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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Applicants Request for Reconsideration filed 4/22/26 which has been entered. Claims 8, 11, and 14 have been amended. Claims 9-10 have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Claims 8 and 11-14 are still pending in this application, with Claim 8 being independent.
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) 8, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. US Publication No. 20200236466 (from IDS) in view of Murata et al. US Publication No. 20180084332.
Referring to claim 8, Zhao et al. teaches a method for operating a hearing device or a hearing aid (para 0050: “In an implementation mode, the device is a headphone”), the method comprising:
providing a hearing device (para 0050: “the device is a headphone”; Fig. 1: control system 20 of device) having a wind noise canceller (Fig. 1: wind suppression submodule 241 of control system 20) and a motion sensor (Fig. 1: acceleration sensor 11; location module 12; para 0058: “the movement speed of the user is calculated according to the geographic location data”; 0059: “the cadence value of the user is calculated according to the acceleration data”); and
adjusting a cancellation performance of the wind noise canceller as a function of measurement data recorded by the motion sensor (para 0008: “a usage scenario of a user is analyzed according to acceleration data output by the acceleration sensor and geographic location data output by the location module”; paras 0068-0069: “if the usage scenario is that the user is in the road environment and in the walking mode, the operation that the working of the audio signal volume adjustment module, the active noise cancellation module, and the ambient sound adjustment module is controlled according to the usage scenario, the sound pressure level of the ambient sound signal, and the energy distribution and the spectral distribution of the ambient sound signal further includes that: the wind noise suppression submodule is controlled to perform the suppressive filtering to the wind noise signal in the ambient sound signal”).
However, Zhao et al. does not teach together a maximum cancellation, minimum cancellation, and actual removed component per se, but Murata et al. teaches adjusting a maximum cancellation performance (para 0065: “the NC signal generation part 41 generates a signal having a phase opposite to that of the microphone signal as a noise canceling signal and outputs the generated noise canceling signal”) and a minimum cancellation performance (para 0068: “That is, the cooped-up feeling elimination signal generation part 44 executes the signal processing of the above expression 1 using the microphone signal and outputs the processed cooped-up feeling elimination signal”); and determining an actual or current component removed or cancelled by the wind noise canceller based on at least one of further properties or parameters (para 0008: “adding together the generated noise canceling signal and the cooped-up feeling elimination signal at a prescribed ratio”; para 0072: “a user interface that allows the user to set the effecting degrees of the noise canceling function and the cooped-up feeling elimination function”; para 0117: “an automatic control mode in which the optimum ratios between the respective functions are calculated based on surrounding situations, user's operation states, or the like and the respective gains are controlled based on the calculation results”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a max and min cancellation performance and then cancel based on a ratio of the two performances, as taught in Murata et al., in the method of Zhao et al. because it allows the user to hear optimal, preferential, and comfortable sound that corresponds with settings that are optimal for a given environment and sound.
Referring to claim 12, Zhao et al. teaches using the measurement data to carry out a classification of an activity of a user of the hearing device, and adjusting the wind noise canceller as a function of the classification (para 0016: “a motion mode of the user are determined according to the movement speed and the cadence value”; paras 0068-0069: “if the usage scenario is that the user is in the road environment and in the walking mode, the operation that the working of the audio signal volume adjustment module, the active noise cancellation module, and the ambient sound adjustment module is controlled according to the usage scenario, the sound pressure level of the ambient sound signal, and the energy distribution and the spectral distribution of the ambient sound signal further includes that: the wind noise suppression submodule is controlled to perform the suppressive filtering to the wind noise signal in the ambient sound signal”).
Referring to claim 14, Zhao et al. teaches a hearing device or hearing aid (para 0050: “the device is a headphone”; Fig. 1: control system 20 of device), comprising:
an adjustable wind noise canceller (Fig. 1: wind suppression submodule 241 of control system 20); and
a motion sensor recording measurement data (Fig. 1: acceleration sensor 11; location module 12; para 0058: “the movement speed of the user is calculated according to the geographic location data”; 0059: “the cadence value of the user is calculated according to the acceleration data”);
the hearing device being operated according to the method of claim 8 (see mapping for claim 8 above).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. and Murata et al., as shown in claim 8, and further in view of Pedersen et al. US Publication No. 20200077204 (from IDS).
Referring to claim 11, Zhao et al. and Murata et al. do not teach changing an adaptation rate, but Pedersen et al. teaches adjusting an adaptation rate of the wind noise canceller (para 0060). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust adaptation rate, as taught in Pedersen et al., in the method of Zhao et al. and Murata et al. because “the sound from the expected direction can be cancelled out faster” and “can enhance the sound experience for the hearing aid user.”
Referring to claim 13, Zhao et al. and Murata et al. do not teach determining variance in motion data, but Pedersen et al. teaches ascertaining a variance of the measurement data for successive time intervals, and adjusting the wind noise canceller as a function of the ascertained variance (paras 0146-0148). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine variance of motion data, as taught in Pedersen et al., in the method of Zhao et al. and Murata et al. because “prior knowledge about the user's individual behaviour (e.g. on the basis of logged data) may be used to optimise the hearing aid device settings for each user on an individual basis.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Wednesday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571)272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights