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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Remarks
Claims 1-14 are now pending in this Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 05/24/2023 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over UNGSTRUP et al. (US 2019/0281394 Al, hereinafter Ungstrup), in view of SONG et al. (US 2011/0188687 Al, hereinafter Song).
Regarding Claim 1, Ungstrup discloses, a method (see e.g., “method of signal processing in a mobile communication device”, [0002]) comprising:
using a user smart phone having at least one processor (see e.g., Fig. 2, mobile communication device 50 and/or “The external device 50 may be a smartphone”, Fig. 5, [0054] and/or “…the processor of the external device 50”, [0051]) for:
receiving from a speaker smart phone live digital micro electrical-mechanical system (MEMs) sound data from the speaker smart phone (see e.g., “The digital signal processing unit 36 receives as input 68 a digital audio signal…”, Figs. 3-4, [0040] and/or “emulation software product 74 employs an audio codec 60 when receiving an audio signal from a sound source, for example a cellular phone call handled by the external device 50 (smartphone) itself”, Fig. 4, [0052] and/or “software product 74, also referred to as an App, is software that when run on the external device 50 duplicates (or emulates) the functions of the hearing aid algorithms”, Fig. 4, [0050] Examiner’s note: receiving as input a digital audio signal corresponding to “receiving live digital MEMs sound data”);
processing the live digital MEMS sound data from the speaker smart phone in accordance with a hearing loss compensation algorithm (see e.g., “hearing aid emulation software product 74 employs an audio codec 60 when receiving an audio signal from a sound source, for example a cellular phone call handled by the external device 50 (smartphone) itself, an IP telephony call or a chat session handled by the external device 50…”, Fig. 4, [0052] and/or “The hearing aid emulation software product 74 employs a transposition algorithm 62, and the audibility extender algorithm 63 being in a way similar to the general hearing loss compensation algorithm 61 for amplifying, compressing and conditioning the digital audio signal for the hearing aid 10”, Fig. 4, [0053]);
generating audible sound waves for the live digital MEMs sound data processed utilizing the hearing loss compensation algorithm (see e.g., “emulation software product 74 employs a transposition algorithm 62, and the audibility extender algorithm 63 being in a way similar to the general hearing loss compensation algorithm 61 for amplifying, compressing and conditioning the digital audio signal for the hearing aid 10”, Fig. 4, [0053]); and
outputting the generated audible sound waves adapted for listening by a user of the user smart phone (see e.g., “The digital signal processing unit 36 receives as input 68 a digital audio signal and delivers as output 69 an amplified, compressed and conditioned digital audio output signal”, Figs. 3-4, [0040]).
Although Ungstrup teaches a smartphone receiving a digital audio input from itself and employing a transposition algorithm, and the audibility extender algorithm being in a way similar to the general hearing loss compensation algorithm for amplifying, compressing and conditioning the digital audio signal for the hearing aid and delivering as output an amplified, compressed and conditioned digital audio output signal, however, Ungstrup fails to explicitly disclose, use of Micro Electrical-Mechanical System (MEMS).
In the same field of endeavor, Song discloses use of MEMS (see e.g., “FIG. 5, the hearing aid processor chip 200 may include a preamplifier 210… signals output by the MEMS microphone 100…The amplifier 250 amplifies analog signals, which were converted from digital signals by the DAC 240...the hearing aid processor chip 200 may further include a communication module…”, Fig. 5, [0053] and/or “the MEMS microphone 100 and MEMS receiver 300,”, Figs 3 and 5, [0051]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ungstrup with Song, in order to reproduced sound signal that can be substantially equated to an original sound signal in hearing aid devices (please see Song, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ungstrup and Song combined discloses, wherein the live digital MEMs sound data is live streamed from the speaker smart phone to the user smart phone (see Ungstrup e.g., “The hearing aid emulation software product 74 employs an audio codec 60 when receiving an audio signal from a sound source, for example a cellular phone call handled by the external device 50 (smartphone) itself…”, [0052]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ungstrup and Song combined discloses, wherein the live digital MEMs sound data is live streamed via wi-fi from the speaker smart phone to the user smart phone (see Ungstrup e.g., “for example a cellular phone call handled by the external device 50 (smartphone) itself, an IP telephony call or a chat session handled by the external device 50 (tablet/laptop/smartphone) itself…transmitted to the external device 50 via a router 82 supporting WLAN…”, [0052] and/or “The external device 50 may preferably be a smartphone...The mentioned device offers high-speed data access provided by Wi-Fi and Mobile Broadband”, [0047]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ungstrup and Song combined discloses, wherein the speaker smart phone is a smart phone positioned near a live speaker (see Ungstrup e.g., “audio codec 60 when receiving an audio signal from a sound source, for example a cellular phone call handled by the external device 50 (smartphone) itself, an IP telephony call or a chat session handled by the external device 50 (tablet/laptop/smartphone) itself,”, [0052]; Examiner’s note: receiving cellular phone call and IP telephony call corresponds to live speaker near the speaker smartphone).
Regarding Claim 8, Ungstrup discloses, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform operations (see e.g., “a computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions, which when executed in a mobile communication device perform actions when an audio stream is received as input in said mobile communication device…”, [0012]) comprising:
receiving from a speaker smart phone live digital micro electrical-mechanical system (MEMs) sound data from the speaker smart phone (see e.g., “The digital signal processing unit 36 receives as input 68 a digital audio signal…”, Figs. 3-4, [0040] and/or “emulation software product 74 employs an audio codec 60 when receiving an audio signal from a sound source, for example a cellular phone call handled by the external device 50 (smartphone) itself”, Fig. 4, [0052] and/or “software product 74, also referred to as an App, is software that when run on the external device 50 duplicates (or emulates) the functions of the hearing aid algorithms”, Fig. 4, [0050] Examiner’s note: receiving as input a digital audio signal corresponding to “receiving live digital MEMs sound data”);
processing the live digital MEMs sound data from the speaker smart phone in accordance with a hearing loss compensation algorithm (see e.g., “hearing aid emulation software product 74 employs an audio codec 60 when receiving an audio signal from a sound source, for example a cellular phone call handled by the external device 50 (smartphone) itself, an IP telephony call or a chat session handled by the external device 50…”, Fig. 4, [0052] and/or “The hearing aid emulation software product 74 employs a transposition algorithm 62, and the audibility extender algorithm 63 being in a way similar to the general hearing loss compensation algorithm 61 for amplifying, compressing and conditioning the digital audio signal for the hearing aid 10”, Fig. 4, [0053]);
generating audible sound waves for the live digital MEMs sound data processed utilizing the hearing loss compensation algorithm (see e.g., “emulation software product 74 employs a transposition algorithm 62, and the audibility extender algorithm 63 being in a way similar to the general hearing loss compensation algorithm 61 for amplifying, compressing and conditioning the digital audio signal for the hearing aid 10”, Fig. 4, [0053]); and
outputting, at a user smart phone, the generated audible sound waves adapted for listening by the user of the user smart phone (see e.g., “The digital signal processing unit 36 receives as input 68 a digital audio signal and delivers as output 69 an amplified, compressed and conditioned digital audio output signal”, Figs. 3-4, [0040]).
Although Ungstrup teaches a smartphone receiving a digital audio input from itself and employing a transposition algorithm, and the audibility extender algorithm being in a way similar to the general hearing loss compensation algorithm for amplifying, compressing and conditioning the digital audio signal for the hearing aid and delivering as output an amplified, compressed and conditioned digital audio output signal, however, Ungstrup fails to explicitly disclose, use of Micro Electrical-Mechanical System (MEMS).
In the same field of endeavor, Song discloses use of MEMS (see e.g., “FIG. 5, the hearing aid processor chip 200 may include a preamplifier 210… signals output by the MEMS microphone 100…The amplifier 250 amplifies analog signals, which were converted from digital signals by the DAC 240...the hearing aid processor chip 200 may further include a communication module…”, Fig. 5, [0053] and/or “the MEMS microphone 100 and MEMS receiver 300,”, Figs 3 and 5, [0051]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ungstrup with Song, in order to reproduced sound signal that can be substantially equated to an original sound signal in hearing aid devices (please see Song, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ungstrup and Song combined discloses, wherein the live digital MEMs sound data is live streamed from the speaker smart phone to the user smart phone (see Ungstrup e.g., “The hearing aid emulation software product 74 employs an audio codec 60 when receiving an audio signal from a sound source, for example a cellular phone call handled by the external device 50 (smartphone) itself…”, [0052]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ungstrup and Song combined discloses, wherein the live digital MEMs sound data is live streamed via wi-fi from the speaker smart phone to the user smart phone (see Ungstrup e.g., “for example a cellular phone call handled by the external device 50 (smartphone) itself, an IP telephony call or a chat session handled by the external device 50 (tablet/laptop/smartphone) itself…transmitted to the external device 50 via a router 82 supporting WLAN…”, [0052] and/or “The external device 50 may preferably be a smartphone...The mentioned device offers high-speed data access provided by Wi-Fi and Mobile Broadband”, [0047]).
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ungstrup, in view of Song, and further in view of Engelke et al. (US 2020/0007671 Al, hereinafter Engelke).
Regarding Claim 4, Ungstrup and Song combined fails to explicitly disclose, wherein a speech to text algorithm generates text for the live digital MEMS sound data.
In the same field of endeavor, Engelke discloses, wherein a speech to text algorithm generates text for the live digital MEMS sound data (see e.g., “communication between a hearing user 22 and an assisted user 24 (e.g., a hearing impaired user)”, Fig. 1, [0049] and/or ““screen shot that may be presented via tablet screen 50…Transcribed text is presented at 38a and a text scrolling tool is presented at 30a.”, Fig. 6, [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ungstrup and Song with Engelke, in order to help deaf or hard of hearing users receive captioned text from a relay on a personal portable device (please see Engelke, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ungstrup, Song and Engelke combined discloses, outputting the generated text for viewing by a user of the user smart phone (see Engelke e.g., “communication between a hearing user 22 and an assisted user 24 (e.g., a hearing impaired user)”, Fig. 1, [0049] and/or “screen shot that may be presented via tablet screen 50…Transcribed text is presented at 38a and a text scrolling tool is presented at 30a.”, Fig. 6, [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ungstrup and Song with Engelke, in order to help deaf or hard of hearing users receive captioned text from a relay on a personal portable device (please see Engelke, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 11, Ungstrup and Song combined fails to explicitly disclose, wherein a speech to text algorithm generates text for the live digital MEMS sound data.
In the same field of endeavor, Engelke discloses, wherein a speech to text algorithm generates text for the live digital MEMS sound data (see e.g., “communication between a hearing user 22 and an assisted user 24 (e.g., a hearing impaired user)”, Fig. 1, [0049] and/or ““screen shot that may be presented via tablet screen 50…Transcribed text is presented at 38a and a text scrolling tool is presented at 30a.”, Fig. 6, [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ungstrup and Song with Engelke, in order to help deaf or hard of hearing users receive captioned text from a relay on a personal portable device (please see Engelke, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ungstrup, Song and Engelke combined discloses, outputting the generated text for viewing by a user of the user smart phone (see Engelke e.g., “communication between a hearing user 22 and an assisted user 24 (e.g., a hearing impaired user)”, Fig. 1, [0049] and/or “screen shot that may be presented via tablet screen 50…Transcribed text is presented at 38a and a text scrolling tool is presented at 30a.”, Fig. 6, [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ungstrup and Song with Engelke, in order to help deaf or hard of hearing users receive captioned text from a relay on a personal portable device (please see Engelke, paragraph [0003]).
Claims 6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ungstrup, in view of Song, and further in view of Haubrich et al. (US 2015/0326984 Al, hereinafter Haubrich).
Regarding Claim 6, Ungstrup and Song combined fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the user smart phone has subscribed to receive live digital MEMs sound data from the speaker smart phone.
In the same field of endeavor, Haubrich discloses, wherein the user smart phone has subscribed to receive live digital MEMs sound data from the speaker smart phone (see e.g., “hearing assistance devices (e.g., hearing assistance devices 1080 and 1090) may register to receive the transmissions from the devices 1010-1040.”, Fig. 1, [0010] and/or “Hearing assistance devices 2080 and 2090 may be a left and a right hearing aid for the same wearer.”, Fig. 6, [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ungstrup and Song with Haubrich, in order to allow individuals with a hearing disability to better enjoy activities such as listening to television or music, exploring the internet and talking on a cellular phone (please see Haubrich, paragraph [0001]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ungstrup and Song combined fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the user smart phone has subscribed to receive live digital MEMs sound data from the speaker smart phone.
In the same field of endeavor, Haubrich discloses, wherein the user smart phone has subscribed to receive live digital MEMs sound data from the speaker smart phone (see e.g., “hearing assistance devices (e.g., hearing assistance devices 1080 and 1090) may register to receive the transmissions from the devices 1010-1040.”, Fig. 1, [0010] and/or “Hearing assistance devices 2080 and 2090 may be a left and a right hearing aid for the same wearer.”, Fig. 6, [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ungstrup and Song with Haubrich, in order to allow individuals with a hearing disability to better enjoy activities such as listening to television or music, exploring the internet and talking on a cellular phone (please see Haubrich, paragraph [0001]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ungstrup and Song combined fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the user smart phone is one of a plurality of user smart phones having subscribed to live digital MEMs sound data from the speaker smart phone.
In the same field of endeavor, Haubrich discloses, wherein the user smart phone is one of a plurality of user smart phones having subscribed to live digital MEMs sound data from the speaker smart phone (see e.g., “Hearing assistance devices 1080 and 1090 may be a pair of hearing assistance devices for user 1100…System 1000 may allow users 1100 of hearing assistance devices 1080-1090 to better hear a television, a phone call, music, videos, and the like, which may increase the quality and enjoyment of their lives.”, [0011] and/or “hearing assistance devices (e.g., hearing assistance devices 1080 and 1090) may register to receive the transmissions from the devices 1010-1040.”, Fig. 1, [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ungstrup and Song with Haubrich, in order to allow individuals with a hearing disability to better enjoy activities such as listening to television or music, exploring the internet and talking on a cellular phone (please see Haubrich, paragraph [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARID SEYEDVOSOGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9679. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached on 5712727795. 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.
/FARID SEYEDVOSOGHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2645