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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 10-20) in the reply filed on 12/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that any singular teaching can be combined with any other singular teaching and therefore, groups I, II and III are related. This is not found persuasive because while the specification may suggest the teachings can be combined with each other, this is a moot point as there is no limitations in the claims citing these shared features and claimed Groups I, II and III are still distinct claimed inventions from each other as explained by their deviation in classification, divergent subject matter and require a different field of search (In the instant application, groups I, II, and III have acquired separate statuses in the art in view of their different classifications (group I: H04R2225/41 vs. group II: H04R25/50 vs group III: H04R2225/81). Furthermore, groups I, II, and III have acquired separate statues in the art due to their divergent subject matter (group I drawn to adapting audio parameters to a specific sound environment vs group II drawn to customizing hearing aid parameters according to a user input vs group III drawn to fitting of a hearing aid via input of user's displeasure). Therefore, as a result of the above, groups I, II and III also require different fields of search).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 11 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. In this case, claim 11 is dependent on claim 11, the Examiner believes the Applicant meant for claim 11 to be dependent on claim 10 and has examined claim 11 accordingly. 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boretzki et al. (US 2013/0322669) herein Boretzki in view of Fitz et al. (US 2015/0030170) herein Fitz.
Regarding claim 10, Boretzki discloses a method, comprising: receiving a sound by a user of a hearing device (obtaining feedback from a user involving recording the voice of a user via hearing device microphones, interpreted to meet receiving a sound by a user of a hearing device, [0083]-[0085]); but lacks providing input indicative of the user's perceived sound scene corresponding to the received sound; and adapting a sound scene classifier of the hearing device based on the provided input, wherein the method is a method of training the sound scene classifier for the hearing device.
Nevertheless, Boretzki does teach that the feedback received from a user is indicative of a user’s perception of sound and the feedback is used to train the hearing device (user feedback is indicative of how a compensate version of sound is perceived by a user, with the feedback being used to fit (interpreted to meet train) the needs of a user, Boretzki: [0047], [0082], [0123]), and it is well known in the art for a user to indicate their perceived sound scene, and then adapting a sound scene classifier of the hearing device based on the provided input, wherein the method is a method of training the sound scene classifier for the hearing device as demonstrated by Fitz (user indicates a perception of their sound scene/environment via selection and adjustment of parameters corresponding to the acoustic environment of the listener, the sound scene classifier 668 is adapted based on the provided input (classifier 668 detects characteristics of the acoustic environment and matches with stored one or more predetermined acoustic environment types, the predetermined acoustic environment type having been stored based on user input), the classifier 668 pulling stored information that has been modified by user input is interpreted to meet a method of training said classifier, Fitz: [0045], [0048], [0050]-[0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Boretzki to have a user indicate their perceived sound scene, and then adapting a sound scene classifier of the hearing device based on the provided input, wherein the method is a method of training the sound scene classifier for the hearing device as demonstrated by Fitz in order to increase the potential of fine tuning of the hearing device to the listener (Fitz: [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 14, in the combination of Boretzki and Fitz, Fitz discloses wherein: the action of adapting the sound scene classifier is also based on non-sound data (the provided user input regarding the sound environment is based on non-sound data including geolocation, Fitz: [0045], [0048], [0050]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Boretzki and Fitz discloses wherein:the action of adapting the sound scene classifier is executed remotely from the hearing device (Boretzki teaches adapting the hearing device remotely from the hearing device, Boretzki: [Abstract], therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to also allow the user to remotely control the sound scene classifier of Fitz in order to provide the user with more ease of modifying said hearing devices).
Regarding claim 17, in the combination of Boretzki and Fitz, Boretzki discloses wherein: the hearing device is a hearing prosthesis (hearing devices can be hearing prostheses, Boretzki: [0002]).
Claim(s) 11-13, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boretzki et al. (US 2013/0322669) herein Boretzki in view of Fitz et al. (US 2015/0030170) herein Fitz and Dillon et al. (US 2005/0129262) herein Dillon.
Regarding claim 11, while Boretzki and Fitz do not specifically teach wherein: the method is a method of re-training the sound scene classifier for the hearing device, it is well known in the art to retrain a scene classifier of a hearing device over time as demonstrated by Dillon (prosthesis can have a defined training period, the training periods can be repeatable as data is rewritten, with trainable sound analysis unit (scene classifier) including updating data on an acoustic environment, Dillon: [0036], [0065], [0102], [0130]-[0134], [0189]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Boretzki and Fitz to be a method of re-training the sound scene classifier for the hearing device as demonstrated by Dillon in order to ensure a user is satisfied with their prosthesis performance in a range of different acoustic environments (Dillon: [0189]).
Regarding claim 12, in the combination of Boretzki, Fitz and Dillon, Dillon discloses wherein: the training of the sound scene classifier is executed in at least a semi-continuous manner (training occurs in a continuous manner and can be executed at any time, Dillon: [0036], [0130], [0189]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Boretzki, Fitz and Dillon discloses wherein: the received sound corresponds to a sound scene new to the sound scene classifier (Dillon teaches training the sound scene classifier based on a user encountering a new environment, Dillon: [0189], thus in the combination of Boretzki, Fit and Dillon, the received sound would correspond to the new environment as the received sound corresponds to the current perception of a user).
Regarding claim 15, while Boretzki and Fitz do not specifically teach wherein: the method is executed over a period of at least a year, it is well known in the art to executed training method over a period of at least a year as suggested by Dillon (training range can be set as long as the user wishes, Dillon: [0036], [0130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metho of Boretzki and Fitz to be executed over a period of at least a year as suggested by Dillon in order to adapt to changes of a user’s hearing loss profile over time, or to enable satisfied performance of a prosthesis across a range of different and new acoustic environments over time (Dillon: [0189]).
Regarding claim 19, in the combination of Boretzki, Fitz and Dillon, Boretzki discloses wherein the input is provided into a mobile device (input device can be a mobile telephone, Boretzki: [0005], [0111], [0113]).
Regarding claim 20, in the combination of Boretzki, Fitz and Dillon, Dillon discloses wherein: the action of adapting the sound scene classifier is executed remote from the hearing device (listening criterion can be updated via a remote unit which would then cause the scene classifier to be adapated, Dillon: [0067], [0078], [0129], [0130], [0189]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-7503. 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.
/SEAN H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691