Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Anticipation
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 16, 17, 19 and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), (2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2025/0094211 (effectively filed 27 July 2021) (“Spittle”).
Claim 13 is drawn to “a method for operating a binaural hearing system.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Spittle reference.
Claim 13
The Spittle Reference
“Claim 13. A method for operating a binaural hearing system, the method comprising:
The Spittle reference similarly describes a method for operating a binaural device, or hearing system, having an ear piece for each ear. Spittle at Abs. ¶¶ 182–188, 273, FIGs.1A, 7B.
“providing a first hearing instrument having a first input transducer;
“providing a second hearing instrument having a second input transducer;
Spittle’s method includes providing a pair of binaural ear pieces, one for each ear. Id. at ¶¶ 265–266, FIG.7B. Each ear piece includes a microphone. Id.
“using the first input transducer to generate a first input signal from an ambient sound, and using the second input transducer to generate a second input signal from the ambient sound;
“subjecting the first input signal to a first low-latency analysis to determine at least one first parameter of a signal processing;
“subjecting the second input signal to a second low-latency analysis to determine a second parameter of a signal processing;
“transmitting the first parameter to the second hearing instrument and transmitting the second parameter to the first hearing instrument;
Spittle’s binaural earpieces each record raw audio with their microphones, produce metrics by a local low-latency analysis and transmit both the raw audio and the metrics to the other binaural earpiece. Id.
“determining a synchronized parameter in each of the first and second hearing instruments based on the respective first and second parameters; and
In order to preserve spatial cues in the binaural system, Spittle describes synchronizing both binaural units so that the parameters used to control binaural rendering are determined and applied in sync. Id. at ¶¶ 198, 269, 826, 871–874, FIG.43D. For example, Spittle describes synchronizing audio signals from two microphones in each binaural device to determine a synchronized parameter, such as spatial locations of ambient sounds. Id. Other descriptions of synchronized parameter determinations are provided in connection with FIGs.47–50, 52, 59, 60–64, 76.
“applying the synchronized parameter in the first hearing instrument to signal components of the first input signal, and applying the synchronized parameter in the second hearing instrument to signal components of the second input signal;
Similarly, Spittle describes applying a synchronized parameter in sync between both binaural units to prevent applying different parameters that will distort the audio cues present in a binaural system. Id. at ¶¶ 198, 826, 871–874. For example, Spittle adjusts gain in each binaural unit based on the spatial location of an ambient sound (e.g., applying a particular HRIR/HRTF based on the sound’s location relative to the user’s head position). Id. at ¶ 1183. Spittle also describes applying different amounts of noise cancellation to sounds based on a synchronized mixer parameter. Id. at ¶¶ 264, FIG.47. Spittle describes adjusting gains to each binaural earpiece based on sound source proximity to each ear. Id. at ¶ 916. Spittle also adjusts determining and applying synchronized compression gain settings for each earpiece. Id. at ¶¶ 576, 581–583, 585, 939, 993, 994, FIGs.20A, 20C.
“dividing the first input signal in a first main signal path into a plurality of frequency bands to generate frequency band components of the first input signal;
“applying the synchronized parameter in the first main signal path to the frequency band components as the signal components of the first input signal or applying the synchronized parameter to signal components derived from the frequency band components;
Similarly, Spittle describes splitting an audio signal into a set of spectral components and applying a multi-band compression gain to the components based on a synchronized parameter. Id. at ¶¶ 538, 576, 581–583, 585, 939, 993, 994, 1045, FIGs.20A, 20C.
“providing at least one of the first or second low-latency analysis by an analysis in a time domain or an analysis in a frequency domain or a time-frequency domain with a smaller number of frequency bands than the plurality of frequency bands in the first main signal path or a corresponding second main signal path of the second hearing instrument;
The use of the disjunctive “or” in this limitation, means that the limitation may be met by either a time-domain analysis or a frequency domain analysis or a time-frequency domain analysis. And in the event of a time-frequency domain analysis, this limitation requires performing the analysis with a smaller number of frequency bands than the plurality of frequency bands in the first main signal path or a corresponding second main signal path of the second hearing instrument.
Spittle describes performing either a time-domain analysis or a frequency-domain analysis. Spittle at ¶ 515. And in the frequency-domain analysis, Spittle describes transmitting a limited set of frequency bands between each binaural earpiece to reduce data transmission requirements by only transmitting bands with useful information. Id.
“detecting a transient in at least one of the first low-latency analysis or the second low-latency analysis; and
“determining, based on a detected transient, a switching value for a level reduction in the first main signal path by a predetermined amount as the first parameter or second parameter.”
Spittle describes a gain protection mechanism that detects transient loud sounds and accordingly applies a limiter to reduce gain to ensure the sound is reproduced at a maximum safe level. Id. at ¶¶ 592, 593, 657, 658, 661, 1051. Enabling the limiter determines a switching value (i.e., binary on) that will cause level reduction by a predetermined amount (i.e., infinite reduction for levels beyond a peak value). Id. (Cf. Spec. at p. 9 ll. 17–32 (describing the switching value as a binary 0 or 1 and describing the predetermined amount as a maximum reduction in the form of compression).
Table 1
For the foregoing reasons, the Spittle reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“which further comprises at least compensating for a second latency of the second low-latency analysis and a transmission time of the second parameter from the second hearing instrument to the first hearing instrument by a first latency of the division of the first input signal into the plurality of frequency bands in the first main signal path.”
Spittle describes a compensation plugin that maintains sync between each binaural earpiece based on the analysis performed in each earpiece, which one of ordinary skill would recognize includes Spittle’s frequency-domain analysis. Spittle at ¶ 269, 402, 470. For the foregoing reasons, the Spittle reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“which further comprises applying a delay between a reception of the second parameter of the second hearing instrument by the first hearing instrument and the application of the synchronized parameter to the signal components of the first input signal.”
Spittle likewise describes applying a delay to received data to maintain sync between both binaural earpieces. Spittle at ¶¶ 269, 669, 821, 883. For the foregoing reasons, the Spittle reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“which further comprises determining the synchronized parameter based on the first parameter and the second parameter by using at least one of a maximum value or a minimum value or averaging or summation.”
Similarly, Spittle determines synchronized parameters for each binaural earpiece by analyzing min, max and average values. Spittle at ¶¶ 516, 602, 604, 907, 991. In one example, audio in each earpiece is analyzed to detect loud sounds at one ear and quiet sounds at the other ear. Id. This allows for the synchronized passing of loud sounds while blocking the quiet sounds that will be masked. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Spittle reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 21 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“which further comprises determining the transient in the first low-latency analysis or in the second low-latency analysis by using an identification of a level increase of a predetermined minimum slope.”
Spittle detects loud transients by analyzing sample deltas, or slopes. Spittle at ¶ 661. Large sample deltas indicate a rapid rise in energy, associated with an ensuing loud sound, like a gunshot. For the foregoing reasons, the Spittle reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“which further comprises additionally carrying out the level reduction by the predetermined amount in the first main signal path in each of the plurality of frequency bands based on the respective signal components.”
Spittle describes protecting hearing in response to detected loud sounds by reducing gain in all affected frequency bands. Spittle at ¶¶ 593–594, 1045. For the foregoing reasons, the Spittle reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 23 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“A binaural hearing system, comprising: a first hearing instrument having at least one first input transducer; and a second hearing instrument having at least one second input transducer; the binaural hearing system being configured to carry out the method according to claim 13.”
The Spittle reference similarly describes a method for operating a binaural device, or hearing system, having an ear piece for each ear. Spittle at Abs. ¶¶ 182–188, 273, FIGs.1A, 7B. Each ear piece has its own microphone. Id. at ¶ 182, FIG.7B. For the foregoing reasons, the Spittle reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 24 depends on claim 23 and further requires the following:
“wherein the binaural hearing system is a binaural hearing aid, said first hearing instrument is a first local hearing aid and said second hearing instrument is a second local hearing aid.”
The Spittle reference similarly describes a method for operating a binaural device, or hearing system, having an ear piece for each ear. Spittle at Abs. ¶¶ 182–188, 273, FIGs.1A, 7B. Each ear piece has its own microphone. Id. at ¶ 182, FIG.7B. Each ear piece is configured to provide hearing aid functionality. Id. at ¶ 395, 713, 804, 913, 1023, 1024. For the foregoing reasons, the Spittle reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Obviousness
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Spittle.
Claim 18 depends on claim 16 and further requires the following:
“which further comprises selecting a number of the frequency bands of the second low-latency analysis to cause the second latency of the second low-latency analysis and the transmission time to correspond together to the first latency of the division of the first input signal into the plurality of frequency bands in the first main signal path.”
Spittle describes a compensation plugin that maintains sync between each binaural earpiece based on the analysis performed in each earpiece, which one of ordinary skill would recognize includes Spittle’s frequency-domain analysis. Spittle at ¶ 269, 402, 470. Spittle also describes transmitting a limited set of frequency bands between each binaural earpiece to reduce data transmission requirements by only transmitting bands with useful information. Spittle at ¶ 515. These teachings would have reasonably suggested selecting the max number of frequency bands for analysis so that the time taken to analyze those frequency bands and transmit results is on par with the time taken to split audio into spectral bands. For the foregoing reasons, the Spittle reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 13, 16–19 and 21–24 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (15 January 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at further includes comments pertaining to the rejections included in the preceding Non-Final Rejection (17 October 2025). While the comments relate to features in cancelled claims, since those features have been incorporated into claim 13, the comments are still relevant and have been considered in full.
Applicant comments that claim 13 now recites the limitation of cancelled claim 20. Applicant further comments that Spittle does not describe the detection of a transient in either a first or second low-latency analysis and does not determine a first parameter or second parameter based on a detected transient a switching value of a level reduction in a first main signal path by a predetermined amount. In particular, Applicant comments that Spittle’s gain protection mechanism is not synchronized between two binaural hearing aids. Applicant supports this view of Spittle by noting that the Spittle reference does not expressly state that the gain protection mechanism operates binaurally, unlike some other sections of the reference. Applicant also comments that Spittle’s gain protection mechanism basically relates to sound limiting and that there is no reason to apply such limiting binaurally. This view of the reference is not persuasive because it fails to account for Spittle’s major objective of synchronizing gain settings between two binaural hearing aids in order to preserve spatial cues. Spittle at ¶¶ 198, 269. In particular, Spittle states:
“Binaural processing system architecture—dual platform with inconsistency drifting: In some scenarios a binaural cue mismatch can be caused by independent processing at each ear. For example, the processing at the left ear may detect that additional level control and noise reduction is needed. This can cause additional plugins and signal processing components to be activated that introduce additional latency, amplitude modifications and spectral coloring of the audio at the left ear. If this is instantiated without passing information to the right ear, there will potentially be a significant mismatch in binaural cues between the left and right ears.”
Spittle at ¶ 269. This passage plainly indicates that unilateral processing is to be avoided. Based on this fact, one of ordinary skill would not have reasonably interpreted Spittle as performing Spittle’s gain protection mechanism in a unilateral way. Rather, one of ordinary skill would have understood that if gain protection is triggered in a left ear, the left ear will supply information about that operation to the right ear so that the right ear hearing aid can take corrective actions to preserve spatial cues between the left and right ear—namely, adjusting gain applied to the right ear to preserve interaural level differences or delaying signal processing to preserve interaural timing differences.
It is important to note that the claim does not require reducing gains equally between a left and right hearing aid when a transient occurs. All that is required is determining and applying a synchronized parameter in each of a first and second hearing aid based on either a first and second parameter. If the first parameter is a switching value (i.e., a binary on/off signal) the first and second hearing aids can use that information in the same manner or differently. For instance, both the first hearing aid and second hearing aid may enable a limiter to reduce gain infinitely to signals above a threshold. Alternatively, the first hearing aid may enable the limiter while the second hearing aid simply delays its processed signals to preserve time alignment with the first hearing aid.
Applicant further comments that concerning cancelled claim 15, which has been added to claim 1, that Spittle has no explicit disclosure in ¶ 515 concerning binaural processing. For similar reasons as expressed above, this ignores the entire context of the Spittle reference, which is largely directed towards providing binaural hearing solutions that maintain binaural cues in part by performing low-latency analyses in each of a left and right hearing aid and sharing results of those analyses between the two hearing aids so the hearing aids can operate in sync. Spittle at ¶¶ 3, 194–198, 269.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant has not persuasively established any error in the Office action. All the rejections will be maintained.
Additional Citations
The following table lists additional documents identified during a search of this Application. While this Office action does not rely on these documents as references, they are relevant to the subject matter disclosed and claimed in this Application. Applicant is advised to consider these documents carefully in preparing a response.
Citation
Relevance
US 2004/0234079
Shock protection. Reduces gain based on a predetermined value.
Table 2
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
3/5/2026