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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 regarding claims 21-40 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that references Gross Bromwich Keller and Steinbuss either alone or in combination fail to disclose the subject matter recited in claim 21, the examiner argues that the applicant is attacking the references separately instead of the combination. Regarding the argument that Keller does not disclose detecting noise at the contralateral ear and performing corrective action at a hearing aid, and Steinbuss does not disclose delivering test stimulation in the hearing aid, the examiner argues that he does not rely on Steinbuss for the feature of delivering test stimulation but for disclosing performing detection of sound and the corrective actions by a hearing aid. Keller discloses contralateral sound leakage and corrective action by a device but does not disclose against using that feature in a hearing aid. With Steinbuss suggesting a processor for sound detection and correction, one of the ordinary could have been motivated to perform those features in a hearing aid. Therefore the combination of Gross Bromwich Keller and Steinbuss suggest each and every limitation of claim 21.
Regarding the argument that references Nadon Bromwich Keller and Steinbuss either alone or in combination fail to disclose the subject matter recited in claim 30, the examiner argues that the applicant is attacking the references separately instead of the combination. Regarding the argument that Keller does not disclose detecting noise at the contralateral ear and performing corrective action at a hearing aid, and Steinbuss does not disclose delivering test stimulation in the hearing aid, the examiner argues that he does not rely on Steinbuss for the feature of delivering test stimulation but for disclosing performing detection of sound and the corrective action by a hearing aid. Keller discloses contralateral sound leakage and corrective action by a device but does not disclose against using that feature in a hearing aid. With Steinbuss suggesting a processor for sound detection and correction, one of the ordinary could have been motivated to perform those features in a hearing aid. Therefore the combination of Nadon Bromwich Keller and Steinbuss suggest each and every limitation of claim 30.
Regarding the argument that Lyons does not read on the limitation “selecting by a second hearing device, a specific remediation from a plurality of remediations”, the examiner argues that Lyons discloses selecting a remediation at a device. Claims 22, 31, 40 does not expressly disclose an automatic selection of the remediation by the hearing device therefore the remediation selection at a device would read on the claim as it presently construed.
Regarding the argument that reference Bromwich failed to disclose delivering the remediation at a level commensurate with the level of residual hearing of the second ear, the examiner argues that Bromwich generate a counter signal that is equal in frequency and phase and opposite in amplitude to the undesired crosstalk signal. The examiner interprets the undesired crosstalk which undesired leakage sound from the first hear to the second ear as residual hearing. Therefore, Bromwich read on claim 27, 36 as presently construed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 27, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (US 2012/0067107 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Gross et al disclose a method, comprising: delivering, by a first hearing device, test stimulation to a first ear of a recipient (Gross et al; Para [0050]; [0062]-[0064]; test signals simulation at tested ear); detecting, by a second hearing device configured to provide stimulation to a second ear of the recipient, a presence of the test stimulation in an environment of the recipient (Gross et al; Para [0062]-[0064]; unwanted transmission of acoustic stimulus to the opposite ear); and delivering, by the second hearing device, remediation of the test stimulation to the second ear of the recipient (Gross et al; Para [0062]-[0064]; masking presented at non-tested ear while the other ear is being tested), but do not expressly disclose delivering based on the detecting. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bromwich et al disclose a method comprising and delivering, by the second hearing device based on the detecting, remediation of the test stimulation to the second ear of the recipient (Bromwich et al; Para [0011] [0008]-[0009]; remediation based on crosstalk level determination). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the crosstalk cancellation taught by Bromwich as crosstalk reduction in the device taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to minimize crosstalk to within ANSI standards (Bromwich et al; Para [0006]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Keller discloses a method comprising determining, by a second hearing device, a remediation of the test stimulation (Keller; Para [0025]-[0026] determining interaural attenuation for over-masking determination by measuring the level of the crossover signal at the contralateral ear); and delivering, by the second hearing device based on the determining, remediation of the test stimulation to the second ear of the recipient (Keller; Para [0025]-[0026] determining interaural attenuation for over-masking determination by measuring the level of the crossover signal at the contralateral ear). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to detect the crossover signal for interaural attenuation taught by Keller as at contralateral crossover signal for remediation in the hearing device taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to automatically interrupt the testing sequence if the noise could invalidate test results (Keller; Para [0007]). Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Steinbuss discloses a method comprising determining by a hearing device based on the detecting, a remediation of the acoustic stimulation (Steinbuss; Fig 1; Para [0010] [0024]; [0009]; remediation-masking- determined by a hearing device based on the detecting). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the noise masking in hearing device taught by Steinbuss as unwanted signal reduction in the contralateral hearing device taught by Gross in view of Keller. The motivation to do so would have been to increase the hearing comfort of a hearing device (Steinbuss; Para [0009]).
Regarding claim 27, Gross et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the method of claim 21, but do not expressly disclose wherein delivering the remediation of the test stimulation comprises delivering the remediation at a level commensurate with a level of residual hearing of the second ear. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bromwich et al disclose a method wherein the one or more processors are configured to deliver the remediation of the test stimulation by delivering the remediation at a level commensurate with a level of residual hearing of the first ear (Bromwich et al; Para [0008]-[0009]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the crosstalk cancellation taught by Bromwich as crosstalk reduction in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to minimize crosstalk to within ANSI standards (Bromwich et al; Para [0006]).
Regarding claim 39, Gross et al disclose a system, comprising: a first hearing device configured to deliver test stimulation to a first ear of a recipient (Gross et al; Para [0050]; [0062]-[0064]; test signals simulation at tested ear); and a second hearing device configured to: provide stimulation to a second ear of the recipient (Gross et al; Para [0050]; [0062]-[0064]); detect, in an environment of the recipient, a presence of the test stimulation provided to the first ear of the recipient by the first hearing device (Gross et al; Para [0062]-[0064]; unwanted transmission of acoustic stimulus to the opposite ear); and deliver, based on the detecting, remediation of the test stimulation to the second ear of the recipient (Gross et al; Para [0062]-[0064]; masking presented at non- tested ear while the other ear is being tested); but do not expressly disclose determining a remediation of the test stimulation; deliver, based on the determining the remediation of the test stimulation to the second ear of the recipient. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bromwich et al disclose a device comprising and delivering, by the second hearing device based on the detecting, remediation of the test stimulation to the second ear of the recipient (Bromwich et al; Para [0011] [0008]-[0009]; remediation based on crosstalk level determination). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the crosstalk cancellation taught by Bromwich as crosstalk reduction in the device taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to minimize crosstalk to within ANSI standards (Bromwich et al; Para [0006]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Keller discloses a system comprising determine a remediation of the test stimulation (Keller; Para [0025]-[0026] determining interaural attenuation for over-masking determination by measuring the level of the crossover signal at the contralateral ear); and delivering, by the second hearing device based on the determining, the remediation of the test stimulation to the second ear of the recipient (Keller; Para [0025]-[0026] determining interaural attenuation for over-masking determination by measuring the level of the crossover signal at the contralateral ear). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to detect the crossover signal for interaural attenuation taught by Keller as at contralateral crossover signal for remediation in the hearing device taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to automatically interrupt the testing sequence if the noise could invalidate test results (Keller; Para [0007]). Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Steinbuss discloses a method comprising determining by a hearing device based on the detecting, a remediation of the acoustic stimulation (Steinbuss; Fig 1; Para [0010] [0024]; [0009]; remediation determined by a hearing device based on the detecting). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the noise masking in hearing device taught by Steinbuss as unwanted signal reduction in the contralateral hearing device taught by Gross in view of Keller. The motivation to do so would have been to increase the hearing comfort of a hearing device (Steinbuss; Para [0009])
Claim(s) 22-23, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (US 2012/0067107 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1) and further in view of Elofsson (US 2013/0245362 A1) and further in view of Lyons (US 2014/0079235 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Gross et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller et al and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the method of claim 21, but do not expressly disclose wherein the second hearing device comprises a hearing prosthetic; and wherein determining, by the second hearing device, the remediation of the test stimulation comprises: selecting, by the second hearing device, the remediation from a plurality of remediations. However, in the same field of endeavor, Eloffson disclose a method wherein the second hearing device comprises a hearing prosthetic (Elofsson; Fig 7; Para [0017] hearing prosthetic which minimizes crosstalk). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hearing device taught by Eloffson as hearing device in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive sound based on the vibrations (Eloffson; Para [0003]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Lyons discloses a method and wherein determining, by the second hearing device, the remediation of the test stimulation comprises: selecting, by the second hearing device, the remediation from a plurality of remediations (Lyons; Para [0010]-[0014]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the noise remediation taught by Lyons as remediation in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to minimize the loss of perception of desired sounds by the user (Lyons; Para [0009]).
Regarding claim 23, Gross et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss and further in view of Elofsson and further in view of Lyons disclose the method of claim 22, but do not expressly disclose wherein the hearing prosthetic comprises an implanted stimulation unit and an external sound processor. However, in the same field of endeavor, Eloffson disclose a method wherein the hearing prosthetic comprises an implanted stimulation unit (Elofsson; Fig 2; vibration sensor 102) and an external sound processor (Elofsson; Fig 2; sound processor 104). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hearing device taught by Eloffson as hearing device in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive sound based on the vibrations (Eloffson; Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 40, Gross et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the system of claim 39, but do not expressly disclose wherein the second hearing device comprises a hearing prosthetic or a hearing aid; and wherein determining, by the second hearing device, the remediation of the test stimulation comprises: selecting, by the second hearing device, the remediation from a plurality of remediations. However, in the same field of endeavor, Eloffson disclose a method wherein the first hearing device comprises a hearing prosthetic (Elofsson; Fig 7; Para [0017] hearing prosthetic which minimizes crosstalk). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hearing device taught by Eloffson as hearing device in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive sound based on the vibrations (Eloffson; Para [0003]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Lyons discloses a method and wherein determining, by the second hearing device, the remediation of the test stimulation comprises: selecting, by the second hearing device, the remediation from a plurality of remediations (Lyons; Para [0010]- [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the noise remediation taught by Lyons as remediation in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to minimize the loss of perception of desired sounds by the user (Lyons; Para [0009]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (US 2012/0067107 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1) and further in view of Elofsson (US 2013/0245362 A1)
Regarding claim 24, Gross et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the method of claim 21, but do not expressly disclose wherein the second hearing device comprises a hearing aid. However, in the same field of endeavor, Eloffson disclose a method wherein the second hearing device comprises a hearing aid (Elofsson; Fig 2; sound processor 104). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hearing device taught by Eloffson as hearing device in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive sound based on the vibrations (Eloffson; Para [0003]).
Claim(s) 25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (US 2012/0067107 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1) and further in view of Zhong et al (US 2016/0217781 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Gross et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller et al and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the method of claim 21, but do not expressly disclose wherein delivering the remediation of the test stimulation comprises providing active noise cancellation of the test stimulation to the second ear of the recipient. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhong et al disclose a method wherein delivering the remediation of the test stimulation comprises providing active noise cancellation of the test stimulation to the second ear of the recipient (Zhong et al; Para [(0085]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the crosstalk cancellation taught by Zhong as noise reduction in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive substantially none of the ambient sound (Zhong et al; Para [0026]).
Regarding claim 28, Gross et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the method of claim 21, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: detecting, at the second hearing device, a distracting sound in the environment of the recipient; and delivering, by the second hearing device, remediation of the distracting sound to the second ear of the recipient. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhong et al disclose a method further comprising: detecting, at the second hearing device, a distracting sound in the environment of the recipient (Zhong et al; Fig 4B; ambient sound detected by microphone 410L); and delivering, by the second hearing device, remediation of the distracting sound to the second ear of the recipient (Zhong et al; Para [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the ambient noise cancellation taught by Zhong as noise reduction in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive substantially none of the ambient sound (Zhong et al; Para [0026]).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (US 2012/0067107 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1) and further in view of Nadon et al (US 2017/0150908 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Gross et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the method of claim 21, but do not expressly disclose wherein detecting the presence of the test stimulation in the environment of the recipient comprises detecting the test stimulation via a sound input of the second hearing device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nadon et al disclose a method wherein detecting the presence of the test stimulation in the environment of the recipient comprises detecting the test stimulation via a sound input of the second hearing device (Nadon et al: Figs 1 & 2; IEMC 28' detect noise from speaker 24). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the sound input taught by Nadon as noise detection in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to use such device for in-field applications (Nadon et al; Para [0014]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (US 2012/0067107 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1) and further in view of Fogel et al (US 2009/0099476 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Gross et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the method of claim 21, but do not expressly disclose further comprising providing, by the second hearing device, tinnitus masking to the second ear. However, in the same field of endeavor, Fogel et al disclose a method further comprising providing, by the second hearing device, tinnitus masking to the second ear (Fogel et al; Para [0018][0065]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the tinnitus masking taught by Fogel as noise remediation in the method taught by Gross. The motivation to do so would have been to accelerate the search for personalized tools that alleviate tinnitus suffering (Fogel et al; Para [0066]).
Claim(s) 30, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadon et al (US 2017/0150908 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Nadon et al disclose a first hearing device configured to provide stimulation to a first ear of a recipient of the first hearing device (Nadon et al; Fig 1; hearing device 20 provide simulation through speaker 24), comprising: one or more sound inputs (Nadon et al; Fig 1; microphone IEM-C 28'); and one or more processors (Nadon et al; Fig 1; Para [0020]) configured to: detect, in an environment of the recipient of the first hearing device via the one or more sound inputs, a presence of test stimulation provided to a second ear of the recipient by a second hearing device (Nadon et al; Fig 1; detect at IEM-C 28' of hearing device 20' test signal from hearing device 20); but do not expressly disclose determine a remediation of the test stimulation; and deliver, based on the determining, remediation of the test stimulation to the first ear of the recipient. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bromwich et al disclose a device comprising to deliver, remediation of the test stimulation to the first ear of the recipient (Bromwich et al; Para [0011] [0008]-[0009]; remediation based on crosstalk level determination). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the crosstalk cancellation taught by Bromwich as crosstalk reduction in the device taught by Nadon. The motivation to do so would have been to minimize crosstalk to within ANSI standards (Bromwich et al; Para [0006]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Keller discloses a method comprising determining, a remediation of the test stimulation (Keller; Para [0025]-[0026] determining interaural attenuation for over-masking determination by measuring the level of the crossover signal at the contralateral ear); and deliver, based on the determining, the remediation of the test stimulation to the first ear of the recipient (Keller; Para [0025]-[0026] masking delivering). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the crosstalk cancellation taught by Keller at contralateral hearing device in the device taught by Nadon. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce over masking in the masking process at the non-tested ear (Keller; Para [0006]). Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Steinbuss discloses a method comprising determining by a hearing device based on the detecting, a remediation of the acoustic stimulation (Steinbuss; Fig 1; Para [0010] [0024]; [0009]; remediation-masking- determined by a hearing device based on the detecting). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the remediation in hearing device taught by Steinbuss as crosstalk reduction in the device taught by Nadon in view of Keller. The motivation to do so would have been to increase the hearing comfort of a hearing device (Steinbuss; Para [0009]).
Regarding claim 35, Nadon et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the first hearing device of claim 30, wherein the one or more processors are configured to detect the presence of the test stimulation in the environment of the recipient by detecting the test stimulation via a microphone of the one or more sound inputs (Nadon et al; Fig 1; microphone IEM-C 28').
Regarding claim 36, Nadon et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the first hearing device of claim 30, but do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to deliver the remediation of the test stimulation by delivering the remediation at a level commensurate with a level of residual hearing of the first ear. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bromwich et al disclose a device wherein the one or more processors are configured to deliver the remediation of the test stimulation by delivering the remediation at a level commensurate with a level of residual hearing of the first ear (Bromwich et al; Para[0003] [0011] [0008]-[0009]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the crosstalk cancellation taught by Bromwich as crosstalk reduction in the device taught by Nadon. The motivation to do so would have been to minimize crosstalk to within ANSI standards (Bromwich et al; Para [0006]).
Claim(s) 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadon et al (US 2017/0150908 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1) and further in view of Elofsson (US 2013/0245362 A1) and further in view of Lyons (US 2014/0079235 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Nadon et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the first hearing device of claim 30, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first hearing device comprises a hearing prosthetic, and wherein determining, by the second hearing device, the remediation of the test stimulation comprises: selecting, by the second hearing device, the remediation from a plurality of remediations. However, in the same field of endeavor, Eloffson disclose a method wherein the first hearing device comprises a hearing prosthetic (Elofsson; Fig 7; Para [0017] hearing prosthetic which minimizes crosstalk). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hearing device taught by Eloffson as hearing device in the device taught by Nadon. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive sound based on the vibrations (Eloffson; Para [0003]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Lyons discloses a method and wherein determining, by the second hearing device, the remediation of the test stimulation comprises: selecting, by the second hearing device, the remediation from a plurality of remediations (Lyons; Para [0010]- [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the noise remediation taught by Lyons as remediation in the method taught by Nadon. The motivation to do so would have been to minimize the loss of perception of desired sounds by the user (Lyons; Para [0009]).
Regarding claim 32, Nadon et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss and further in Eloffson and further in view of Lyons disclose the first hearing device of claim 31, but do not expressly disclose wherein the hearing prosthetic comprises an implanted stimulation unit and an external sound processor. However, in the same field of endeavor, Eloffson disclose a device wherein the hearing prosthetic comprises an implanted stimulation unit (Elofsson; Fig 2; vibration sensor 102) and an external sound processor (Elofsson; Fig 2; sound processor 104). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hearing device taught by Eloffson as hearing device in the device taught by Nadon. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive sound based on the vibrations (Eloffson; Para [0003]).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadon et al (US 2017/0150908 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1) and further in view of Elofsson (US 2013/0245362 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Nadon et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the first hearing device of claim 30, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first hearing device comprises a hearing aid. However, in the same field of endeavor, Eloffson disclose a method wherein the second hearing device comprises a hearing aid (Elofsson; Fig 2; sound processor 104). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hearing device taught by Eloffson as hearing device in the device taught by Nadon. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive sound based on the vibrations (Eloffson; Para [0003]).
Claim(s) 34, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadon et al (US 2017/0150908 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1) and further in view of Zhong et al (US 2016/0217781 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Nadon et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the first hearing device of claim 30, but do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to deliver the remediation of the test stimulation by providing active noise cancellation of the test stimulation to the first ear of the recipient. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhong et al disclose a device wherein delivering the remediation of the test stimulation comprises providing active noise cancellation of the test stimulation to the second ear of the recipient (Zhong et al; Para [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the crosstalk cancellation taught by Zhong as noise reduction in the device taught by Nadon. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive substantially none of the ambient sound (Zhong et al; Para [0026]).
Regarding claim 37, Nadon et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the first hearing device of claim 30, but do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: detect, at the first hearing device, a distracting sound in the environment of the recipient; and deliver, by the first hearing device, remediation of the distracting sound to the first ear of the recipient. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhong et al disclose a device further comprising: detecting, at the second hearing device, a distracting sound in the environment of the recipient (Zhong et al; Fig 4B; ambient sound detected by microphone 410L); and delivering, by the second hearing device, remediation of the distracting sound to the second ear of the recipient (Zhong et al; Para [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the ambient noise cancellation taught by Zhong as noise reduction in the device taught by Nadon. The motivation to do so would have been to perceive substantially none of the ambient sound (Zhong et al; Para [0026]).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadon et al (US 2017/0150908 A1) in view of Bromwich et al (US 2018/0317008 A1) and further in view of Keller (US 2004/0037428 A1) and further in view of Steinbuss (US 2006/0233407 A1) and further in view of Fogel et al (US 2009/0099476 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Nadon et al in view of Bromwich et al and further in view of Keller and further in view of Steinbuss disclose the first hearing device of claim 30, but do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to provide, by the first hearing device, tinnitus masking to the first ear. However, in the same field of endeavor, Fogel et al disclose a device further comprising providing, by the second hearing device, tinnitus masking to the second ear (Fogel et al; Para [0018][0065]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the tinnitus masking taught by Fogel as noise remediation in the device taught by Nadon. The motivation to do so would have been to accelerate the search for personalized tools that alleviate tinnitus suffering (Fogel et al; Para [0066]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights