DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the communications filed 10/28/2025. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-15 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-10, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to Independent Claims 1, 14, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 7/28/2025 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 14 and 15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 14 and 15 recites the broad recitation "In a case in which the manual tuning date of the acquired manual tuning information is the same as the manual tuning date of the previously acquired manual tuning information, overwrites, without analyzing the manual tuning information...", and the claim also recites "generates analysis data by analyzing the manual tuning information, generates the automatic tuning information according to the analysis data." which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The limitation of generating analysis data by analyzing the manual tuning information, and subsequently generating the automatic tuning information according to the analysis data, as currently claimed, appears to occur regardless of the cases later presented, but in the case of the manual tuning date of a previously acquired and currently acquired tuning information being a match, it is stated that this analysis is not performed. This creates ambiguity in whether the preceding steps are truly performed or are omitted in this scenario.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record: Wiggins (US Publication No. 2015/0016621) teaches a hearing machine tuning device comprising: at least one processor (FIG. 2, Tuning Device 200, Processing Unit 210), wherein the at least one processor acquires manual tuning information including information on manually tuned setting values of a hearing machine (Paragraph 36, “In some embodiments, the tuning device 200 may present an audio stimulus via sound waves 140 to a user 105 wearing, or not wearing, hearing aids 130A-B, and the user 105 may perceive the audio stimulus via the hearing aids 130A-B and/or via the user's natural hearing. The user 105 may then indicate a response to the audio stimulus via the input device 120.”), and supplies the hearing machine with automatic tuning information generated based on the acquired manual tuning information and including automatic tuning setting values (Paragraph 36, “The user's response may be used to determine whether a hearing aid settings should be modified, and the tuning device 200 may then program one or both of the hearing aids 130A-B via the first and/or second coupling body 135A-B.”), wherein the at least one processor generates analysis data by analyzing the manual tuning information, and generates the automatic tuning information according to the analysis data (Paragraph 50, “The actions begin where an audio setting status request is sent 405 to the first hearing aid 130A, where audio settings are retrieved 410. Audio setting data is sent 415 to the tuning device 200, where audio setting data is saved 420. The tuning device 200 sends 425 a setting status request to the second hearing aid 130B, which retrieves 430 audio settings. Audio setting data is sent 435 to the tuning device 200, which saves 440 audio setting data.”). Wiggins does not further teach, information on manual tuning date and time, However, Barthel (US Patent No. 9549268 B2), in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, information on manual tuning date and time (Column 4, Lines 10-14, “In a first step 100, a hearing aid user wears the hearing aid whose parameters are to be adjusted. In step 101, the hearing aid stores the times and listening situations where at least one predefinable hearing aid signal processing algorithm is activated.”).
Wiggins in view of Barthel does not further teach in a case in which the manual tuning date of the acquired manual tuning information is the same as the manual tuning date of the previously acquired manual tuning information, overwrites, without analyzing the manual tuning information, the manually tuned setting value newly acquired at the manual tuning time with the previous manually tuned setting value corresponding to a time zone including the manual tuning time of the newly acquired manually tuned setting value, and in a case in which the manual tuning date of the acquired manual tuning information is not the same as the manual tuning date of the previously acquired manual tuning information, generates the analysis data by analyzing the manual tuning information.
Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art of record to include the aforementioned limitations along with all of the other limitations as required of independent claims 1, 14 and 15. Therefore the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of 7/28/2025 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M NEECE whose telephone number is (703)756-1941. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 7pm.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571)-270-7136. 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.
/DYLAN MAGUIRE NEECE/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692