DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed toward a mental process or a method of organizing human activity, as they recite steps of presenting options, playing audio according to the options, and keeping track of the option selections. For example, claim 1 involves listening to different version of audio qualities, receiving selections of which version is preferred, and tracking the chosen version with corresponding parameters on paper over time to determine which version of parameters is preferred by users. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional generic computer elements such as a processor and memory claimed are used as a tool to implement an otherwise abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and the generically recited computer elements, such as the processor, memory, and computer readable media, previously known to the industry, do not make the claim eligible subject matter.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,386. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant set of claims are generally broader than the patented claims, with wording variations. Both result in playing audio content according to selected/counted option, with each option being different from other options provided.
Instant application
Patent No. 11,785,386
1. A computer-implemented method for configuring audio parameters comprising: performing a first round of option selection by: determining a first set of options for setting one or more audio parameters;
for each first pair of options in the first set of options: outputting a demonstration audio content with the one or more audio parameters set according to a first option of the first pair of options;
outputting the demonstration audio content with the one or more audio parameters set according to a second option of the first pair of options;
receiving a selection of the first option or the second option; incrementing a count associated with the selected one of the first option or the second option; determining which option in the first set of options has a highest count; and
playing audio content based on values for the one or more audio parameters associated with the option having the highest count.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining demonstration audio content having a broad range of audio properties;
outputting audio corresponding to the demonstration audio content via an audio output device with an equalization setting automatically set according to a first setting option, wherein the first setting option has a same value as a first equalization setting, wherein the equalization setting comprises a setting for at least one of a treble or a bass frequency range; and
outputting audio corresponding to the demonstration audio content via the audio output device with the equalization setting automatically set according to a second setting option, wherein the second setting option has a first value different than the first equalization setting;
upon presenting the first setting option and the second setting option via a user interface, receiving a selection of one of the first setting option or the second setting option; based on the selection of one of the first setting option or the second setting option via the user interface: outputting audio corresponding to the demonstration audio content via the audio output device with the equalization setting automatically set according to a third setting option, wherein the third setting option has a same value as a second equalization setting, wherein the second equalization setting is different from the first equalization setting, and wherein the second equalization setting depends on the selection of the first setting option or the second setting option; and outputting audio corresponding to the demonstration audio content via the audio output device with the equalization setting automatically set according to a fourth setting option, wherein the fourth setting option has a second value different than the second equalization setting; setting the equalization setting based on a selection of one of the third setting option or the fourth setting option, the selection being received via the user interface; and outputting an audio content item via the audio output device based on the set equalization setting.
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.
Claims 12 and 19 are 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. It is unclear when the performance of the additional rounds of option selection stops.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2019/0356989) in view of Chen (US 2010/0042949).
Claim 1
Li teaches a computer-implemented method for configuring audio parameters comprising:
performing a first round of option selection by: determining a first set of options for setting one or more audio parameters ([0120] In one variation, the system can prompt the user to manually adjust gain level settings of select frequencies, such as through an interface rendered within the system. In this variation, the system can render an interface including slider icons that the user may toggle to manually increase and/or decrease the gain level of a particular frequency. The system can render a set of sliders configured to increase and/or decrease the gain level of a subset of frequencies—distributed at intervals across a spectrum of frequencies (e.g., between 125 Hz and 8,000 Hz)—in response to input by the user.);
for each first pair of options in the first set of options: outputting a demonstration audio content with the one or more audio parameters set according to a first option of the first pair of options (for example, first test hearing profile in Fig. 1; [0008], accessing a first soundbite comprising a first spoken phrase characterized by a first frequency spectrum predominantly within a first frequency band in the set of frequency bands in Block S120; playing the first soundbite amplified by a first gain in the first frequency band in Block S130);
outputting the demonstration audio content with the one or more audio parameters set according to a second option of the first pair of options (for example, second test hearing profile in Fig. 1; [0008], playing the first soundbite amplified by a second gain in the first frequency band different from the first gain in Block S140);
receiving a selection of the first option or the second option ([0008], receiving a first preference input representing a preference of the user from amongst the first soundbite amplified by the first gain in the first frequency band and the first soundbite amplified by the second gain in the first frequency band in Block S150);
incrementing a count associated with the selected one of the first option or the second option; determining which option in the first set of options has a highest count; and playing audio content based on values for the one or more audio parameters associated with the option having the highest count ([0019] The system and the hearing assistance device can cooperate to repeat this process during the on-device hearing assessment and/or throughout many hearing assessments with the user over time in order to converge on a hearing profile that, when executed by the hearing assistance device, amplifies an input audio signal into an output audio signal that is more audible to the user. [0072], Thus, over multiple iterations of the hearing assessment process (i.e. Blocks S120, S130, S140, and S150) the system can transform the baseline hearing profile of the user by converging upon the refined (and more preferred) hearing profile for the user. [0076] Upon receiving a repeated preference input (e.g., greater than a threshold number of preference inputs) for a current hearing profile, the system can cease the hearing assessment process for the assessed frequency band and select the current gain level as the gain level of the refined hearing profile for the assessed frequency band.).
Still Li may not explicitly detail incrementing a count associated with each selected option.
Chen teaches [0021] In block S240, the visit condition recording module 140 detects visit conditions of each menu option and each sub-menu option, adds a predetermined value to the visit count of a menu option or a sub-menu option in response to each visit to the menu option or the sub-menu option, [0022] In block S250, the determining module 150 determines the visit count of each menu option, the visit count of each sub-menu option at the end of the sorting period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate menu management system as taught by Chen with the hearing evaluation method of Li, because doing so would have provided a way to sort the menu options and sub-menu options of each of the menu options according to the current values of the parameters of each record and each sub-record in a predetermined sorting period (abstract of Chen).
Claim 2
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more audio parameters include one or more of a bass level, a treble level, a frequency response level for a frequency band, or an audio equalization value ([0027] of Li, the system can apply the hearing profile to its own audio outputs, such as by modifying a stored or streamed audio signal according to the frequency response indicated by a hearing profile (such as by applying the hearing profile to stored soundbites or live telephone audio). ).
Claim 3
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein values of each of the one or more audio parameters are values relative to a corresponding baseline value ([0072] of Li, Initially, the system generates the first test hearing profile and the second test hearing profile based on the baseline hearing profile for the user.).
Claim 4
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining demographic information of a user; and setting initial values for the one or more audio parameters based on the demographic information ([0010] of Li, More specifically, the system can execute the method S100 to: generate a baseline hearing profile approximately compensating for hearing deficiency of the user based on user's demographic data and an initial hearing test).
Claim 5
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more audio parameters comprises a plurality of audio parameters; and determining the first set of options comprises determining a set of value combinations for the plurality of audio parameters that include combinations values of the plurality of audio parameters across ranges of possible values for the plurality of audio parameters ([0091] of Li, [0091] The system can also enable the user to manually adjust discrete points of the curve—such as corresponding to whispers (20-30 dB), normal speaking voice (60-700 dB) loud noises such as construction drills or jackhammers (greater than 90 dB)—to adjust the volume of singular frequencies or sub-ranges of frequencies within the audible range. [0118] In another example, the system can increase volumes of discrete frequency ranges (e.g., by 10 decibels) in discrete intervals (e.g., every 50 Hz) across the audible spectrum or across the vocal spectrum in a series of soundbites and upload original and modified versions of these soundbites to the hearing assistance device. The hearing assistance device can then process original and modified versions of these soundbites according to the refined hearing profile currently stored on the hearing assistance device when replaying these soundbites for the user.).
Claim 6
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more audio parameters comprises a plurality of audio parameters; and options in the first set of options include a third option in a matrix of options and each option adjacent to the third option in the matrix of options (See for example, third and fourth test gain in Fig. 4B of Li).
Claim 7
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein an option is adjacent to the third option in the matrix of options when the option is located horizontally, vertically, or diagonally next to the third option (See for example, third adjacent to fourth test gain in Fig. 4B of Li).
Claim 8
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein each option in the matrix of options includes a combination of values for each of the plurality of audio parameters that represent predefined increments relative to respective initial values of the plurality of audio parameters (See Fig. 4B of Li with different test gains relative to the baseline gain; [0009], a first hearing profile for a user comprising a first set of gain values, each gain value in the first set of gain values corresponding to a frequency band in a set of frequency bands spanning human audible range and characterized by a first gain value in the first set of gain values corresponding to a first frequency band ).
Claim 9
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to determining that another round of options is to be presented, performing a second round of option selection by: selecting a second set of options for setting the one or more audio parameters, the second set of options including the option having the highest count and each option in a matrix of options adjacent to the option having the highest count that was not rejected in the first round of object selection (Examiner notes claim 1 makes no mention of rejecting option in the first round of object selection); for each second pair of options in the second set of options: outputting the demonstration audio content with the one or more audio parameters set according to a third option of the second pair of options; outputting the demonstration audio content with the one or more audio parameters set according to a fourth option of the second pair of options; receiving a selection of the third option or the fourth option; and incrementing a count associated with the selected one of the third option or the fourth option; and determining which option in the second set of options has the highest count (See [0072] Li, Thus, over multiple iterations of the hearing assessment process (i.e. Blocks S120, S130, S140, and S150) the system can transform the baseline hearing profile of the user by converging upon the refined (and more preferred) hearing profile for the user. [0079] the system can update the current hearing profile of the user to match the test hearing profile corresponding to the test soundbite for which the user expressed a preference, thereby descending the binary search tree with each iteration of the hearing assessment process. In a subsequent iteration of the hearing assessment process, the system can then generate two additional test hearing profiles based on the leaf nodes of the new current node in the binary search tree. [0082] Thus, the system can: based on a first preference input representing a user's preference for a soundbite amplified by a second gain in the frequency band, as opposed to the soundbite amplified by a first gain in the frequency band: play the first soundbite amplified by a third gain in the first frequency band different from the first gain and the second gain, wherein the third gain is based on the second gain; play the first soundbite amplified by a fourth gain in the first frequency band different from the first gain, the second gain, and the third gain, wherein the fourth gain is based on the second gain; and receive a second preference input representing the user's preference from amongst the first soundbite amplified by the third gain in the first frequency band and the first soundbite amplified by the fourth gain in the first frequency band; and modify the first gain value corresponding to the first frequency band of the baseline hearing profile for the user based on the second preference input to generate the first refined hearing profile.).
Claim 10
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein determining that another round of options is to be presented comprises determining that there is at least one option adjacent to the option having the highest count in the matrix of options that was not rejected in the first round of object selection ([0080] of Li, However, the system can execute the hearing assessment process for other frequency bands in the set of frequency bands spanning the human-audible frequency range.).
Claim 11
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein an option that was not selected at least once in the first round of option selection is a rejected option (for example, the second soundbite is the rejected option in [0115] of Li, The computing device can then prompt the user to select which of the first soundbite and the second soundbite the user prefers or can hear more clearly. In the foregoing example, if the “ess” phoneme in “The boy was there when the sun rose” is clear in the first soundbite but too loud in the second soundbite, the user can indicate a preference for the first soundbite in the user portal;).
Claim 12
The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising continuing to perform additional rounds of option selection until each option in the matrix of options that adjacent to an option having a highest count in a previous round of option selection was not selected during the previous round of option selection ([0081] of Li, In implementations wherein the system executes the hearing assessment process according to the above-described A/B testing procedure, the system can update the current hearing profile of the user to match the test hearing profile upon receiving a user preference for the soundbite amplified according to the test hearing profile (as opposed to a user preference for the current hearing profile). If the system receives repeated preferences from the user for the current hearing profile, then the system can cease executing the hearing assessment test for the assessed frequency. [0092] of Li, As the system executes multiple iterations of the hearing assessment over a set of frequency bands, the system refines the baseline hearing profile of the user until the process is complete (as described above) and/or the user indicates that she is satisfied with the current hearing profile. The system can then record the current hearing profile of the user as the refined hearing profile of the user or generate the refined hearing profile for the user in Block S160.).
Claim 13
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 1 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 3 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 4 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 9 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 10 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 11 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 12 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20
This claim recites substantially the same limitations as those provided in claim 1 above, and therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS H MAUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm, EST.
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 R. Edwards can be reached at 1-(571) 2707136. 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.
/THOMAS H MAUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692