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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 April 2026 has been entered.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 7, 14, and 17, the cancelation of claim 4, and the addition of new claim 21. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-15, 17-18, and 20-21 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “620” is used to designate the step to “Retake the test?” and the step to “Transmit hearing profile to auditory device or generate preset” in Fig. 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 14, 17, and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should read “determining that [[a]] the user selects to take a hearing test” [line 5].
Claim 1 should read “[[a]] at a level second decibel level” [line 15]. Claims 14 [line 17] and 17 [line 16] are considered to recite similar language that is objected to mutatis mutandis.
Claims 1, 14, and 17 each recite “auditory device” and “audio device” interchangeably. Each instance of “auditory device” and “audio device” should be amended to recite only one or the other of “auditory device” and “audio device” [the Examiner notes that “audio device” is only recited in the independent claims, whereas several dependent claims recite “auditory device”].
The claim following canceled claim 19 and new claim 21 is missing a claim number. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the identified claim as claim 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 14, 17, and those dependent therefrom is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “modifying, by the auditory device, the sound received by the auditory device, according to the sound modification instructions” [lines 35-36, emphasis applied], wherein the emphasized portion is considered to lack antecedent basis, as there is no previous recitation in claim 1 of the auditory device receiving or by configured to receive any sound, such that the recited limitation is considered indefinite, as it is unclear what sound is being referred to by the recited limitation. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the recited sound to be any sound received by the auditory device. Claims 14 and 17 each recite similar claim language [“the auditory device being configured to amplify and filter the sound received by the auditory device according to the sound modification instructions” (lines 41-42 in claim 14); lines 38-39 in claim 17] that is considered to lack antecedent basis and is further considered indefinite similar to the § 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above, wherein claims 14 and 17 are further interpreted similar to claim 1 above mutatis mutandis.
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 20-21 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):
One or more devices to enable sound production according to hearing loss of a user, the one or more devices 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 of an auditory device adapted to provide frequency-specific assistance for hearing loss;
determine that the user selects to take a hearing test comprising test sections to identify the hearing loss;
provide user interface instructions to generate a user interface to receive a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test;
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 a listening band of a next increment based on the user-selected level of granularity a 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 test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume; and
repeatedly advancing the listening band N to further next increments based on the user-selected level of granularity, 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 a listening band of the further next increment until N meets a total listening band;
implement speech-clarity testing; and
generate a hearing profile with sound modification instructions for modifying sounds of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part, on testing result from administering the hearing test; and
provide the hearing profile to the auditory device including the sound modification instructions,
the auditory device being configured to amplify and filter the sound received by the auditory device according to the sound modification instructions of the hearing profile to enable the user to hear the sound, and having at least one speaker configured to output the modified sound to the user.
(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 the 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
“to receive a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test” – may be performed by merely observing an action performed by a user
“administer the test sections of the hearing test including: implement threshold-level testing” – may be considered 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 a method of organizing human activity of verbal communication to the user [Applicant’s Specification ¶¶64-65]
“generate a hearing profile with sound modification instructions for modifying sounds of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels 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]
“amplify and filter the sound received by the auditory device according to the sound modification instructions of the hearing profile to enable the user to hear the sound” – may be performed by merely observing known or previously collected data, for at least a limited amount of data, and applying known mathematical formulas or drawing conclusions therefrom to manipulate the data [Applicant’s Specification ¶31]
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.
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) [i.e., “amplify and filter the sound received by the auditory device according to the sound modification instructions of the hearing profile to enable the user to hear the sound”] to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts [Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
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 [generic computer function] – 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 identified above, or a sufficiently particular form of display or computing architecture/structure).
Dependent claim(s) 11 and 21 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 [acquiring, storing, transmitting, filtering, amplifying signals, etc.] 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 [one or more processors and logic encoded in one or more non-transitory media for execution by the one or more processors, each recited at a high level of generality, and corresponding generic computer functions 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 corresponding 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 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 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 1, 3, 7, 9, 13-14, 17-18, and 20 specify functions performed by the auditory device including playing test sounds/tests at certain decibel levels [claims 1, 3, 14-15, 17-18], playing test sounds/tests at certain listening bands [claims 1, 7, 14, 17], wherein the Examiner notes that claim 14 recites that the auditory device has “at least one speaker configured to output the modified sound to the user”. 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 The Auditory Device: Claim 14 recites the limitation “the auditory device being configured to amplify and filter the sound received by the auditory device according to the sound modification instructions of the hearing profile to enable the user to hear the sound, and having at least one speaker configured to output the modified sound to the user” [claims 1 and 17 are considered to recite a broader similar limitation], wherein the Examiner notes that the at least one speaker is merely configured to output the modified sound to the user, as opposed to any positive recitation of the at least one speaker outputting or playing the modified sound to the user [claims 1 and 17 further fail to positively recite any step of outputting or playing the modified sound]. Furthermore, for the sake of compact prosecution, even if the at least one speaker were to be amended to be positively recited as outputting or playing the modified sound, the Examiner notes that such a limitation would not be considered to be an additional element that integrates 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, as the auditory device/at least one speaker itself is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as analyzed above. Moreover, with respect to the analysis regarding a particular treatment or prophylaxis [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)], the recitation of claims 1, 14, and 17 of “sound modification instructions for modifying sounds of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part on the testing result from administering the hearing test” is not considered to be a sufficiently particular treatment or prophylaxis, as merely affecting a decibel level of sounds at certain frequencies is not particular; and wherein as noted in the analysis above, the alleged treatment/prophylaxis of outputting the modified sound is not positively recited.
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 20-21 is/are 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, previously presented) and John (US-20060153396-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches
A computer-implemented method to produce sound according to hearing loss of a user, the method comprising:
receiving a signal of 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 with sound modifications for modifying sounds of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels, based at least in part, on testing result from administering the hearing test [Li ¶¶0043, 0090-0091];
providing the hearing profile to the auditory device including the sound modification instructions [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)]; and
modifying, by the auditory device, the sound received by the auditory device, according to the sound modification instructions of the hearing profile to enable to user to hear output of the modified sound [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 receiving, via a user interface, a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test; 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 a listening band of a next increment based on the user-selected level of granularity a 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; and repeatedly advancing the listening band N to further next increments based on the user-selected level of granularity, 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 of the further next increment until N meets a total listening band.
Pedersen discloses systems and method for assessing hearing loss, wherein Pedersen discloses determining a level of granularity to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test [wherein ¶¶0078-0085 of Pedersen are considered to define ranges and granularities to limit a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test]; and further 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 a listening band of a next increment based on the determined level of granularity at a 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]; and repeatedly advancing the listening band N to further next increments based on the determined level of granularity, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band of the further next increment 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 determining a level of granularity to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test and further 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 a listening band of a next increment based on the determined level of granularity at a 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 to further next increments based on the user-selected level of granularity, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band of the further next increment 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.
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 further 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)].
However, Li in view of Pedersen fails to explicitly disclose receiving, via a user interface, a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test as the determined level of granularity and specified number of listening bands.
John discloses receiving, via a user interface, a user selection or modification of settings or “parameters” of test protocols for a hearing test, wherein the modifiable settings/parameters include the carrier frequency or frequencies and intensity characteristics of a presented stimuli [a graphical user-friendly interface based upon a series of interactive screens which allow users control the auditory evaluation program 40, for example, to create and load test protocols and their parameters, to view and modify stimuli, and to view, on the visual display 36, the incoming evoked response data in real time in both the time and frequency (or time-frequency) domain, and to view summary results and test results for the patient 60 (John ¶0042); The auditory evaluation program 40 controls test signal generation ("the stimuli) via the signal creator module 42. The auditory evaluation program 40 also allows the user to select from a variety of pre-defined objective audiometric tests "test protocols". The settings or "parameters" of the test protocols may be modified by the user, and in order to define, for example, the stimuli (e.g., modulation rate, carrier frequencies, intensities characteristics, such as range, of a ramping stimulus), maximum duration of the test, criteria to be used during the test (e.g., homogeneity criteria), signal analysis methods to be used by the test (e.g, weighted averaging, method of rejecting/substituting data epochs), and other features of the test. The signal creator module 42 allows the creation of the time series waveforms that are used as the acoustic stimuli (John ¶0043)].
As Li discloses the use of a user interface to receive user input [the system can render a set of data input fields within a user portal (e.g., a graphic user interface) in order to record demographic data associated with the user (Li ¶0013); the system can render a slider bar (or other similar graphic user interface element), via the user portal (Li ¶0044)], and as Li in view of Pedersen discloses known levels of granularity to specify a number of listening bands within a range [Pedersen ¶¶0078-0085; see § 103 modification above], 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 receiving, via a user interface, a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test as the determined level of granularity and specified number of listening bands, in order to allow for user control over the hearing test, and as this modification would amount to mere application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results [use of a user interface to enable user selection of parameters] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Pedersen and John 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 5, Li in view of Pedersen and John 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 and John teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the reference test sound at listening band N 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 and John teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Li in view of Pedersen and John 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 and John 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 and John 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 and John 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 and John 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 and John 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
One or more devices to enable sound production according to hearing loss of a user, the one or more devices 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 of 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 the 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)];
provide user interface instructions to generate a user interface [the system can render a set of data input fields within a user portal (e.g., a graphic user interface) in order to record demographic data associated with the user (Li ¶0013); the system can render a slider bar (or other similar graphic user interface element), via the user portal (Li ¶0044)];
administer the test sections 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)];
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
generate a hearing profile with sound modification instructions for modifying sounds of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part, on testing result from administering the hearing test [Li ¶¶0043, 0090-0091]; and
provide the hearing profile to the auditory device including the sound modification instructions [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)],
the auditory device being configured to amplify and filter the sound received by the auditory device according to the sound modification instructions of the hearing profile to enable the user to hear the sound, and having at least one speaker configured to output the modified sound to the user [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 wherein the user interface receives a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test; and 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 a listening band of a next increment based on the user-selected level of granularity a 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 test sound until receiving the user input of the same perceived volume; and repeatedly advancing the listening band N to further next increments based on the user-selected level of granularity, 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 a listening band of the further next increment until N meets a total listening band.
Pedersen discloses systems and method for assessing hearing loss, wherein Pedersen discloses determining a level of granularity to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test [wherein ¶¶0078-0085 of Pedersen are considered to define ranges and granularities to limit a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test]; and further 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 a listening band of a next increment based on the determined level of granularity at a 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]; and repeatedly advancing the listening band N to further next increments based on the determined level of granularity, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band of the further next increment 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 one or more devices of Li to employ determining a level of granularity to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test and further 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 a listening band of a next increment based on the determined level of granularity at a 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 to further next increments based on the user-selected level of granularity, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band of the further next increment 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.
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 further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more devices 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)].
However, Li in view of Pedersen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user interface receives a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test as the determined level of granularity and specified number of listening bands.
John discloses receiving, via a user interface, a user selection or modification of settings or “parameters” of test protocols for a hearing test, wherein the modifiable settings/parameters include the carrier frequency or frequencies and intensity characteristics of a presented stimuli [a graphical user-friendly interface based upon a series of interactive screens which allow users control the auditory evaluation program 40, for example, to create and load test protocols and their parameters, to view and modify stimuli, and to view, on the visual display 36, the incoming evoked response data in real time in both the time and frequency (or time-frequency) domain, and to view summary results and test results for the patient 60 (John ¶0042); The auditory evaluation program 40 controls test signal generation ("the stimuli) via the signal creator module 42. The auditory evaluation program 40 also allows the user to select from a variety of pre-defined objective audiometric tests "test protocols". The settings or "parameters" of the test protocols may be modified by the user, and in order to define, for example, the stimuli (e.g., modulation rate, carrier frequencies, intensities characteristics, such as range, of a ramping stimulus), maximum duration of the test, criteria to be used during the test (e.g., homogeneity criteria), signal analysis methods to be used by the test (e.g, weighted averaging, method of rejecting/substituting data epochs), and other features of the test. The signal creator module 42 allows the creation of the time series waveforms that are used as the acoustic stimuli (John ¶0043)].
As Li discloses the use of a user interface to receive user input [the system can render a set of data input fields within a user portal (e.g., a graphic user interface) in order to record demographic data associated with the user (Li ¶0013); the system can render a slider bar (or other similar graphic user interface element), via the user portal (Li ¶0044)], and as Li in view of Pedersen discloses known levels of granularity to specify a number of listening bands within a range [Pedersen ¶¶0078-0085; see § 103 modification above], 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 one or more devices of Li in view of Pedersen to employ receiving, via a user interface, a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test as the determined level of granularity and specified number of listening bands, in order to allow for user control over the hearing test, and as this modification would amount to mere application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results [use of a user interface to enable user selection of parameters] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Pedersen and John 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 [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 when executed the software is operable to:
receive a signal of an auditory device adapted to produce sound according to hearing loss of a user [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 the 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 sections 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)];
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
generate a hearing profile with sound modification instructions for modifying sounds of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part, on testing result from administering the hearing test [Li ¶¶0043, 0090-0091];
provide the hearing profile to the auditory device including the sound modification instructions [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)]; and
modify, by the auditory device, the sound received by the auditory device, according to the sound modification instructions of the hearing profile to enable the user to hear output of the modified sound [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 receiving, via a user interface, a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test; 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 a listening band of a next increment based on the user-selected level of granularity a 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; and repeatedly advancing the listening band N to further next increments based on the user-selected level of granularity, 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 of the further next increment until N meets a total listening band.
Pedersen discloses systems and method for assessing hearing loss, wherein Pedersen discloses determining a level of granularity to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test [wherein ¶¶0078-0085 of Pedersen are considered to define ranges and granularities to limit a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test]; and further 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 a listening band of a next increment based on the determined level of granularity at a 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]; and repeatedly advancing the listening band N to further next increments based on the determined level of granularity, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band of the further next increment 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 for execution by one or more processors of Li to employ determining a level of granularity to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test and further 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 a listening band of a next increment based on the determined level of granularity at a 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 to further next increments based on the user-selected level of granularity, comparing the reference test sound to a subsequent test sound at listening band of the further next increment 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.
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 further 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 for execution by one or more processors 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)].
However, Li in view of Pedersen fails to explicitly disclose receiving, via a user interface, a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test as the determined level of granularity and specified number of listening bands.
John discloses receiving, via a user interface, a user selection or modification of settings or “parameters” of test protocols for a hearing test, wherein the modifiable settings/parameters include the carrier frequency or frequencies and intensity characteristics of a presented stimuli [a graphical user-friendly interface based upon a series of interactive screens which allow users control the auditory evaluation program 40, for example, to create and load test protocols and their parameters, to view and modify stimuli, and to view, on the visual display 36, the incoming evoked response data in real time in both the time and frequency (or time-frequency) domain, and to view summary results and test results for the patient 60 (John ¶0042); The auditory evaluation program 40 controls test signal generation ("the stimuli) via the signal creator module 42. The auditory evaluation program 40 also allows the user to select from a variety of pre-defined objective audiometric tests "test protocols". The settings or "parameters" of the test protocols may be modified by the user, and in order to define, for example, the stimuli (e.g., modulation rate, carrier frequencies, intensities characteristics, such as range, of a ramping stimulus), maximum duration of the test, criteria to be used during the test (e.g., homogeneity criteria), signal analysis methods to be used by the test (e.g, weighted averaging, method of rejecting/substituting data epochs), and other features of the test. The signal creator module 42 allows the creation of the time series waveforms that are used as the acoustic stimuli (John ¶0043)].
As Li discloses the use of a user interface to receive user input [the system can render a set of data input fields within a user portal (e.g., a graphic user interface) in order to record demographic data associated with the user (Li ¶0013); the system can render a slider bar (or other similar graphic user interface element), via the user portal (Li ¶0044)], and as Li in view of Pedersen discloses known levels of granularity to specify a number of listening bands within a range [Pedersen ¶¶0078-0085; see § 103 modification above], 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 for execution by one or more processors of Li in view of Pedersen to employ receiving, via a user interface, a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test as the determined level of granularity and specified number of listening bands, in order to allow for user control over the hearing test, and as this modification would amount to mere application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results [use of a user interface to enable user selection of parameters] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Pedersen and John 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 and John 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].
Regarding claim 21, Li in view of Pedersen and John teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the hearing test is performed for a first type of auditory device and generating the hearing profile includes generating first sounds modifications for the first type of auditory device [Li ¶0114],
the method further comprising:
generating second sound modifying instructions for the hearing profile for a second type of auditory device based on the previously performed hearing test and varying at least one decibel level of the first sound modification instructions [The hearing assessment can include a series of soundbites (e.g., sentences including phonemes having specific frequency characteristics) that are selectively output by the computing device, such as through headphones connected to or paired with the computing device (Li ¶0014); the system can generate and store the refined hearing profile executable by an audio device to amplify select frequencies and thus enable the user to better comprehend human speech given feedback collected from the user during a brief hearing assessment (Li ¶0017); Upon receipt of a hearing assistance device, the user can pair the hearing assistance device with the system, and the system can upload the refined hearing profile—generated during the hearing assessment—onto the hearing assistance device, such as via an ad hoc local wireless network or according to a short range wireless communication protocol. 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… The system can then: prompt the user to select which version of the refined hearing profile she prefers; derive a hearing preference and/or hearing ability of the user from the user's feedback; generate a revised hearing profile for the user's hearing assistance device; and upload this revised hearing profile to the hearing assistance device for implementation by the hearing assistance device (Li ¶0018), wherein the Examiner notes that as Li discloses conducting the hearing assessment to establish a refined hearing profile using a first type of auditory device (Li ¶0014, headphones) and updating the refined hearing profile by amplifying soundbites for a second type of auditory device (Li ¶0018, hearing assistance device), the cited portions of Li are considered to read on the claimed limitation].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pedersen and John, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Chung (US-20220369054-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Pedersen and John teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Li in view of Pedersen and John 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 and John 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. 15-16, filed 24 April 2026, with respect to the previously presented objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 7 and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 16-19, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that the amended independent claims provide for improvements on treatment of hearing loss by identifying through a hearing test, sound adjustments needed for a patient’s hearing loss and modifying sound accordingly, wherein technological improvements include adapting various levels of granularity to correspond with hearing loss [Applicant’s Specification ¶0079] and increased efficiency and avoiding excessing testing [¶0078]. However, the Examiner notes that the alleged improvement is recited within limitations that have been identified as being abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer with additional elements that are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. The alleged improvements are not considered to be additional elements, as “generate a hearing profile with sound modification instructions for modifying sounds of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part, on testing result from administering the hearing test” [the limitation considered to embody the argued improvements] has been identified as being an abstract idea. As such, 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)]. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally) [MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I)]. As such, the claims do not recite additional elements that may integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application of the abstract ideas, and thus the claimed invention is not considered to improve other technology or technical field.
The Applicant further asserts that the present claims treat hearing loss with an adapted auditory device, comparable to the drug described in Vanda, and are further 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 modify “the sound received by the auditory device, according to the sound modification instructions of the hearing profile to enable the user to hear output of the modified sound”. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the limitation of claim 14 of “the auditory device being configured to amplify and filter the sound received by the auditory device according to the sound modification instructions of the hearing profile to enable the user to hear the sound, and having at least one speaker configured to output the modified sound to the user” [claims 1 and 17 are considered to recite a broader similar limitation] merely defines at least one speaker that is configured to output the modified sound to the user, as opposed to any positive recitation of the at least one speaker outputting or playing the modified sound to the user [claims 1 and 17 further fail to positively recite any step of outputting or playing the modified sound]. Furthermore, the recitation of claims 1, 14, and 17 of “sound modification instructions for modifying sounds of particular listening bands to corresponding decibel levels based, at least in part on the testing result from administering the hearing test” is not considered to be a sufficiently particular treatment or prophylaxis, as merely affecting a decibel level of sounds at certain frequencies is not particular.
The Applicant also notes that the claimed systems presents device improvements that do not amount to an abstract idea similar to the finding in CardioNet, as comparable to CardioNet, the claimed steps generate a hearing profile based on the specifically claimed hearing test steps performed at a level of granularity controlled by the user via a user interface, wherein such characterizing and treating hearing loss may not be otherwise detectable by conventional hearing aid and/or hearing test technologies [Applicant’s Specification ¶0075]. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that in the 101 analysis of the cited case of Cardio Net, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the claims focused on specific means or method 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 result or effect that itself was abstract idea and merely invoking generic processes and machinery. The claimed steps to generate a hearing profile are considered to be directed towards limitations that are either identified as being directed towards abstract ideas of mental processes or methods of organizing human activity or are directed towards well-understood, routine, and conventional machinery [see Step 2A Prong 1 and Step 2B analyses above]. As such, CardioNet is not considered to be sufficient evidence to indicate any improvements in the instant invention.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 19-22, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14, 17, and those dependent therefrom under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li (US-20190356989-A1, previously presented) in view of Pedersen (US-20070003077-A1, previously presented) and John (US-20060153396-A1).
Regarding claim 1 [and claims 14 and 17 due to reciting similar subject matter], the Applicant asserts that the amended limitations regarding “receiving, via a user interface, a user selection of a level of granularity for the user to specify a number of listening bands within a range for the hearing test”, “instructing the audio device play a reference test sound at listening band N at a first decibel level and subsequently playing a second test sound at a listening band of a next increment based on the user-selected level of granularity a at second decibel level” and “repeatedly advancing the listening band N to further next increments based on the user-selected level of granularity, 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 a listening band of the further next increment until N meets a total listening band” fails to be disclosed or suggested by Li and Pedersen, taken separately or together, as the Applicant notes that the user interface as disclosed by Li [Li ¶0047] does not suggest a user interface for a user to define granularity for implementing a hearing test, Pedersen describes restricted frequency band withs instead of user selection of a level of granularity [Pedersen ¶0111-0114], and Chung fails to teach a user interface for a user to control level of granularity of a hearing test, used to create a hearing profile and instead described adjusting a range of frequencies [Chung ¶¶0070, 0075]. However, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1/14/17 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 (US-20190356989-A1, previously presented) is presently modified in view of Pedersen (US-20070003077-A1, previously presented) and John (US-20060153396-A1), wherein as Li discloses the use of a user interface to receive user input [Li ¶¶0013, 0044], Pedersen discloses known levels of granularity to specify a number of listening bands within a range [Pedersen ¶¶0078-0085], and John discloses receiving, via a user interface, a user selection or modification of settings or “parameters” of test protocols for a hearing test, wherein the modifiable settings/parameters include the carrier frequency or frequencies and intensity characteristics of a presented stimuli [John ¶¶0042-0043], the argued limitations are considered to be rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant submits that the features of new claim 21 are not taught in the cited references, and further notes that Chung teaches away from varying instructions of a hearing test from one type of device for another type of device, thereby adapting a hearing test for various devices [Chung ¶0064]. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that the cited references fail to teach the features of new claim 21, as Li discloses conducting the hearing assessment to establish a refined hearing profile using a first type of auditory device [Li ¶0014, headphones] and updating the refined hearing profile by amplifying soundbites for a second type of auditory device [Li ¶0018, hearing assistance device].
Conclusion
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.
/SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights