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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/7/2023, 10/12/2023, 7/18/2024, 12/8/2025, and 12/9/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 25 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 25, line 3, “a type off each” should be – a type of each--.
In claim 37, line 3, “a type off each” should be – a type of each--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 31, 33, 36, 40, and 43 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.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “a settings adjustment” in lines 3-4. It is not clear if this is new instance or refers to the settings adjustment mentioned in line 1 of the present claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the settings adjustments" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the settings of the plurality of hearing devices in the sound environments” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the current sound environment” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43 recites the limitation “a user” in line 3. It is not clear if this is a new instance or is part of the “users” group mentioned in line 4 of claim 34.
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 21-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 21 and 34 recite a method and non-transitory computer readable media, which falls within statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: For claim 21, the claim as written recites the step of analyzing which can be considered as a mental process that occurs in a technician/artisan’s mind. For claim 34, the step of performing evolutionary adaptation on information can also be considered as a mental process that occurs in a technician/artisan’s mind. Note that no operation of a machine or computer is being modified by the providing the settings adjustment step which makes the abstract idea stay within the realm of the technician artisan’s mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The additional steps of collecting and logging information and providing a settings adjustment in claim 21 and the logging information and providing settings in claim 34 cannot be considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106305(g) The steps can be considered as mere data gathering (the collecting and logging of information into a database) or an insignificant application (providing settings can be can be considered as sending a file with settings information such as a word or PDF document)).
Step 2B: While the claim recites hearing devices, the devices are merely present for extra-solution data gathering purposes or as a receiver of data. The collecting, logging, and providing steps cannot be considered as something that makes the claim significantly more than the abstract as they can be considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. While claim 34 discloses the presence of one or more processors, the processor is generic, which make it an abstract idea executed on a generic computer processor. The inclusion of a processor does not make it significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claim does not have additional components that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, such as having the settings adjustments modify the operation of one or more of the hearing devices. Note that no adjustment to hearing device using the abstract idea has been made in the claims.
Claim 22 further defines the analyzing step mentioned in claim 21. However, the step of performing evolutionary adaptation on information can also be considered as a mental process that occurs in a technician/artisan’s mind. Further defining an abstract idea with another abstract idea does not make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 23-28 further define the collecting step. Further defining steps that is considered as extra-solution data gathering cannot be considered as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 29 recites a receiving a logging step, which can be considered as extra-solution data gathering steps and thus is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Note that as currently written there is still no adjustment made to the hearing device.
Claim 30 recites a determining step, which can be considered as a mental process that occurs in a technician/artisan’s mind. Further defining an abstract idea with another abstract idea does not make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 31 and 32 recite steps that can be considered as extra-solution data gathering cannot be considered as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 33 further defines the analyzing step by including a determining step which can be considered as a mental process that occurs in a technician/artisan’s mind. Further defining an abstract idea with another abstract idea does not make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 35-40 further define the information specified in claim 34. However, this still falls within the realm of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 41 recite steps, the receiving feedback data and logging steps, that can be considered as extra-solution data gathering cannot be considered as significantly more than the abstract idea. Note that as currently written there is still no adjustment made to the hearing device.
Claim 42 further includes a determining step which can be considered as a mental process that occurs in a technician/artisan’s mind. Further defining an abstract idea with another abstract idea does not make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 43 further defines the feedback data from claim 41. However, this still falls within the realm of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 44 recites an additional step receiving a request, which can be considered as more data gathering steps, which is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 45 further defines the information in claim 34. However, this still falls within the realm of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
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) 21-25 and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) being anticipated by US 2012/0095528 (Millner, III et al., hereinafter Millner).
In regards to claim 21, Millner discloses a system that interfaces a hearing aid with external electronics (title and abstract; paragraphs 12-76; figures 3A-C and 4-9). Millner shows the following steps being performed by a computer system, which would include a processor and computer readable media (paragraphs 17, 19, and 63):
collecting information from each of a plurality of hearing devices in use by users (paragraphs 26, 63, 69, 72, and 73; information is collected from hearing devices of different patients and entered into a database);
logging the information as part of a hearing device information database (paragraphs 26, 63, 69, 72, and 73; information is collected from hearing devices of different patients and entered into a database);
analyzing the hearing device information database to identify a settings adjustment for at least one of the plurality of hearing devices (paragraphs 26, 63, 69, 72, and 73; database has several fittings from multiple users and can provide to patient settings based on patients with similar situations); and
providing the settings adjustment to the at least one of the plurality of hearing devices (paragraphs 26, 63, 69, 72, and 73; settings are provided to users based on patient request, fitting, or environment).
In regards to claim 22, Millner discloses the limitations of claim 21. In addition, Millner shows in paragraph 72 and figure 8 the process of fitting/adjustment of the device based on average fittings or compared with data from patients with similar situations (which would require information from a plurality of hearing devices), which can be considered as evolutionary adaptation based on information received from the plurality of hearing devices to determine the settings adjustment.
In regards to claim 23-24, Millner discloses the limitations of claim 21. Millner further shows in paragraph 69 the collecting of a user’s sound environment with automatic updating. As noted in paragraphs 26, 63, 69, 72, and 73, the information is stored in a database that has information from hearing devices of multiple users that can be used for suggesting settings based on similarly situated patients, which would require the collecting of information from the plurality of hearing devices about settings for each of the plurality of hearing devices.
In regards to claim 25, Millner discloses the limitations of claim 21. Millner further shows in paragraphs 24, 69, 71, and 72 that there are different fittings/adjustments based on different sound environments where each hearing device is specialized for certain environments (meeting the limitation of claim 25).
In regards to claim 34, Millner discloses a system that interfaces a hearing aid with external electronics (title and abstract; paragraphs 12-76; figures 3A-C, 4-7, and 9). Millner shows a computer system, which would include a processor and computer readable media (paragraphs 17, 19, and 63) where the system performs the following steps:
log, in a database, information received from each of a plurality of hearing devices in use by users (paragraphs 26, 63, 69, 72, and 73; information is collected from hearing devices of different patients and entered into a database);
perform evolutionary adaption on the information in the database to determine one or more settings for at least one of the plurality of hearing devices (Millner shows in paragraph 72 and figure 8 the process of fitting/adjustment of the device based on average fittings or compared with data from patients with similar situations (which would require information from a plurality of hearing devices), which can be considered as evolutionary adaptation based on information received from the plurality of hearing devices to determine the settings adjustment); and
provide the one or more settings to the at least one of the plurality of hearing devices (paragraphs 26, 63, 69, 72, and 73; settings are provided to users based on patient request, fitting, or environment).
In regards to claim 35-36, Millner discloses the limitations of claim 34. Millner further shows in paragraph 69 the collecting of a user’s sound environment with automatic updating. As noted in paragraphs 26, 63, 69, 72, and 73, the information is stored in a database that has information from hearing devices of multiple users that can be used for suggesting settings based on similarly situated patients, which would require the collecting of information from the plurality of hearing devices about settings for each of the plurality of hearing devices.
In regards to claim 37, Millner discloses the limitations of claim 34. Millner further shows in paragraphs 24, 69, 71, and 72 that there are different fittings/adjustments based on different sound environments where each hearing device is specialized for certain environments (meeting the limitation of claim 37).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 26-33 and 38-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0095528 (Millner, III et al., hereinafter Millner) as applied to claims 21, 23, and 34 above, and further in view of US 2012/0183165 (Foo et al., hereinafter Foo).
In regards to claims 26-33 and 38-45, Millner discloses the limitations of claims 21, 23, and 34 but does not describe that the information about the sound environment. In a related area, Foo discloses a process and system that updates hearing aid profiles (title; abstract, figures 1-9; paragraphs 9-82). Foo shows in paragraphs 12, 13, 56, and 63 state that the system includes a data store (remote hearing aid profile service over a network with a database), a computer operating environment comprising a hearing aid processor and a memory arranged to store hearing aid profiles and processing instructions that are executed by a processor. Foo discloses that the steps performed by the processor (figures 3 and 5-8 flowcharts; paragraphs 56-67) include:
receiving information regarding a sound environment from an auditory prosthesis, wherein the information describes a sound environment (paragraphs 65-67);
based upon the information, selecting a settings adjustment from a plurality of settings adjustments (paragraphs 41-44 and 63-67; note that the network and servers contain a collection of hearing aid profiles; there can be several different hearing aid profiles for different external environments, which is a plurality of settings adjustments);
providing the settings adjustment to the auditory prosthesis / providing settings adjustments to a hearing device (paragraphs 63-67; updated hearing aid profile is sent back to hearing aid user to replace the current hearing aid profile and is evaluated by user,);
receiving feedback data regarding the provided settings adjustments (paragraphs 63-67; user makes evaluations and records audio response from auditory prosthesis and comments for the hearing aid profile service, thus meeting limitations of claims 29 and 41); and
logging the feedback data in the database and using the feedback to determine effectiveness of the settings adjustment (paragraphs 60-72 - updates database with user evaluations, thus meeting limitations of claims 29-30 and 41-42).
Foo shows that any audio received by the hearing aid (see figure 5; paragraphs 63-64) would naturally have the information regarding the sound environment and would contain information regarding the presence of wind, presence of multiple speakers, or the loudness of surrounding speech because any information regarding presence or loudness would naturally be present in the signal. Note that information about presence is whether something is there or not, which is why Foo meets the limitations about presence of wind or multiple speakers, thus meeting the limitations of claims 26-27 and 38-39. Foo also describes collecting sound recordings of sound environments for updating hearing aid profiles in paragraphs 38, 39, 66, 67, and 76, which meets the limitations of claims 28 and 40. Foo also discloses the step of receiving a request for a settings adjustment of the hearing aid prior to providing settings and dynamically adjusts the settings based on the recording of the current audio environment of the user (paragraphs 11, 28-33, 42-44, and 56-73), which meets the limitations of claims 31, 33, and 44. Foo also discloses determining the acceptance or rejection of the settings adjustment in response to receiving an indication that the settings adjustment was accepted or rejected and storing the settings and profile along with relevant facts such as time, place, and identity of the user (paragraphs 60-67). Positive evaluation of a profile can be considered as an acceptance response while a not positive evaluation can be considered as the rejection response, which are limitations of claims 32, 43, and 45. Foo states that the information collected allows for hearing aid profile modification that is consistent with a hearing aid user’s current situation (paragraphs 28) and allows for determining when updated hearing aid profiles are acceptable to a user in real time (paragraphs 10, 13, 59-64). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Millner to include the information collected and feedback evaluation disclosed by Foo in order to allow for hearing aid profile modification in real time that is consistent with a hearing aid user’s current situation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 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, Charles Marmor can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights