the auditory device and instructing the auditory device to modify sound of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels, based at least in part, on the testing result.
(Emphasis added: abstract idea, additional element)
Step 2A Prong 1
Representative claim(s) 14 recites the following abstract ideas, which may be performed in the mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper:
“determine that a user selects to take a hearing test comprising test sections to identify the hearing loss” – may be performed by merely observing an action performed by the user
“administer the test sections of the hearing test including: implement threshold-level testing” – may be considered to be a method of organizing human activity of verbal communication to the user [Applicant’s Specification ¶61]
“implement frequency gain balance testing comprising:… requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume” – may be considered to be a method of organizing human activity of verbal communication to the user [Applicant’s Specification ¶¶62-63]
“administer the test sections of the hearing test including:… implement speech-clarity testing” – may be considered to be a method of organizing human activity of verbal communication to the user [Applicant’s Specification ¶¶64-65]
“generate a hearing profile based at least in part, on testing result from administering the hearing test” – may be performed by merely observing known or previously collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom [Applicant’s Specification ¶103]
If a claim, under BRI, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the mere recitation of extra-solutionary activity (and otherwise generic computer elements) then the claim falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 of the Mayo framework as set forth in the 2019 PEG.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea [e.g. limitations relating to the data gathered or particular steps which are entirely embodied in the mental process] and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data [Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial], collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis [Electric Power Group], collection, storage, and recognition of data [Smart Systems Innovations].
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Representative claim 14 only recites additional elements of extra-solutionary activity – in particular, extra-solution activity of generic computer functions – without further sufficient detail that would tie the abstract portions of the claim into a specific practical application (2019 PEG p. 55 – the instant claim, for example does not tie into a particular machine, a sufficiently particular form of data or signal collection – via the claimed extra-solution activity, or a sufficiently particular form of display or computing architecture/structure).
Dependent claim(s) 11 merely add detail to the abstract portions of the claim but do not otherwise encompass any additional elements which tie the claim(s) into a particular application/integration [the dependent claim(s) recite generic ‘units’ or ‘steps’ which encompass mere computer instructions to carry out an otherwise wholly abstract idea].
Dependent claim(s) 13 encounter substantially the same issues as the independent claim(s) from which they depend in that they encompass further generic extra-solutionary activity [generic data gathering] and/or generic computer elements [storage, memory per se].
Accordingly, the claim(s) are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 14, and 17 as individual wholes fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of extra-solutionary activity [i.e., generic computer function] and generic computer elements cannot amount to significantly more than an abstract idea [MPEP § 2106.05(f)] and is further considered to merely implement an abstract idea on a generic computer [MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality].
For the independent claim portions and dependent claims which provide additional elements of extra-solutionary data gathering, MPEP § 2106.05(g) establishes that mere data gathering for determining a result does not amount to significantly more. The extra-solutionary activity of processor steps of acquiring and storing signals as presently recited, cannot provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
For the independent claims as well as the dependent claims merely reciting generic computer elements and functions [generically recited one or more processors, logic encoded in one or more transitory media for execution by one or more processors, software encoded in one or more computer-readable media for execution by one or more processors on a user device, and generic computer functions recited therein], MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, the generic computer elements and functions, as presently limited, cannot provide an inventive concept since they fall under a generic structure and/or function that does not add a meaningful additional feature to the judicial exception(s) of the claim(s).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, and 14-15, 17-20 recite an “auditory device adapted to provide frequency specific assistance for hearing loss”, wherein claim 12 specifies that the auditory device is a “hearing aid, earbuds, headphones, or a speaker device”, and wherein claims 3, 7, 9, 15, and 18-20 specify functions performed by the auditory device including playing test sounds/tests at certain decibel levels [claims 1, 3, 14-15, 17-18] and at certain listening bands [claims 1, 7, 14, 16-17, 19]. Such an auditory device is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed auditory device, and recites the auditory device at a high level of generality [The auditory device 120 may include a processor, a memory, a speaker, and network communication hardware. The auditory device 120 may be a hearing aid, earbuds, headphones, or a speaker device. The speaker device may include a standalone speaker, such as a soundbar or a speaker that is part of a device, such as a speaker in a laptop, tablet, phone, etc. (Applicant’s Specification ¶28); For example, the hearing aids may be Sony C10 self-fitting over-the-counter hearing aids (model CRE-C10) or E10 self-fitting over-the-counter hearing aids (model CRE-E10) (Applicant’s Specification ¶51); if the user selects Sony wireless headphones, the user interface module 302 may generate graphical data for displaying a list of models of wireless Sony headphones. For example, the list may include WH-1000XM4 wireless Sony headphones and WH-CH710N wireless Sony headphones. Other Sony headphones may be selected (Applicant’s Specification ¶54)]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the hearing tests. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Li (US-20190356989-A1, previously presented) [a speaker (e.g., headphones, internal speakers of the signal processing device). Additionally or alternatively, the system interfaces (e.g., via wireless protocols such as BLUETOOTH or BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY) with a hearing assistance device to execute Blocks of the method S100. As used herein, a “hearing assistance device” can include a hearing aid, a wearable hearing-related device (a “hearable” device), earphones/headphones in coordination with an integrated microphone, or any other device capable of augmenting incoming sound (Li ¶0011); the system can increase volumes of discrete frequency ranges (e.g., by 10 decibels) in discrete intervals (e.g., every 50 Hz) across the audible spectrum or across the vocal spectrum in a series of soundbites and upload original and modified versions of these soundbites to the hearing assistance device (Li ¶0118)]
Lee (US-20100137739-A1, previously presented) [the controlling unit 100 may retrieve and sequentially output the sound sources of a test sound set from the test sound storage unit 102 through the test sound output unit 104 and the speaker 106 (Lee ¶0063); The auditory threshold is a value which is estimated as a subject's hearable minimum volume within any frequency band (Lee ¶0066); Herein, sound sources included in one test sound set may have the same frequency band, and sequential volume levels with a predetermined difference (Lee ¶0067)]
Ganter (US-20120230501-A1, previously presented) [The audio output means may comprise one or more of: speakers and headphones (Ganter ¶0028); It consists of a set of discrete frequency values measured in Hertz (Hz) and a related set of threshold sensitivity values measured in decibels (dB) (Ganter ¶0083)]
Examiner’s Note Regarding Particular Treatment or Prophylaxis: Claim(s) 1, 14, and 17 recite subject matter regarding “receiv[ing] a signal from an auditory device adapted to provide frequency-specific assistance for hearing loss; determine that the user select to take a hearing test comprising test sections to identify the hearing loss… provide the hearing profile to the auditory device and instructing the auditory device to modify sound of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part, on the testing result” [emphasis applied], which the Examiner notes is not considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis, as none of the identified claims positively recite or include language that is considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis as an additional element to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or allow the identified claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)], as the Examiner notes that the emphasized portion does not positively recite affecting or treating hearing loss [the auditory device is merely instructed to modify sound, as opposed to recitation of any step to actively affect or treat hearing loss of a user], and the recitation to modify sounds is considered to not be sufficiently specific or explicitly refer to the testing result.
Accordingly, the claim(s) as whole(s) fail amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US-20190356989-A1, previously presented) in view of Pedersen (US-20070003077-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches
A computer-implemented method performed on a user device [The system and methods described herein can be embodied and/or implemented at least in part as a machine configured to receive a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions can be executed by computer-executable components integrated with the application, applet, host, server, network, website, communication service, communication interface, hardware/firmware/software elements of a user computer or mobile device, wristband, smartphone, or any suitable combination thereof (Li ¶0125)], the method comprising:
receiving a signal from an auditory device adapted to provide frequency-specific assistance for hearing loss [The system executes Blocks of the method S100 utilizing a combination of a microphone, a digital signal processor (e.g., within a personal, computer, laptop, smartphone), and a speaker (e.g., headphones, internal speakers of the signal processing device). Additionally or alternatively, the system interfaces (e.g., via wireless protocols such as BLUETOOTH or BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY) with a hearing assistance device to execute Blocks of the method S100. As used herein, a “hearing assistance device” can include a hearing aid, a wearable hearing-related device (a “hearable” device), earphones/headphones in coordination with an integrated microphone, or any other device capable of augmenting incoming sound (Li ¶0011), wherein interfacing with auditory devices is considered to be defined by signal transmission and reception];
determining that a user selects to take a hearing test comprising test sections to identify the hearing loss [The system can then prompt the user to select one of the generic hearing profiles. The computing device can then modify the first soundbite described above according to this selected generic hearing profile to generate the soundbites to be played back to the user during the hearing assessment (Li ¶0039)];
administering the test section of the hearing test including:
implementing threshold-level testing [Additionally, in Block S110, the system can, via the user portal, administer a simplified audiogram test in order to estimate a baseline hearing profile for the user. Therefore, the system can prompt the user to specify, via the user portal, a volume setting corresponding to the user's minimum audible volume of a tone of a particular frequency or the user's minimum understandable volume of an exploratory soundbite including speech concentrated within a particular frequency band (Li ¶0043)];
implementing frequency gain balance testing [The system can, therefore, execute the above-described Blocks of the method S100 at each input volume in order to determine the preferred gain values for each frequency band in the set of frequency bands and for each range of input volumes (Li ¶0090); a preference for amplification of sounds at 500 Hz by ten decibels, sounds at 1 k Hz by five decibels, sounds at 2 k Hz by three decibels, sounds at 4 k Hz by two decibels, and sounds at 6 k Hz by five decibels. (The system can also interpolate preferences for gain level changes at frequencies between each of the frequencies tested during the on-device hearing assessment (e.g., 750 Hz, 1.5 k Hz, 3 k Hz, and 5 k Hz) (Li ¶0114)]; and
generating a hearing profile, based at least in part, on testing result from administering the hearing test [Li ¶¶0043, 0090-0091]; and
providing the hearing profile to the auditory device including instructions for the auditory device to modify sound of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part, on the testing result [Upon conclusion of the on-device hearing assessment (or throughout the on-device hearing assessment), the system can then: calculate a curve using audio filters (peaking equalizer filters and compression filters)—across the audible or vocal spectrum—that best fits these gain level change preferences indicated by the user at the discrete frequencies and store this equalizer curve as a new refined hearing profile for the user; and upload the new refined hearing profile to the user's hearing aid(s) (Li ¶0114)].
However, while Li discloses implementing frequency gain balance testing to determine preferred gain values for each frequency band in the set of frequency bands and for each range of input volumes [Li ¶¶0090, 0114], Li fails to explicitly disclose implementing frequency gain balance testing comprising: instructing the audio device to play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at listening band N+1 at second decibel level; requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume; in response to receiving the user input that the perceived volume of the second test sound is not the same as the perceived volume of the reference test sound, changing the second decibel level of the second of the second test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume; repeatedly advancing the listening band N so that N = N + 1, wherein the second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound and is compared to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band.
Pedersen discloses systems and method for assessing hearing loss, wherein Pedersen discloses implementing frequency gain balance testing comprising instructing the audio device to play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at listening band N+1 at second decibel level [determining a perceptual reference level (PRL) of a first stimuli signal (FSS) in a reference frequency band (RFB) by presenting said first stimuli signal (FSS) to said hearing impaired user (Pedersen ¶0007); When said further frequency band (FFB) is different from said reference frequency band (RFB), a further advantageous embodiment of the invention has been obtained. According to this very preferred embodiment of the version, the further frequency band is another band as the reference frequency band (Pedersen ¶¶0073-0074)]; requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume [Thereby it is possible on the basis of the user's comparisons of loudnesses to determine the difference in sound pressure level (SPL) needed, between sounds in the reference frequency band and the further frequency band, to have the user experience substantially equal loudness of sounds from the two bands (Pedersen ¶0074); determining said perceptual reference level (PRL) of a second stimuli signal (SSS) in a further frequency band (FFB) by presenting said second stimuli signal (SSS) to said hearing impaired user, and requesting said hearing impaired user to compare a loudness of said second stimuli signal (SSS) with said loudness of said first stimuli signal (FSS), is repeated with several substantial mutually exclusive said further frequency bands, a further advantageous embodiment of the invention has been obtained (Pedersen ¶0076)]; in response to receiving the user input that the perceived volume of the second test sound is not the same as the perceived volume of the reference test sound, changing the second decibel level of the second of the second test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume [the user is presented with a second stimuli signal, and his or her task is to compare the loudness of the first and the second stimuli signals. To facilitate the user to make that comparison, he or she is preferably presented with the two signals in a paired comparison procedure and indicates which one is louder, and the sound pressure levels (SPL) of the signals is changed, before the user again is presented for the two signals, to give his or her indication of the louder signal. By repeating this procedure several times, it is possible to determine the relationships of the sound pressure levels and perceptual reference levels of the two signals, and thereby establish a mapping of the hearing impairment of the user. Other ways to facilitate the user to make the comparison of loudness is within the scope of the invention (Pedersen ¶0014); Pedersen ¶0074]; repeatedly advancing the listening band N so that N = N + 1, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band [Pedersen ¶0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li to employ implementing frequency gain balance testing comprising: instructing the audio device to play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at listening band N+1 at second decibel level; requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume; in response to receiving the user input that the perceived volume of the second test sound is not the same as the perceived volume of the reference test sound, changing the second decibel level of the second of the second test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume; repeatedly advancing the listening band N so that N = N + 1, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band, so as to assess hearing impairment with respect to sound pressure level across the full audible frequency range.
However, Li in view of Pedersen fails to disclose wherein the second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound and is compared to the subsequent test sound at listening band N+1 until N meets the total listening band.
As Pedersen does disclose that other methods to compare loudness between mutually exclusive frequency bands to determine equal loudness is within the scope of the invention of Pedersen [Pedersen ¶¶0014, 0074-0076] and as Pedersen discloses that after comparing the first test sound and the second test sound, such that the second test sound is equally as loud as the first test sound [Pedersen ¶0076], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li in view of Pedersen to employ wherein the second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound and is compared to the subsequent test sound at listening band N+1 until N meets the total listening band, as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element [first test sound at a perceived volume] for another [second test sound adjusted to be at an equally loud perceived volume] with similar expected results [provide a reference test sound at the equally loud perceived volume for comparison against a subsequent test sound] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein implementing the threshold-level testing includes:
instructing the auditory device to play a threshold test sound at a listening band [the system can render a slider bar (or other similar graphic user interface element), via the user portal, such that, when the user changes the position of the slider bar in the user portal, the system plays the tone or exploratory soundbite at a particular volume based on the position of the slider… Thus, the system can: play a tone or exploratory soundbite at an initial volume (Li ¶0044)];
determining whether a confirmation was received that the user heard the threshold test sound [Therefore, the user may move the slider until the user can only minimally perceive the tone or understand the speech in the exploratory soundbite… prompt the user to adjust the volume from the initial volume to the minimum audible volume to the user (Li ¶0044)];
responsive to not receiving the confirmation, instructing the auditory device to increase a decibel level of the threshold test sound until the confirmation is received or the threshold test sound is played at a decibel level that meets a decibel threshold [Li ¶0044];
responsive to receiving the confirmation that the user heard the threshold test sound or the threshold test sound was played at the decibel threshold, advancing the listening band to a subsequent increment [the system can prompt the user to specify multiple volume settings each corresponding to a tone or exploratory soundbite within a different frequency band (LI ¶0043)]; and
continuing to repeat previous steps of the threshold-level testing until the listening band meets a total listening band [Li ¶¶0043-0044].
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising:
generating a user interface with an option for the user to select a number of listening bands [Li ¶¶0043-0044].
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein:
the threshold-level testing includes playing background noise with the threshold test sound [the system can playback soundbites during the hearing assessment process including specific types of background noise, such as background music, third party voices (e.g., as heard in a noisy restaurant), machinery, and/or other environmental noise that may affect the user's ability to hear voices (Li ¶0059)], and
the background noise is at least one selected from the group of white noise, voices, music, and combinations thereof [Li ¶0059].
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the reference test sound is played at a decibel level at which conversations are held [Thereby the perceptual reference level (PRL) is determined only for a sub-band of the frequency band considered most important for speech and everyday sound perception, thus taking into account that a hearing impairment most often depends on frequency (Pedersen ¶0072)] and the second test sound is played at a threshold of hearing for a corresponding listening band as determined during the threshold-level testing [wherein the second test sound being played at any perceivable volume is considered to read on being played at a threshold of hearing, as any volume may be considered to be equivalent to a non-specific “threshold of hearing”].
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Li in view of Pedersen as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the frequency gain balance testing includes repeating the previous steps of the frequency gain balance testing while playing background noise with the reference test sound and the second test sound, and the background noise is at least one selected from the group of white noise, voices, music, and combinations thereof.
Li discloses performing hearing tests while playing background noise with the reference test sound and the second test sound, and the background noise is at least one selected from the group of white noise, voices, music, and combinations thereof [Li ¶0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li in view of Pedersen to employ wherein: the frequency gain balance testing includes repeating the previous steps of the frequency gain balance testing while playing background noise with the reference test sound and the second test sound, and the background noise is at least one selected from the group of white noise, voices, music, and combinations thereof, so as to evaluate the user’s hearing within different environmental conditions.
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the test sections include implementing a speech-clarity testing comprising:
instructing the auditory device to play a speaking test [a user may express difficulty hearing or comprehending speech when occupying a crowded restaurant. As described above, the system can access a first soundbite including a spoken phrase and a sound clip of noise within an example crowded restaurant (Li ¶0061); When accessing soundbites for an assessed frequency band, the system can access soundbites including particular phonemes, words, and narrators that transmit information necessary for comprehension within the assessed frequency band (Li ¶0062)];
determining whether a confirmation was received that the user is satisfied with the speaking test [the system is able to play, for the user, the same soundbite with different amplification within the same frequency band such that the user can form a preference between the two levels of amplification (LI ¶0071)];
responsive to not receiving the confirmation that the user is satisfied with the speaking test, modifying the speaking test [as the system received the user's preference regarding prior hearing profiles, the system can dynamically adjust the baseline hearing profile prior to initiating subsequent tests (Li ¶0072)];
continuing to repeat the previous steps of determining whether a confirmation of satisfaction is received and modifying the speaking test until the user is satisfied with the speaking test [Therefore, for each iteration of the hearing assessment process executed by the system, the system can generate and update the version of the hearing profile of the user. Thus, over multiple iterations of the hearing assessment process (i.e. Blocks S120, S130, S140, and S150) the system can transform the baseline hearing profile of the user by converging upon the refined (and more preferred) hearing profile for the user (Li ¶0072)];
determining whether the user wants to repeat the speaking test with a voice of a different gender [the system can access a first soundbite voiced by a male speaker when assessing a lower frequency band and access a second soundbite voiced by a female speaker for a higher frequency band (Li ¶0066)]; and
responsive to completing the previous steps of determining whether a confirmation of satisfaction is received and modifying the speaking test with the voice of a different gender, or the user not wanting to repeat the speaking test with the voice of a different gender, updating the hearing profile [Li ¶0072].
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein implementing the speech-clarity testing further includes playing the speaking test with one or more background noises [Li ¶0059].
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the test sections are implemented on a first ear and then on a second ear [Furthermore, the system can implement each of the foregoing Blocks of the method S100 to individually assess hearing deficiency in each of the user's ears (Li ¶0088)]; and
the hearing profile includes different profiles for the first ear and the second ear [the system can independently upload a left hearing profile to a left hearing device (or a right hearing profile to a right hearing device) such that the output of the left hearing device corresponds to the hearing profile being assessed and the output of the right hearing device is not augmented by a hearing profile (or vice versa) (Li ¶0088)].
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining one or more presets that correspond to user preferences [In Block S150, the system can then prompt the user to input a preference for one of the test soundbites (e.g., from a set including a soundbite amplified according to the first test hearing profile and a soundbite amplified according to the second test hearing profile) (Li ¶0078)]; and
transmitting the one or more presets to the auditory device [Li ¶0078].
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches
A device comprising:
one or more processors [The system and methods described herein can be embodied and/or implemented at least in part as a machine configured to receive a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions can be executed by computer-executable components integrated with the application, applet, host, server, network, website, communication service, communication interface, hardware/firmware/software elements of a user computer or mobile device, wristband, smartphone, or any suitable combination thereof (Li ¶0125)]; and
logic encoded in one or more non-transitory media for execution by the one or more processors [Li ¶0125] and when executed are operable to:
receive a signal from an auditory device adapted to provide frequency-specific assistance for hearing loss [The system executes Blocks of the method S100 utilizing a combination of a microphone, a digital signal processor (e.g., within a personal, computer, laptop, smartphone), and a speaker (e.g., headphones, internal speakers of the signal processing device). Additionally or alternatively, the system interfaces (e.g., via wireless protocols such as BLUETOOTH or BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY) with a hearing assistance device to execute Blocks of the method S100. As used herein, a “hearing assistance device” can include a hearing aid, a wearable hearing-related device (a “hearable” device), earphones/headphones in coordination with an integrated microphone, or any other device capable of augmenting incoming sound (Li ¶0011), wherein interfacing with auditory devices is considered to be defined by signal transmission and reception];
determine that a user selects to take a hearing test comprising test sections to identify the hearing loss [The system can then prompt the user to select one of the generic hearing profiles. The computing device can then modify the first soundbite described above according to this selected generic hearing profile to generate the soundbites to be played back to the user during the hearing assessment (Li ¶0039)];
administer the test section of the hearing test including:
implement threshold-level testing [Additionally, in Block S110, the system can, via the user portal, administer a simplified audiogram test in order to estimate a baseline hearing profile for the user. Therefore, the system can prompt the user to specify, via the user portal, a volume setting corresponding to the user's minimum audible volume of a tone of a particular frequency or the user's minimum understandable volume of an exploratory soundbite including speech concentrated within a particular frequency band (Li ¶0043)];
implement frequency gain balance testing [The system can, therefore, execute the above-described Blocks of the method S100 at each input volume in order to determine the preferred gain values for each frequency band in the set of frequency bands and for each range of input volumes (Li ¶0090); a preference for amplification of sounds at 500 Hz by ten decibels, sounds at 1 k Hz by five decibels, sounds at 2 k Hz by three decibels, sounds at 4 k Hz by two decibels, and sounds at 6 k Hz by five decibels. (The system can also interpolate preferences for gain level changes at frequencies between each of the frequencies tested during the on-device hearing assessment (e.g., 750 Hz, 1.5 k Hz, 3 k Hz, and 5 k Hz) (Li ¶0114)]; and
implement speech-clarity testing [When accessing soundbites for an assessed frequency band, the system can access soundbites including particular phonemes, words, and narrators that transmit information necessary for comprehension within the assessed frequency band (Li ¶0062)]; and
generating a hearing profile, based at least in part, on testing result from administering the hearing test [see corresponding § 112(b) interpretation; Li ¶¶0043, 0090-0091]; and
provide the hearing profile to the auditory device including instructions for the auditory device to modify sound of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part, on the testing result [Upon conclusion of the on-device hearing assessment (or throughout the on-device hearing assessment), the system can then: calculate a curve using audio filters (peaking equalizer filters and compression filters)—across the audible or vocal spectrum—that best fits these gain level change preferences indicated by the user at the discrete frequencies and store this equalizer curve as a new refined hearing profile for the user; and upload the new refined hearing profile to the user's hearing aid(s) (Li ¶0114)].
However, while Li discloses implementing frequency gain balance testing to determine preferred gain values for each frequency band in the set of frequency bands and for each range of input volumes [Li ¶¶0090, 0114], Li fails to explicitly disclose implementing frequency gain balance testing comprising: instructing the audio device to play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at listening band N+1 at second decibel level; requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume; in response to receiving the user input that the perceived volume of the second test sound is not the same as the perceived volume of the reference test sound, changing the second decibel level of the second of the second test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume; repeatedly advancing the listening band N so that N = N + 1, wherein the second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound and is compared to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band.
Pedersen discloses systems and method for assessing hearing loss, wherein Pedersen discloses implementing frequency gain balance testing comprising instructing the audio device to play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at listening band N+1 at second decibel level [determining a perceptual reference level (PRL) of a first stimuli signal (FSS) in a reference frequency band (RFB) by presenting said first stimuli signal (FSS) to said hearing impaired user (Pedersen ¶0007); When said further frequency band (FFB) is different from said reference frequency band (RFB), a further advantageous embodiment of the invention has been obtained. According to this very preferred embodiment of the version, the further frequency band is another band as the reference frequency band (Pedersen ¶¶0073-0074)]; requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume [Thereby it is possible on the basis of the user's comparisons of loudnesses to determine the difference in sound pressure level (SPL) needed, between sounds in the reference frequency band and the further frequency band, to have the user experience substantially equal loudness of sounds from the two bands (Pedersen ¶0074); determining said perceptual reference level (PRL) of a second stimuli signal (SSS) in a further frequency band (FFB) by presenting said second stimuli signal (SSS) to said hearing impaired user, and requesting said hearing impaired user to compare a loudness of said second stimuli signal (SSS) with said loudness of said first stimuli signal (FSS), is repeated with several substantial mutually exclusive said further frequency bands, a further advantageous embodiment of the invention has been obtained (Pedersen ¶0076)]; in response to receiving the user input that the perceived volume of the second test sound is not the same as the perceived volume of the reference test sound, changing the second decibel level of the second of the second test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume [the user is presented with a second stimuli signal, and his or her task is to compare the loudness of the first and the second stimuli signals. To facilitate the user to make that comparison, he or she is preferably presented with the two signals in a paired comparison procedure and indicates which one is louder, and the sound pressure levels (SPL) of the signals is changed, before the user again is presented for the two signals, to give his or her indication of the louder signal. By repeating this procedure several times, it is possible to determine the relationships of the sound pressure levels and perceptual reference levels of the two signals, and thereby establish a mapping of the hearing impairment of the user. Other ways to facilitate the user to make the comparison of loudness is within the scope of the invention (Pedersen ¶0014); Pedersen ¶0074]; repeatedly advancing the listening band N so that N = N + 1, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band [Pedersen ¶0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Li to employ frequency gain balance testing comprising: instructing the audio device to play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at listening band N+1 at second decibel level; requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume; in response to receiving the user input that the perceived volume of the second test sound is not the same as the perceived volume of the reference test sound, changing the second decibel level of the second of the second test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume; repeatedly advancing the listening band N so that N = N + 1, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band, so as to assess hearing impairment with respect to sound pressure level across the full audible frequency range.
However, Li in view of Pedersen fails to disclose wherein the second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound and is compared to the subsequent test sound at listening band N+1 until N meets the total listening band.
As Pedersen does disclose that other methods to compare loudness between mutually exclusive frequency bands to determine equal loudness is within the scope of the invention of Pedersen [Pedersen ¶¶0014, 0074-0076] and as Pedersen discloses that after comparing the first test sound and the second test sound, such that the second test sound is equally as loud as the first test sound [Pedersen ¶0076], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Li in view of Pedersen to employ wherein the second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound and is compared to the subsequent test sound at listening band N+1 until N meets the total listening band, as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element [first test sound at a perceived volume] for another [second test sound adjusted to be at an equally loud perceived volume] with similar expected results [provide a reference test sound at the equally loud perceived volume for comparison against a subsequent test sound] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The device of claim 14, wherein implementing the threshold-level testing includes:
instructing the auditory device to play a threshold test sound at a listening band [the system can render a slider bar (or other similar graphic user interface element), via the user portal, such that, when the user changes the position of the slider bar in the user portal, the system plays the tone or exploratory soundbite at a particular volume based on the position of the slider… Thus, the system can: play a tone or exploratory soundbite at an initial volume (Li ¶0044)];
determining whether a confirmation was received that the user heard the threshold test sound [Therefore, the user may move the slider until the user can only minimally perceive the tone or understand the speech in the exploratory soundbite… prompt the user to adjust the volume from the initial volume to the minimum audible volume to the user (Li ¶0044)];
responsive to not receiving the confirmation, instructing the auditory device to increase a decibel level of the threshold test sound until the confirmation is received or the threshold test sound is played at a decibel level that meets a decibel threshold [Li ¶0044];
responsive to receiving the confirmation that the user heard the threshold test sound or the threshold test sound was played at the decibel threshold, advancing the listening band to a subsequent increment [the system can prompt the user to specify multiple volume settings each corresponding to a tone or exploratory soundbite within a different frequency band (LI ¶0043)]; and
continuing to repeat previous steps of the threshold-level testing until the listening band meets a total listening band [Li ¶¶0043-0044].
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches
Software encoded in one or more computer-readable media for execution by one or more processors on a user device and when executed the software is operable [The system and methods described herein can be embodied and/or implemented at least in part as a machine configured to receive a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions can be executed by computer-executable components integrated with the application, applet, host, server, network, website, communication service, communication interface, hardware/firmware/software elements of a user computer or mobile device, wristband, smartphone, or any suitable combination thereof (Li ¶0125)] to:
receive a signal from an auditory device adapted to provide frequency-specific assistance for hearing loss [The system executes Blocks of the method S100 utilizing a combination of a microphone, a digital signal processor (e.g., within a personal, computer, laptop, smartphone), and a speaker (e.g., headphones, internal speakers of the signal processing device). Additionally or alternatively, the system interfaces (e.g., via wireless protocols such as BLUETOOTH or BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY) with a hearing assistance device to execute Blocks of the method S100. As used herein, a “hearing assistance device” can include a hearing aid, a wearable hearing-related device (a “hearable” device), earphones/headphones in coordination with an integrated microphone, or any other device capable of augmenting incoming sound (Li ¶0011), wherein interfacing with auditory devices is considered to be defined by signal transmission and reception];
determine that a user selects to take a hearing test comprising test sections to identify the hearing loss [The system can then prompt the user to select one of the generic hearing profiles. The computing device can then modify the first soundbite described above according to this selected generic hearing profile to generate the soundbites to be played back to the user during the hearing assessment (Li ¶0039)];
administer the test section of the hearing test including:
implement threshold-level testing [Additionally, in Block S110, the system can, via the user portal, administer a simplified audiogram test in order to estimate a baseline hearing profile for the user. Therefore, the system can prompt the user to specify, via the user portal, a volume setting corresponding to the user's minimum audible volume of a tone of a particular frequency or the user's minimum understandable volume of an exploratory soundbite including speech concentrated within a particular frequency band (Li ¶0043)];
implement frequency gain balance testing [The system can, therefore, execute the above-described Blocks of the method S100 at each input volume in order to determine the preferred gain values for each frequency band in the set of frequency bands and for each range of input volumes (Li ¶0090); a preference for amplification of sounds at 500 Hz by ten decibels, sounds at 1 k Hz by five decibels, sounds at 2 k Hz by three decibels, sounds at 4 k Hz by two decibels, and sounds at 6 k Hz by five decibels. (The system can also interpolate preferences for gain level changes at frequencies between each of the frequencies tested during the on-device hearing assessment (e.g., 750 Hz, 1.5 k Hz, 3 k Hz, and 5 k Hz) (Li ¶0114)]; and
implement speech-clarity testing [When accessing soundbites for an assessed frequency band, the system can access soundbites including particular phonemes, words, and narrators that transmit information necessary for comprehension within the assessed frequency band (Li ¶0062)]; and
generating a hearing profile, based at least in part, on testing result from administering the hearing test [see corresponding § 112(b) interpretation; Li ¶¶0043, 0090-0091]; and
provide the hearing profile to the auditory device including instructions for the auditory device to modify sound of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part, on the testing result [Upon conclusion of the on-device hearing assessment (or throughout the on-device hearing assessment), the system can then: calculate a curve using audio filters (peaking equalizer filters and compression filters)—across the audible or vocal spectrum—that best fits these gain level change preferences indicated by the user at the discrete frequencies and store this equalizer curve as a new refined hearing profile for the user; and upload the new refined hearing profile to the user's hearing aid(s) (Li ¶0114)].
However, while Li discloses implementing frequency gain balance testing to determine preferred gain values for each frequency band in the set of frequency bands and for each range of input volumes [Li ¶¶0090, 0114], Li fails to explicitly disclose implementing frequency gain balance testing comprising: instructing the audio device to play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at listening band N+1 at second decibel level; requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume; in response to receiving the user input that the perceived volume of the second test sound is not the same as the perceived volume of the reference test sound, changing the second decibel level of the second of the second test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume; repeatedly advancing the listening band N so that N = N + 1, wherein the second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound and is compared to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band.
Pedersen discloses systems and method for assessing hearing loss, wherein Pedersen discloses implementing frequency gain balance testing comprising instructing the audio device to play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at listening band N+1 at second decibel level [determining a perceptual reference level (PRL) of a first stimuli signal (FSS) in a reference frequency band (RFB) by presenting said first stimuli signal (FSS) to said hearing impaired user (Pedersen ¶0007); When said further frequency band (FFB) is different from said reference frequency band (RFB), a further advantageous embodiment of the invention has been obtained. According to this very preferred embodiment of the version, the further frequency band is another band as the reference frequency band (Pedersen ¶¶0073-0074)]; requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume [Thereby it is possible on the basis of the user's comparisons of loudnesses to determine the difference in sound pressure level (SPL) needed, between sounds in the reference frequency band and the further frequency band, to have the user experience substantially equal loudness of sounds from the two bands (Pedersen ¶0074); determining said perceptual reference level (PRL) of a second stimuli signal (SSS) in a further frequency band (FFB) by presenting said second stimuli signal (SSS) to said hearing impaired user, and requesting said hearing impaired user to compare a loudness of said second stimuli signal (SSS) with said loudness of said first stimuli signal (FSS), is repeated with several substantial mutually exclusive said further frequency bands, a further advantageous embodiment of the invention has been obtained (Pedersen ¶0076)]; in response to receiving the user input that the perceived volume of the second test sound is not the same as the perceived volume of the reference test sound, changing the second decibel level of the second of the second test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume [the user is presented with a second stimuli signal, and his or her task is to compare the loudness of the first and the second stimuli signals. To facilitate the user to make that comparison, he or she is preferably presented with the two signals in a paired comparison procedure and indicates which one is louder, and the sound pressure levels (SPL) of the signals is changed, before the user again is presented for the two signals, to give his or her indication of the louder signal. By repeating this procedure several times, it is possible to determine the relationships of the sound pressure levels and perceptual reference levels of the two signals, and thereby establish a mapping of the hearing impairment of the user. Other ways to facilitate the user to make the comparison of loudness is within the scope of the invention (Pedersen ¶0014); Pedersen ¶0074]; repeatedly advancing the listening band N so that N = N + 1, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band [Pedersen ¶0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the software encoded in one or more computer-readable media of Li to employ frequency gain balance testing comprising: instructing the audio device to play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at listening band N+1 at second decibel level; requesting the user compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume; in response to receiving the user input that the perceived volume of the second test sound is not the same as the perceived volume of the reference test sound, changing the second decibel level of the second of the second test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume; repeatedly advancing the listening band N so that N = N + 1, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band, so as to assess hearing impairment with respect to sound pressure level across the full audible frequency range.
However, Li in view of Pedersen fails to disclose wherein the second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound and is compared to the subsequent test sound at listening band N+1 until N meets the total listening band.
As Pedersen does disclose that other methods to compare loudness between mutually exclusive frequency bands to determine equal loudness is within the scope of the invention of Pedersen [Pedersen ¶¶0014, 0074-0076] and as Pedersen discloses that after comparing the first test sound and the second test sound, such that the second test sound is equally as loud as the first test sound [Pedersen ¶0076], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the software encoded in one or more computer-readable media of Li in view of Pedersen to employ wherein the second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound and is compared to the subsequent test sound at listening band N+1 until N meets the total listening band, as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element [first test sound at a perceived volume] for another [second test sound adjusted to be at an equally loud perceived volume] with similar expected results [provide a reference test sound at the equally loud perceived volume for comparison against a subsequent test sound] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The software encoded in the one or more computer-readable media for execution by the one or more processors on the user device of claim 17, wherein implementing the threshold-level testing includes:
instructing the auditory device to play a threshold test sound at a listening band [the system can render a slider bar (or other similar graphic user interface element), via the user portal, such that, when the user changes the position of the slider bar in the user portal, the system plays the tone or exploratory soundbite at a particular volume based on the position of the slider… Thus, the system can: play a tone or exploratory soundbite at an initial volume (Li ¶0044)];
determining whether a confirmation was received that the user heard the threshold test sound [Therefore, the user may move the slider until the user can only minimally perceive the tone or understand the speech in the exploratory soundbite… prompt the user to adjust the volume from the initial volume to the minimum audible volume to the user (Li ¶0044)];
responsive to not receiving the confirmation, instructing the auditory device to increase a decibel level of the threshold test sound until the confirmation is received or the threshold test sound is played at a decibel level that meets a decibel threshold [Li ¶0044];
responsive to receiving the confirmation that the user heard the threshold test sound or the threshold test sound was played at the decibel threshold, advancing the listening band to a subsequent increment [the system can prompt the user to specify multiple volume settings each corresponding to a tone or exploratory soundbite within a different frequency band (LI ¶0043)]; and
continuing to repeat previous steps of the threshold-level testing until the listening band meets a total listening band [Li ¶¶0043-0044].
Regarding claim 20, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The software encoded in the one or more computer-readable media for execution by the one or more processors on the user device of claim 17, wherein implementing the speech-clarity testing includes:
instructing the auditory device to play a speaking test [a user may express difficulty hearing or comprehending speech when occupying a crowded restaurant. As described above, the system can access a first soundbite including a spoken phrase and a sound clip of noise within an example crowded restaurant (Li ¶0061); When accessing soundbites for an assessed frequency band, the system can access soundbites including particular phonemes, words, and narrators that transmit information necessary for comprehension within the assessed frequency band (Li ¶0062)];
determining whether a confirmation was received that the user is satisfied with the speaking test [the system is able to play, for the user, the same soundbite with different amplification within the same frequency band such that the user can form a preference between the two levels of amplification (LI ¶0071)];
responsive to not receiving the confirmation that the user is satisfied with the speaking test, modifying the speaking test [as the system received the user's preference regarding prior hearing profiles, the system can dynamically adjust the baseline hearing profile prior to initiating subsequent tests (Li ¶0072)];
continuing to repeat the previous steps of determining whether a confirmation of satisfaction is received and modifying the speaking test until the user is satisfied with the speaking test [Therefore, for each iteration of the hearing assessment process executed by the system, the system can generate and update the version of the hearing profile of the user. Thus, over multiple iterations of the hearing assessment process (i.e. Blocks S120, S130, S140, and S150) the system can transform the baseline hearing profile of the user by converging upon the refined (and more preferred) hearing profile for the user (Li ¶0072)];
determining whether the user wants to repeat the speaking test with a voice of a different gender [the system can access a first soundbite voiced by a male speaker when assessing a lower frequency band and access a second soundbite voiced by a female speaker for a higher frequency band (Li ¶0066)]; and
responsive to completing the previous steps of determining whether a confirmation of satisfaction is received and modifying the speaking test with the voice of a different gender, or the user not wanting to repeat the speaking test with the voice of a different gender, updating the hearing profile [Li ¶0072].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pedersen, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Chung (US-20220369054-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Pedersen teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Li in view of Pedersen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the method further includes: receiving user input specifying a type of the auditory device being a hearing aid, earbuds, headphones, or a speaker device; and determining a beginning decibel level for a threshold test sound for the threshold-level testing based, at least in part, on the type of auditory device.
Li does disclose that the type of hearing device between different types of hearing devices affects the output frequency response [Because the output frequency response of the hearing assistance device may differ from system's frequency response (e.g., the speakers or headphones connected to the computational device), the system can commence an on-device hearing assessment, now with the hearing assistance device. During the on-device hearing assessment, the system can play back select soundbites—with original and/or modified amplitudes of select frequencies—to the hearing assistance device; and the hearing assistance device can output these modified soundbites, further modified according to the baseline hearing profile currently loaded onto the hearing assistance device, for the user (Li ¶0018)].
Chung discloses methods for assessing hearing loss, wherein Chung discloses receiving user input specifying a type of auditory device being used for a threshold hearing test [a hearing profile app, 180, to input or collect basic demographic information of the user, information about the presence and characteristics of a user's tinnitus and/or misophony, information about the type of user device, type and number of external microphones used by the user, and the type of sound output device (such as earbuds, headphone, and their noise cancelling capabilities). Also illustrated is a dynamic range app (or hearing test app), 182, which may be used to prepare a hearing profile of the user by carrying out a hearing threshold test, A, using the user device and transducers (for example, using the Hughson-Westlake procedures) (Chung ¶0053, Fig. 5)], wherein Chung discloses that the type of auditory device may affect hearing test results [The user can choose with which transducer to conduct all the tests in the sound modification system including the hearing profile, hearing tests, auditory dynamic range, loudness ratings, tinnitus frequency and level estimations, and misophony tests. All the test results are transducer-dependent (that is, sound output device-dependent) and they cannot be interchanged with a different model or make of another transducer type (Chung ¶0064)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li in view of Pedersen to employ wherein the method further includes: receiving user input specifying a type of the auditory device being a hearing aid, earbuds, headphones, or a speaker device; and determining a beginning decibel level for a threshold test sound for the threshold-level testing based, at least in part, on the type of auditory device, so as to allow for accurate test implementation and results based on differences between types of auditory devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 14, filed 6 November 2025, with respect to the notice that the IDS filed 30 March 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The cited foreign patent document WO2018069900 cited in the IDS dated 30 March 2023 is acknowledged as being included in the Applicant file wrapper as of 17 October 2025.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 15, with respect to the previously presented drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections for reference character(s) not mentioned in the description have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 15-16, with respect to the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 2-3, 6, 8-9, 15-16, and 18-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 17-18, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 9-10, 17, 20, and those dependent therefrom under § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 18, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 18-20 under § 112(d) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 18-19, with respect to the previously applied provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 11-14 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 11-14 and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 19-22, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that the claims as amended treat a user with an adapted audible device and are drawn to more effective treatment of hearing loss by steps to assess particular aspects of the hearing loss with specific hearing test sections, generating a hearing profile, and instructing an audio device to treat the user accordingly. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the claimed auditory device is “adapted to provide frequency-specific assistance for hearing loss”, wherein the auditory device being “adapted to provide frequency-specific assistance” is considered to be analyzed at Step 2B as being well-understood, routine, and conventional technology; and wherein the auditory device being “for hearing loss” is considered to be an intended use of the claimed device, and wherein the Examiner further notes that the claims fail to positively recite affecting or treating hearing loss [see Step 2B analysis regarding a particular treatment or prophylaxis].
The Applicant further notes that the amended claims recite specific features to configure an auditory device to modify sound of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part, on the testing result, wherein the Applicant notes that providing for frequency-specific assistance in the specific manner as detailed in the claims, the auditory device provides for treatment of hearing loss. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the claimed steps to generate a hearing profile to “enable characterizing and treating hearing loss” do not positively recite affecting or treating hearing loss [the auditory device is merely instructed to modify sound, as opposed to recitation of any step to actively affect or treat hearing loss of a user], and the recitation to modify sounds is considered to not be sufficiently specific or explicitly refer to how the testing result may be implemented in the treatment of hearing loss [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)].
The Applicant also notes that the claimed frequency-gain balance steps are particular and integrate the hearing test into a practical application. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as noted above in the Step 2A Prongs 1-2 and Step 2B analysis, the limitations directed towards the claimed frequency-gain balance steps are considered to be directed towards methods of organizing human activity [“requesting the user compare…”] and use of a well-understood, routine, and conventional auditory device, such that the claimed frequency-gain balance steps are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2 or allow the claim as a whole to amount to significantly more at Step 2B.
The Applicant submits that the claimed system presents device improvements that do not amount to an abstract idea, similar to the finding in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No, 19-1149 (Fed. Cr. 2020), as the instant claimed steps to generate a hearing profile based on the specifically claimed frequency-gain balancing test enables characterizing and treating hearing loss that can be otherwise not detectable by conventional hearing aid and/or hearing test technologies. As such, the Applicant contends that the claims present a significant advancement over existing technology at Step 2B. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that in the § 101 analysis of “CardioNet”, the claims focused on specific means or methods that improved cardiac monitoring technology, by more accurately detecting occurrence of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter as distinct from other arrhythmias, rather than being directed to a result or effect that itself was an abstract idea and merely invoking generic processes and machinery. The Examiner notes that with respect to the instant invention, the “generation of a hearing profile” is considered to be directed towards limitations that are either considered to recite abstract ideas defined by methods of organizing human activity and steps performable in the mind or by hand [see Step 2A Prong 1 analysis] or refer to the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional devices [see Step 2B analysis]. Reference instant claim 14 is considered to recite limitations that are directed towards abstract ideas or limitations that are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, wherein under MPEP 2106.05(a), "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology". Specifically, the "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)]. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.05(a)]. See also Examiner’s Response above regarding the limitations argued by the Applicant as being directed towards a particular treatment or prophylaxis.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 22-24, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li (US-20190356989-A1, previously presented) in view of Pedersen (US-20070003077-A1).
The Applicant asserts that Li fails to describe a frequency-gain baseline test section comprising “requesting the compare the reference test sound and the second test sound and input whether the user perceives the reference test sound and the second test sound to be at a same perceived volume” or wherein the “second test sound at the changed second decibel level becomes the reference test sound is compared to a subsequent test sound at listening band N + 1 until N meets a total listening band” as claimed. The Applicant notes that there is nowhere in Li wherein the user is asked to compare one sound to another sound and adjust the second sound to be perceived by the user to be the same as the first sound, wherein the Applicant notes that ¶0043 of Li, which is directed towards the user using a slide bar to indicate a minimum volume that the user can hear of a sound being played, describes creating a baseline profile by assessing each individual sound for minimum volume the user can hear. The Applicant further notes that cited ¶0047 of Li, which is directed towards prompting the user to specify a minimum audible volume for a set of tones/soundbites corresponding to different frequency bands, similarly merely asks a user to adjust an independent sound to a minimum audible or comprehendible volume instead of asking the user to hear two sounds, compare the sounds, and confirm when one sound is perceived to be the same as the other sound. The Applicant also notes that ¶0056 of Li is directed towards a user preference test is not the same as a test to compare and match between two sounds as in the claimed “equal-loudness” test. The Applicant submits that the present claims differentiate between a threshold volume test and a frequency gain balance test that compares and matches sounds. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Li is modified by Pedersen to employ the implementation of frequency-gain balance testing as claimed [determining a perceptual reference level (PRL) of a first stimuli signal (FSS) in a reference frequency band (RFB) by presenting said first stimuli signal (FSS) to said hearing impaired user (Pedersen ¶0007); When said further frequency band (FFB) is different from said reference frequency band (RFB), a further advantageous embodiment of the invention has been obtained. According to this very preferred embodiment of the version, the further frequency band is another band as the reference frequency band. Thereby it is possible on the basis of the user's comparisons of loudnesses to determine the difference in sound pressure level (SPL) needed, between sounds in the reference frequency band and the further frequency band, to have the user experience substantially equal loudness of sounds from the two bands (Pedersen ¶¶0073-0074); determining said perceptual reference level (PRL) of a second stimuli signal (SSS) in a further frequency band (FFB) by presenting said second stimuli signal (SSS) to said hearing impaired user, and requesting said hearing impaired user to compare a loudness of said second stimuli signal (SSS) with said loudness of said first stimuli signal (FSS), is repeated with several substantial mutually exclusive said further frequency bands, a further advantageous embodiment of the invention has been obtained (Pedersen ¶0076)].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/S.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791