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 5/29/26 which has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 11-12, and 15 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Claims 1-15 are still pending in this application, with Claim 1 being independent.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input unit for obtaining an input audio signal”, “a processing unit for processing the input audio signal”, “an output unit for outputting the output audio signal”, “an estimation unit for estimating a signal property”, “a noise cancellation unit for obtaining a target audio signal from the input audio signal”, and “a mixing unit for mixing the target audio signal from the first audio signal path with audio signals from the second audio signal path” in claims 1-15 and “a delay compensation unit for compensating processing times” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The input unit may be one or more microphones as in para 0026, the output unit may be one or more speakers as in para 0028, and the processing unit, estimation unit, noise cancellation unit, mixing unit, and delay compensation unit may be “a processor specialized on the execution of a neural network” as in para 0029.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner interprets claim 14 as the second audio signal path comprises a delay compensation unit for compensating processing times by the noise cancellation unit.
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) 1-6 and 8-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabin et al. US Publication No. 20220369047 (from IDS) in view of Andersen et al. US Publication No. 20200260198, Chen et al. US Publication No. 20220329953, and Darlington US Publication No. 20220383848.
Referring to claim 1, Sabin et al. teaches a hearing system, comprising at least one hearing device (Fig. 1: hearing assist device 100) having:
an input unit for obtaining an input audio signal (Fig. 1: microphones 114),
a processing unit for processing the input audio signal to obtain an output audio signal (Fig. 1: audio processing system 102 with machine learning system 104, mixer 108; para 0039: “electronics 304, such as a processor module (e.g., incorporating audio processing system 102 and mixer 108, FIG. 1)”), and
an output unit for outputting the output audio signal (Fig. 1: electrostatic transducer 124),
wherein the hearing system further comprises an estimation unit for estimating a signal property of the input audio signal (para 0032: “mixer 108 includes a mixing algorithm 110 that processes an environmental noise assessment input”; para 0033: “the amount of noise detected from the environmental noise assessment… the type of noise detected, e.g., low frequency humming may dictate a higher proportion of unprocessed audio signal 132… a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) derived from the environmental noise assessment”), and
wherein the processing unit of the at least one hearing device comprises
a first audio signal path having a noise cancellation unit for obtaining a target audio signal from the input audio signal (Fig. 1: machine learning system 104; para 0030: “ML system 104 may process the input signal 115 (received in time domain) in the time or frequency domain and predict which components contain speech 118 and which components contain noise 120. In this example, the noise components can then be blocked, leaving only the speech components, which can then be transformed back to the time domain and output as the ML enhance audio signal 116 to the user.”),
a second audio signal path bypassing the noise cancellation unit (Fig. 1: unprocessed signal 132 bypasses ML system 104), and
a mixing unit for mixing the target audio signal from the first audio signal path with audio signals from the second audio signal path for obtaining the output audio signal,
wherein the mixing unit is configured to adjust a contribution of the target audio signal to the output audio signal based on the estimated signal property of the input audio signal (Fig. 1: mixer 108; para 0032: “mixer 108 includes a mixing algorithm 110 that processes an environmental noise assessment input, e.g., obtained via a sensor 128 or a user input 130, to determine a set of mixing coefficients that dictates how much of each signal should be output (e.g., 80% enhanced ML audio signal 116, 20% unprocessed signal 132)”).
However, Sabin et al. does not teach a processor that has neural network capability per se, but teaches a processing unit (para 0007: “The hearing device is configured to provide that said signal processor comprises a neural network”). Both Sabin et al. and Andersen et al. teach machine learning, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in neural networks, as taught in Andersen et al., for the machine learning method of Sabin et al. because both methods produce a noise reduced signal using a type of machine learning.
However, Sabin et al. and Andersen et al. do not teach applying a filter gain, but Chen et al. teaches the mixing unit is configured to apply a post-filter gain to the target audio signal (para 0026: “the higher the SNR value in a frequency band k is, the higher the band gain value G.sub.k(i) in the frequency-domain compensation mask stream becomes”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a filter gain, as in Chen et al., in the system of Sabin et al. and Andersen et al. because it allows for bands with high SNR (low noise) to be amplified more than bands with low SNR (high noise), thus emphasizing wanted sounds over noise.
However, Sabin et al., Andersen et al., and Chen et al. do not teach a npoise cancellation type dependent gain, but Darlington teaches the post-filer gain depends on a type of noise cancellation applied by the noise cancellation unit (para 0048: “in the case of a system comprising a feedback microphone, the tuning module may be operative to adjust the loop gain (e.g. low frequency loop gain) of the system to correct the feedback noise cancellation performance. In the case of a system comprising a feedforward microphone, the tuning module may be operative to adjust the path gain (e.g. low frequency path gain) of the system to correct the feedforward noise cancellation performance”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply gains based on type of noise cancellation, as in Darlington, in the system of Sabin et al., Andersen et al., and Chen et al. because different noise cancellation processes require different gain to provide optimal noise cancellation performance.
Referring to claim 2, Andersen et al. teaches the noise cancellation unit comprises a neural network for contributing to obtaining the target audio signal (para 0001: “the use of machine learning or artificial intelligence methods, e.g. utilizing neural networks and e.g. supervised learning, in the task of providing improvements in reduction of noise in a noisy sound signal picked up by a hearing device, e.g. a hearing aid”). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 3, Sabin et al. teaches the estimation unit is comprised by the processing unit of the at least one hearing device (Fig. 1: mixer 108 in hearing assist device 100; para 0039: “electronics 304, such as a processor module (e.g., incorporating audio processing system 102 and mixer 108, FIG. 1)”).
Referring to claim 4, Sabin et al. teaches the estimation unit is comprised by the noise cancellation unit (para 0039: “electronics 304, such as a processor module (e.g., incorporating audio processing system 102 and mixer 108, FIG. 1)”; Fig. 1: ML system 104 in audio processing system 102) and Andersen et al. teaches a neural network of the noise cancellation unit (paras 0001, 0007). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 5, Sabin et al. teaches the estimation unit is configured for determining at least one of the following signal properties of the input audio signal: a signal-to-noise ratio, a sound level and/or a target direction of a sound source (para 0033).
Referring to claim 6, Sabin et al. teaches the estimation unit is configured for determining a frequency dependence of the signal property (para 0032).
Referring to claim 8, Chen et al. teaches the post-filter gain comprises a frequency dependent post-filter gain that depends on the estimated signal property (para 0026: “the higher the SNR value in a frequency band k is, the higher the band gain value G.sub.k(i) in the frequency-domain compensation mask stream becomes”). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 9, Chen et al. teaches the mixing unit is configured to adapt the post-filter gain independently in a plurality of frequency bands (para 0026). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Referring to claim 10, Sabin et al. teaches the mixing unit is configured to adapt an output signal strength of the target audio signal in the output audio signal to be equal or higher than an input signal strength of the target audio signal in the input audio signal (para 0032 – Examiner notes that the ML enhanced audio signal 116 is used directly/without further alteration in the mixer and therefore, it will have the same signal strength).
Referring to claim 11, Sabin et al. teaches the mixing unit is configured for further adjusting a mixing ratio between the target audio signal and an audio signal of the second audio signal path based on user preferences and/or user inputs and/or a position of a user and/or an activity of the user (para 0032).
Referring to claim 13, Sabin et al. teaches the second audio signal path provides the input audio signal to the mixing unit (Fig. 1: unprocessed signal 132 provided as input audio signal to mixer 108).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington, as shown in claim 1 above, and further in view of Aubreville et al. US Publication No. 20210195343.
Referring to claim 7, Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington do not teach averaging a property over time, but Aubreville et al. teaches the estimation unit is configured for averaging the estimated signal property over a predetermined time span (para 0018; claim 24). Both Sabin et al. and Aubreville et al. teach determining signal properties, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in averaging SNR, as taught in Aubreville et al., for merely just estimating the SNR, as taught in Sabin et al., in the system of Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington because both methods produce a signal property that describes the surrounding sound environment.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington, as shown in claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori et al. US Patent No.5241605.
Referring to claim 12, Sabin et al. teaches the mixing unit is configured to adjust the contribution of the target audio signal in the output audio signal (para 0032). However, Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington do not teach adjustment in equidistant steps, but Mori et al. teaches adjust in a plurality of equidistant steps (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust in equidistant steps, as in Mori et al., in the system of Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington because it allows the user to control the system in an easy and understandable way.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington, as shown in claim 1 above, and further in view of Fitz et al. US Publication No. 20150092967.
Referring to claim 14, Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington do not teach delay compensation per se, but Fitz et al. teaches the second audio signal path comprises a delay compensation unit for compensating processing times in the first audio signal path (para 0034 - Examiner notes that when delay compensation is applied to the unprocessed audio signal path in Sabin et al., the delay will be compensating for the delay caused by processing times by the noise cancellation unit in the audio processing system 102 that produces ML enhanced audio signal 116). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a delay compensation, as in Fitz et al., in the system of Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington because “it preserves the temporal alignment between the enhanced and unenhanced signals.”
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington, as shown in claim 1 above, and further in view of Jensen et al. US Publication No. 20170048626.
Referring to claim 15, Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington do not teach synchronized binaural hearing aids, but Jensen et al. teaches two hearing devices adapted for binaural audio signal processing, wherein the two hearing devices are connected in a data transmitting manner, and wherein mixing units of the two hearing devices are configured for synchronizing contribution of the target audio signals in respective output audio signals depending on estimated signal properties of respective input audio signals depending on a target direction of a sound source (para 0024). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to synchronize binaural hearing aids, as in Jensen et al., in the system of Sabin et al., Andersen et al., Chen et al., and Darlington because it allows both hearing aids to “focus on the location in space of the target signal source.”
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