00DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing of application no. 18/432,779 on 03/05/2026.
Claims 21 – 40 are still pending in this application, with claims 21, 28 and 35 being independent.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,750,301. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The claim mapping is as follows.
Current Application
21. (Previously Presented) A method, comprising: obtaining data indicative of respective responses for a plurality of respective responses respectively evoked based on respective different electrical stimulation signals of a medical device; and configuring the medical device based on the obtained data by implementing an adjustment to the medical device that results in the medical device generating an electrical stimulation signal that is different from that which was and/or would have been generated for a given input prior to the adjustment, the configuring of the medical device based on data based on respective responses for other electrical stimulation signals.
35. (Previously Presented) A system, comprising: a sub-system configured to obtain statistical response data ;a sub-system configured to obtain medical device recipient-specific data for a plurality of different inputs having at least some inputs corresponding to those of the statistical response data; and a sub-system configured to configure a medical device based on the obtained statistical response data and the obtained recipient-specific data.
US 10,750,301
1. A method, comprising: obtaining data indicative of respective perceived loudness levels for a plurality of hearing percepts respectively evoked at different current levels; creating a map for a hearing prosthesis based on the obtained data by adjusting at least one of the respective current levels of the different current levels based on data of a respective perceived loudness for another current level; and configuring the hearing prosthesis to have the created map.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein: the action of adjusting at least one of the respective current levels includes increasing the at least one of the respective current levels to an amount that is at least one of at the another current level or at an extrapolated value from the another current level.
4.The method of claim 3, further comprising: creating the map for the hearing prosthesis based on the obtained data by adjusting at least one other of the respective current levels based on data of a respective perceived loudness for another current level different from that upon which the at least one of the respective current levels was adjusted; and adjusting the least one other of the respective current levels by decreasing the at least one other of the respective current levels to an amount that is at least one of at or is an extrapolated value from the another current level different from that upon which the at least one of the respective current levels was adjusted.
13. A fitting system, comprising: a sub-system configured to obtain statistical perceived loudness data; a sub-system configured to obtain hearing prosthesis recipient-specific loudness data for a plurality of different stimulus having at least some loudness levels corresponding to those of the statistical perceived loudness data; and a sub-system configured to configure a hearing prosthesis based on the obtained statistical data and the obtained recipient-specific loudness data, wherein the sub-system configured to configure the hearing prosthesis is configured to adjust at least one current level setting of the hearing prosthesis by at least one of: increasing the at least one of the respective current level setting to an amount that is at least proximate to another current level; or increasing the at least one of the respective current level setting to an amount that is at least one of at the another current level or at an extrapolated value from the another current level.
As shown above, claim 4 of US 10, 750,301 anticipates claim 21 of the current application. Thus, claim 21 of the current application and claim 4 of US 10,750,301 are obvious variants.
As shown above, claim 13 of US 10, 750,301 anticipates claim 35 of the current application. Thus, claim 35 of the current application and claim 13 of US 10,750,301 are obvious variants.
Claims 21 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,743. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The claim mapping is as follows.
Current Application
21. (Previously Presented) A method, comprising: obtaining data indicative of respective responses for a plurality of respective responses respectively evoked based on respective different electrical stimulation signals of a medical device; and configuring the medical device based on the obtained data by implementing an adjustment to the medical device that results in the medical device generating an electrical stimulation signal that is different from that which was and/or would have been generated for a given input prior to the adjustment, the configuring of the medical device based on data based on respective responses for other electrical stimulation signals.
35. (Previously Presented) A system, comprising: a sub-system configured to obtain statistical response data ;a sub-system configured to obtain medical device recipient-specific data for a plurality of different inputs having at least some inputs corresponding to those of the statistical response data; and a sub-system configured to configure a medical device based on the obtained statistical response data and the obtained recipient-specific data.
US 11,902,743
1. A method, comprising: obtaining data indicative of respective perceived loudnesses for a plurality of hearing percepts respectively evoked based on different stimulation signals of a hearing device; creating a program for the hearing device based on the obtained data by adjusting at least one of the respective stimulation signals based on data of a respective perceived loudness for other stimulation signals; and configuring the hearing device to have the created program, wherein the action of obtaining data includes obtaining a loudness scaling test dataset.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein: the action of adjusting at least one of the respective current levels includes increasing the at least one of the respective current levels to an amount that is at least one of at the another current level or at an extrapolated value from the another current level.
10. A fitting system, comprising: a sub-system configured to obtain statistical perceived loudness data; a sub-system configured to obtain hearing device recipient-specific loudness data for a plurality of different stimulus having at least some loudness levels corresponding to those of the statistical perceived loudness data; and a sub-system configured to configure a hearing device based on the obtained statistical data and the obtained recipient-specific loudness data, wherein the fitting system is configured to configure the hearing device based on the obtained statistical data and the obtained recipient-specific loudness data by adjusting an output energy level of the hearing device based on a respective recipient-specific loudness data for another output energy level, wherein the adjusted output energy level is at or proximate the another output energy level.
As shown above, claim 3 of US 11,902,743 anticipates claim 21 of the current application. Thus, claim 21 of the current application and claim 3 of US 11,902,743 are obvious variants.
As shown above, claim10 of US 11,902,743 anticipates claim 35 of the current application. Thus, claim 35 of the current application and claim 10 of US 11,902,743 are obvious variants.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 39 depends from itself- 39. (New) The system of claim 39. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franck (US 2004/0152946).
As to claim 21, Franck discloses a method (Abstract), comprising:
obtaining data indicative of respective responses for a plurality of respective responses respectively evoked based on respective different electrical stimulation signals of a medical device (neural prosthesis selected from the group consisting of a hearing prosthesis, vision prosthesis, tactile sensation prosthesis, olfactory prosthesis, gustatory prosthesis, [0098] [0116 - 0120]) (A user’s response to an electrical (neural/test sound) stimulus is obtained., [0081] [0084 – 0090] [0092] [0096] [0097 – 0099] [0108 – 0113] [0133 – 0138] [0175 – 0179] [0181 – 0183]); and configuring the medical device based on the obtained data by implementing an adjustment to the medical device that results in the medical device generating an electrical stimulation signal that is different from that which was and/or would have been generated for a given input prior to the adjustment (The neural prosthesis, cochlear implant, is fitted/adjusted based on user’s responses/perceptions evoked based on different electrical stimulation signals. The fitting/adjustment involves adjustment of the base amplitude or intensity of the various neural stimuli generated by the ICS from the factory settings or default values to values that are most effective and comfortable for the patient.., [0114] [0116] [0117] [0119 ] [0120 – 0122] [0127] [0129] [0153] [0154] [0180] [0184]), the configuring of the medical device based on data based on respective responses for other electrical stimulation signals (A verification of the adjustment is based on responses to test stimuli presented to the user., [0129 – 0144]).
As to claim 22, Franck further teaches, wherein: the respective responses for the plurality of respective responses are respective perceived sensations for a plurality of respective sensory percepts ([0108 – 0113] [0133 – 0138] [0175 – 0179] [0181 – 0183]).
As to claim 23, Franck further teaches, wherein: the adjustment is the loading and/or adjustment of a program into the medical device ([0127] [0130] [0175- 0184]).
As to claim 25, Franck further teaches, wherein: the generated electrical stimulation signal stimulates tissue of a recipient of the medical device in the head of the recipient ([0098] [0116 - 0120]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franck (US 2004/0152946) in view of Mertes (Cochlear Implants — Considerations in Programming for the Pediatric Population).
For claim 24, Franck further discloses the following: configuring the medical device includes configuring the medical device so that the updated settings are different than the initial settings ([0120] [0121]).
Yet, Franck fails to teach that the updated settings comprise the generation of an electrical stimulation signal that has a lower current level relative to that which would have otherwise been generated for the given input.
However, Mertes discloses a method for programming cochlear implants for a pediatric population (Introduction), comprising the following: a cochlear implant is subsequently re-programmed to generate lower stimulation levels to improve sound quality and auditory skills when original map settings may have been inappropriate (Overstimulation, Case Studie: Case Study One and Case Study Two).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve Franck’s invention in the same way that Mertes’ invention has been improved to achieve the predictable results of the updated settings further comprising the generation of an electrical stimulation signal that has a lower current level relative to that which would have otherwise been generated for the given input for the purpose of improving the sound quality of the medical device when original map settings may have been inappropriate.
For claim 26, Franck further discloses the following: configuring the medical device includes configuring the medical device so that the updated settings are different than the initial settings and based on the other electrical stimulation signals (The other electrical stimulation signals further include those generated during the threshold perception tests, [0120] [0121] [0146 – 0153] [0181 – 0183]).
Yet, Franck fails to teach that the updated settings comprise the generation of an electrical stimulation signal that has a lower current level relative to that which would have otherwise been generated for the given input, the lower current level being at least one of another current level of the other electrical stimulation signals or an extrapolated value from another current level of the respective other electrical stimulation signals.
However, Mertes discloses a method for programming cochlear implants for a pediatric population (Introduction), comprising the following: a cochlear implant is subsequently re-programmed to generate lower stimulation levels to improve sound quality and auditory skills when original map settings may have been inappropriate (Overstimulation, Case Studie: Case Study One and Case Study Two).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve Franck’s invention in the same way that Mertes’ invention has been improved to achieve the following, predictable results for the purpose of improving the sound quality of the medical device when original map settings may have been inappropriate: the updated settings further comprising the generation of an electrical stimulation signal that has a lower current level relative to that which would have otherwise been generated for the given input, the lower current level being based on at least one of another other electrical stimulation signals, e.g. the current level of the another electrical stimulation signal or an extrapolated value from another current level of the respective other electrical stimulation signals.
Claim(s) 27 – 31, 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franck (US 2004/0152946) in view of Francart et al. (“Development of a loudness normalisation strategy for combined cochlear implant and acoustic stimulation”).
For claim 27, Franck fails to teach, wherein: the configuring of the medical device causes the medical device to generate an electrical stimulation signal for a given input that causes a response that is statistically significantly identical to a response for a statistically normal person who is not in need of the medical device.
However, Francart discloses a loudness normalizations strategy (Abstract), comprising the following: a medical device is configured to cause the medical device to generate an electrical stimulation signal for a given input that causes a response that is statistically significantly identical to a response for a statistically normal person who is not in need of the medical device (Loudness models for normal hearing and cochlear implant are generated. The loudness models are applied to a pattern of electrical impulses generated from an acoustic signal. The electrical patterns adjusted by the loudness models are applied to the cochlear implant, 2. The SCORE bimodal strategy: signal processing 2.1. Overview, 2.2 ACE, 2.4 SCORE, pg. 115 – 117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve Franck’s invention in the same way that Francart’s invention has been improved to achieve the following, predictable results for the purpose of improving the medical device so that the loudness perception of a user of the medical device is similar to those with normal hearing: the stimulation signals provided to medical device while configuring the device are further generated by converting acoustic signals to electrical patterns and applying loudness models (normal hearing, cochlear implant); and these stimulation signals are further used to configure the medical device to cause the medical device to generate an electrical stimulation signal for a given input that causes a response that is statistically significantly identical to a response for a statistically normal person who is not in need of the medical device.
For claim 28, Franck discloses a method (Abstract), comprising: obtaining data indicative of respective responses for a plurality of responses respectively experienced due to respective different inputs (acoustic signals, [0007]) having respective first different input levels, wherein the respective responses are evoked with respective different energy outputs (electrical stimulation to evoke different pitches, [0007]) of a medical device (neural prosthesis selected from the group consisting of a hearing prosthesis, vision prosthesis, tactile sensation prosthesis, olfactory prosthesis, gustatory prosthesis, [0098] [0116 - 0120])(A user’s response to an electrical (neural/test sound) stimulus is obtained., [0081] [0084 – 0090] [0092] [0096] [0097 – 0099] [0108 – 0113] [0133 – 0138] [0175 – 0179] [0181 – 0183]); and configuring the medical device to automatically output stimulation, in response to input into the medical device having respective second different input levels corresponding to the respective first different input levels, at respective new different energy levels different from those used to evoke the respective responses, for respective new respective inputs having the respective first different input levels (The neural prosthesis, cochlear implant, is fitted/adjusted based on user’s responses/perceptions evoked based on different electrical stimulation signals. The fitting/adjustment involves adjustment of the base amplitude or intensity of the various neural stimuli generated by the ICS from the factory settings or default values to values that are most effective and comfortable for the patient.., [0114] [0116] [0117] [0119 ] [0120 – 0122] [0127] [0129] [0153] [0154] [0180] [0184]).
Yet, Franck fails to teach the following: obtaining data indicative of input levels of a representative dataset for the respective different inputs having the respective different first input levels; and configuring the medical device based on the obtained data indicative of the input levels.
However, Francart discloses a loudness normalization strategy (Abstract), comprising the following: obtaining data indicative of input levels of a representative dataset for a respective different inputs having a respective different first input level (Loudness models for normal hearing and cochlear implants are obtained, 2. The SCORE bimodal strategy: signal processing, 2.4 Score, pg. 115 – 116); and a medical device (cochlear implant) is configured to cause the medical device to generate an electrical stimulation signal for a given input based on the obtained data indicative of the input levels (Loudness models for normal hearing and cochlear implant are generated. The loudness models are applied to a pattern of electrical impulses generated from an acoustic signal. The electrical patterns adjusted by the loudness models are applied to the cochlear implant, 2. The SCORE bimodal strategy: signal processing 2.1. Overview, 2.2 ACE, 2.4 SCORE, pg. 115 – 117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve Franck’s invention in the same way that Francart’s invention has been improved to achieve the following, predictable results for the purpose of improving the configuring process so that the loudness perception of a user of the medical device is similar to those with normal hearing: further obtaining data indicative of input levels of a representative dataset for a respective different inputs having a respective different first input level; and further configuring the medical device based on the obtained data indicative of the input levels by converting acoustic signals to electrical patterns, applying loudness models (normal hearing, cochlear implant) and applying these patterns to the medical device during the fitting process.
For claim 29, Franck further discloses, wherein: the respective responses are subjective responses of a recipient of the medical device (Franck, [0108 – 0113] [0133 – 0138] [0175 – 0179] [0181 – 0183]).
For claim 30, Franck further discloses, wherein: respective responses are sensory percepts ([0098] [0098] [0116 - 0120] [0108 – 0113] [0133 – 0138] [0175 – 0179] [0181 – 0183]); and the respective different inputs have respective different energy levels (Franck, [0081] [0084 – 0090] [0092] [0096] [0097 – 0099] [0108 – 0113] [0133 – 0138] [0175 – 0179] [0181 – 0183]).
For claim 31, Franck and Francart further disclose, wherein: the stimulation that is automatically outputted results in a response by a recipient of the medical device that is different from a statistical response which would occur in a statistically significant population for the input into the medical device having the respective second different input levels (A hearing impaired person has a different loudness perception than a statistically significant population of people with normal hearing) (Franck, [0081] [0084 – 0090] [0092] [0096] [0097 – 0099] [0108 – 0113] [0133 – 0138] [0175 – 0179] [0181 – 0183]) (Francart, 1. Introduction).
For claim 33, Franck and Francart further disclose, wherein: the new different energy levels are energy levels that result in new responses that correspond to statistically based representative responses for the first different input levels (Franck, [0081] [0084 – 0090] [0092] [0096] [0097 – 0099] [0108 – 0113] [0133 – 0138] [0175 – 0179] [0181 – 0183]) (Francart, 2. The SCORE bimodal strategy: signal processing 2.1. Overview, 2.2 ACE, 2.4 SCORE, pg. 115 – 117).
For claim 34, Franck and Francart further disclose, wherein: the new different energy levels evoke respective responses that correspond to responses that statistically would occur based on data of the representative dataset (Franck, [0081] [0084 – 0090] [0092] [0096] [0097 – 0099] [0108 – 0113] [0133 – 0138] [0175 – 0179] [0181 – 0183]) (Francart, 2. The SCORE bimodal strategy: signal processing 2.1. Overview, 2.2 ACE, 2.4 SCORE, pg. 115 – 117).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franck (US 2004/0152946) in view of Francart et al. (“Development of a loudness normalisation strategy for combined cochlear implant and acoustic stimulation”) and further in view of Mertes (Cochlear Implants — Considerations in Programming for the Pediatric Population).
For claim 32, the combination of Franck and Francart fails to teach the following:
the new different energy levels are respectively lower than respective prior energy levels used to evoke the respective responses.
However, Mertes discloses a method for programming cochlear implants for a pediatric population (Introduction), comprising the following: a cochlear implant is subsequently re-programmed to generate lower stimulation levels to improve sound quality and auditory skills when original map settings may have been inappropriate (Overstimulation, Case Studie: Case Study One and Case Study Two).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve the invention disclosed by the combination of Franck and Francart in the same way that Mertes’ invention has been improved to achieve the predictable results of the updated settings further comprising the generation of an electrical stimulation signal that has a lower current level relative to that which would have otherwise been generated for the given input for the purpose of improving the sound quality of the medical device when original map settings may have been inappropriate.
Claims 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn et al. (US 2014/0211971) (“Sohn”) in view of Robinson et al. (“Threshold of Hearing and Equal-Loudness Relations for Pure Tones, and the Loudness Function”) (“Robinson”) (cited in parent application) and further in view of Mano (US 2013/0085762).
For claim 35, Sohn discloses a fitting system (Abstract), comprising: a sub-system (sound compensation device of hearing loss compensation apparatus, Fig.1, 120 and Fig.6, 620) configured to obtain equal loudness data ([0070 – 0074] [0080] [0081] [0084]); a sub-system (hearing characteristic measurement apparatus, Fig.2, 110) configured to obtain medical device (hearing loss compensation device worn on an ear of the hearing loss patient, [0005] [0006]) recipient-specific data for a plurality of different stimulus having at least some loudness levels corresponding to those of the equal loudness data ([0047 – 0055] [0058- 0065] [0070 – 0074] [0086] [0088 – 0097]); and a sub-system (hearing characteristic measurement apparatus and sound compensation device of hearing loss compensation apparatus, Fig.1, 120, Fig.2, 110 and Fig.6, 620) configured to configure the medical device based on the obtained equal loudness data and the obtained recipient-specific data ([0047 – 0055] [0058- 0065] [0070 – 0074] [0080] [0081] [0084] [0086] [0088 – 0097]). Yet, Sohn fails to teach the following: the equal loudness data is statistical response data.
However, Robinson discloses a method for determining equal-loudness relations for pure tones (Abstract), wherein equal loudness contours are generated by a statistically significant population of normal hearers (observers) (Equal Loudness Relations for Pure Tones, and Loudness Function and Fig.8, pg.1286 and 1287).
Furthermore, Mano discloses an audio encoding system and method (Abstract), wherein equal loudness contours represent a listener’s response to a sound ([0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Sohn’s teaching’s with Robinson’s teachings so that the equal loudness data is generated by a statistically significant population of normal hearers (observers) for the purpose of effectively compensating for hearing loss so that hearing approximates normal hearing (Sohn, [0005] [0006]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify the combined teachings of Sohn and Robinson with Mano’s teachings so that the equal loudness data is response data, such that the statistical equal loudness data is statistical response data for the purpose of effectively compensating for hearing loss so that hearing approximates normal hearing (Sohn, [0005] [0006]).
For claim 36, Sohn, Robinson and Mano further disclose wherein: the statistical response data is magnitude related data (Sohn, [0070 – 0074] [0080] [0081] [0084]) (Robinson, Equal Loudness Relations for Pure Tones, and Loudness Function and Fig.8, pg.1286 and 1287) (Mano, [0011]).
Claims 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn et al. (US 2014/0211971) (“Sohn”) in view of Robinson et al. (“Threshold of Hearing and Equal-Loudness Relations for Pure Tones, and the Loudness Function”) (“Robinson”) (cited in parent application), and further in view of Mano (US 2013/0085762) and further in view of Ishige et al. (US 6,094,489) (“Ishige”).
For claim 37, the combination Sohn, Robinson and Mano further discloses, wherein: the sub-system configured to configure the medical device configures the medical device to compensate a sound so that the response (loudness perceived by the recipient) by a recipient of the medical device to the compensated sound is statistically the same as that indicated by the obtained statistical response data for the given input (Sohn, [0070 – 0074] [0080 – 0085]) (Robinson, Equal Loudness Relations for Pure Tones, and Loudness Function and Fig.8, pg.1286 and 1287) (Mano, [0011]).
Yet, the combination of Sohn, Robinson and Mano fails to teach that the sound compensation comprises outputting energy at a higher level from that previously outputted for a given input.
However, Ishige discloses a digital hearing aid (Abstract), comprising the following: gain is applied to a signal generated by the hearing aid so that the signal is output at a higher level from that previously output for a given input so that the sound is statistically the same as that indicated by the obtained statistical response data for the given input (column 9 lines 37 – column 10 line 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve the invention disclosed by the combination of Sohn, Robinson and Mano in the same way that Ishige’s invention has been improved to achieve the following, predictable results for the purpose of effectively compensating for hearing loss so that hearing approximates normal hearing (Sohn, [0005] [0006]): the sound compensation further comprises applying gain so that the energy (sound) is output at a higher level from that previously outputted for a given input.
Claims 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn et al. (US 2014/0211971) (“Sohn”) in view of Robinson et al. (“Threshold of Hearing and Equal-Loudness Relations for Pure Tones, and the Loudness Function”) (“Robinson”) (cited in parent application), and further in view of Mano (US 2013/0085762) and further in view of Swartz (US 2005/0094822).
For claim 38, the combination of Sohn, Robinson and Mano further discloses, wherein: the system automatically stores first data of the obtained recipient-specific data and second data of the obtained statistical response to configure the medical device (Sohn).
Yet, the combination of Sohn, Robinson and Mano fails to teach the following: the first data and second data are automatically correlated to determine control settings, wherein these control settings are used to configure the device.
However, Swartz discloses a listener specific audio reproduction system (Abstract), comprising the following: first recipient-specific data and second statistical response data is correlated to form control settings (An equalizer gain profile is generated based on normal hearing characteristics and a measured hearing capability of user, [0031]); and the control settings are used to configure a device (The equalizer gain configures the devices sound reproduction functionality., [0031 – 0038] [0041 – 0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to improve the invention disclosed by the combination of Sohn, Robinson and Mano in the same way that Swartz’s invention has been improved to achieve the following, predictable results for the purpose of effectively compensating for hearing loss so that hearing approximates normal hearing (Sohn, [0005] [0006]) (Swartz): the first data and second data are automatically correlated to determine control settings, wherein these control settings are used to configure the device to perform sound compensation either in-situ using the first and second data (Sohn, [0100 – 0106]) or using a pre-defined gain profile generated based on the first and second data.
For claim 39, Sohn, Robinson, Mano and Swartz further disclose, wherein: the first data corresponds to respective first responses by a recipient of the medical device to respective first stimulation levels output by the medical device based on respective first magnitudes of respective first inputs (Sohn, [0086 – 0099])(Swartz, [0031]); the second data corresponds to respective second responses by people other than the recipient of the medical device to respective magnitudes of first inputs (Sohn, [0086 – 0099]) (Robinson, Equal Loudness Relations for Pure Tones, and Loudness Function and Fig.8, pg.1286 and 1287) (Mano, [0011]) (Swartz, [0031]); and the first data and the second data has been obtained by the system (Sohn, [0080 – 0084])(Swartz, [0031]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Franck (US 2005/0055069)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONIA L GAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/SONIA L GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights