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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed December 23, 2025.
In view of the Amendment to the claims, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claims 49-54, 64-65, and 70 are amended.
Claims 1-20, 49-59, 64-65, and 70 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on December 23, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 49-59, 64-65 and 70 are amended to recite the feature of Group I: distinctly coding one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency. This found persuasive.
Thus, the requirement for restriction dated 10/29/2025 is WITHDRAWN.
Priority
Claims 1-20, 49-59, 64-65, and 70 are deemed to have an effective filing date of May 12, 2021.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1050” has been used to designate both a cochlear implant system with 1 microphone (Fig. 10A) and a cochlear implant with two microphones (Fig. 10B and Fig. 13).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1003” has been used to designate both the output of a pre-processing module (Fig. 13, in the top line of boxes) and an output of the first microphone (Fig. 13, left side of Figure).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1008” has been used to designate both a bandpass Filterbank (Figs. 10A and 10B) and a CI pre-processing module (Fig. 13).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1050A, 1050B.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 202, 300, 301, 302, 303.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0065], lines 4 and 8, recite “illustrates spectral enhancement in accordance in accordance with 77 3”.
Appropriate correction of lines 4 and 8 is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0367132 to Milczynski et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Milczynski”).
Referring to claim 1, Milczynski discloses a method, comprising: receiving sound signals at a hearing device (e.g., paragraph [0029]:cochlear implant (CI) device 10 comprises a microphone 20 for capturing/receiving an audio signal from ambient sound. Fig. 1); estimating a target fundamental frequency of the received sound signals (e.g., paragraph [0032]: CI device 10 has a fundamental frequency estimation unit 60 which is supplied with the audio signal and estimates the fundamental frequency of the input audio signal); determining harmonics of the target fundamental frequency present in the received sound signals (e.g., Abstract: microphone captures audio signal and a fundamental frequency estimation unit estimates the fundamental frequency and at least part of its harmonics at least for voiced segments of the input audio signal implies that the frequency of the harmonics are estimated and thus, the harmonics are determined); and distinctly coding one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency in stimulation signals delivered to a recipient of the hearing device (e.g., paragraph [0033]: electric signal pitch enhancement unit 27 is supplied with the output signal of the fundamental frequency estimation unit 60 (fundamental frequency and its harmonics) and applies a modified pitch processing/coding to the output signal; [0046]: modified pitch processing may be implemented using temporal cues: i.e., rate or envelope pitch cues, [0062]-[0070]: sound processor 24 may enhance the signal or code the signal using the stimulation strategy module 48).
With respect to claim 2, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein distinctly coding the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency in stimulation signals generated by the hearing device comprises: increasing a relative spectral contrast of the one or more target harmonics relative to other harmonics and non-target information in the received sound signals (e.g., paragraphs [0042]-[0043]: CI device 10 comprises a control device 31 which provides an output signal representative of the individual hearing abilities of the patient and its output signal is supplied to the electric signal pitch enhancement unit 27 and the acoustic pitch enhancement unit 127 in order to adjust at least one parameter used in the modified pitch processing (MPP 27 or 127) according to the individual hearing abilities of the patient where the MPP may include enhancement of the spectral contrast of the fundamental frequency and its harmonics as illustrated in Fig. 5 – spectral contrast of at least one target harmonic is enhanced/increased).
As to claim 3, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the hearing device comprises a band-pass filterbank configured to generate a plurality of channelized signals from the received sound signals, wherein each of the plurality of channelized signals are associated with a corresponding one of a plurality of output stimulation channels (e.g., paragraph [0064]-[0066]: Fig. 4, BPF 1-m 38 and envelope detector 42 (D1-m) create m Analysis Channels 40 from received signals from microphone 20 where signals in the analysis channels 40 are map to the stimulation channels; and claim 21: sound processor is provided with a filterbank …).
With respect to claim 4, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 3, wherein distinctly coding the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency in stimulation signals delivered to a recipient of the hearing device comprises: adjusting gains or stimulation levels for channelized signals that include relatively more harmonic energy for each of the one or more target harmonics to at least one of pass or amplify the harmonic energy; and reducing the gain or attenuating stimulation levels for channelized signals that carry relatively less or no harmonic energy (e.g., paragraphs [0065]-[0066]: signals within each analysis channel 40 are input into an envelope detector 42 in order to determine the amount of energy contained within each signal and noise is reduced to enhance the intelligibility of speech by the patient and noise reduced signals are mapped to amplitude values to define electrical stimulation pulses; and paragraphs [0041] and [0053]: MPP 27 may be applied in cases where there is a voiced input audio signal implies that the gain or stimulation level of signals with less or no harmonic energy (unvoiced signals) is disabled or reduced).
As to claim 5, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 3, wherein distinctly coding the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency in stimulation signals generated by the hearing device comprises: generating a power-weighted mean place of stimulation for a pair of adjacent electrical stimulation channels to code frequency and intensity of at least one of the one or more target harmonics (e.g., paragraph [0067]: sound processor 24 comprises a stimulation strategy module 48 which may generate stimulation parameters which direct the ICS 14 to generate and concurrently apply weighted stimulation current via a plurality of stimulation channels 52 in order to effectuate a current steering stimulation strategy …, Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 6, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 3, wherein distinctly coding the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency in stimulation signals generated by the hearing device comprises: for each of the one or more target harmonics, encoding frequency and intensity information into electrical stimulation signals delivered via only a corresponding pair of adjacent output stimulation channels (e.g., paragraph [0067], last sentence).
As to claim 14, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein distinctly coding the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency in stimulation signals delivered to a recipient of the hearing device comprises: determining stimulation locations for electrical stimulation signals corresponding to each of the one or more target harmonics to enhance the recipient's perception of the one or more target harmonics preferential to other signal components; and delivering the electrical stimulation signals corresponding to each of the one or more target harmonics at the determined stimulation locations (e.g., paragraphs [0066]-[0067]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milczynski in view of US Patent No. 8,260,430 to James.
With respect to claim 7, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 6, but does not expressly disclose determining that there is insufficient frequency resolution to distinctly code at least one of the one or more target harmonics using a pair of adjacent output stimulation channels; and in response to determining that there is insufficient frequency resolution, using only a single output stimulation channel to code frequency and intensity information for the at least one of the one or more target harmonics. However, James, in a related art: determining stimulate channels for a stimulating medical device, teaches determining whether there is insufficient information based on the amplitude of a selected adjacent stimulation channel and in response to determining that there is insufficient information, using only a single output stimulation channel to code frequency and intensity formation for the at one of the one or more target harmonics (e.g., column 13, lines 39-58 and Fig. 9, D of James: when the adjacent stimulation channels fall below an information limit/threshold, those channels are eliminated so only one stimulation channel remains to apply stimulation and thus, to code frequency and intensity information). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of determining that there is insufficient frequency resolution (information below a limit or threshold) of a target harmonic using a pair of adjacent output stimulation channels; and in response to determining that there is insufficient frequency resolution, using only a single output stimulation channel to code frequency and intensity information for the at least one of the one or more harmonic in view of the teachings of James. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski so that insufficient frequency resolution is determined, and based on that determination, only using a single stimulation channel for the at least one of the one or more target harmonics in view of the teachings of James that such was a known protocol for selecting stimulation channels, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 17, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 14, wherein delivering the electrical stimulation signals corresponding to each of the one or more target harmonics at the determined stimulation locations, but does not expressly disclose for at least one of the one or more target harmonics, controlling stimulation levels for two simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes so that a mean place and intensity of activation for the two simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes elicits a percept that corresponds to a frequency and intensity of the at least one of the one or more target harmonics. However, James, in a related art teaches using a coding strategy to determine timing and intensity of electrical stimulation applied to a recipient (e.g., column 1, line 55- column 2, line 3 of James); and controlling stimulation levels for two simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes by determining the current levels of stimulation to be applied on adjacent channels where residual overlap of the current fields is produced when stimulation is applied using adjacent electrodes, “pitch steering” or the ratio between current levels of pulses applied on adjacent electrodes simultaneously determines the perceived pitch in a continuous fashion (e.g., column 11, line 52 to column 12, line 34 of James). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of controlling stimulation levels for multiple simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes so that a mean place and intensity of activation for the two electrodes elicits a percept that corresponds to a frequency and intensity of at least one of the one or more target harmonics in view of the teachings of James. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski so that the delivering of electrical stimulation signals includes for at least one of the one or more target harmonics, controlling stimulation levels for two simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes in view of the teachings of James that such was a known protocol for selecting stimulation channels, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 18, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 14, wherein delivering the electrical stimulation signals corresponding to each of the one or more harmonics at the determined stimulation locations, but does not expressly disclose that for at least one of the one or more target harmonics, controlling stimulation levels for multiple simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes to focus a collective stimulation current field to a relatively narrow spatial region that corresponds to the at least one of the one or more target harmonics. However, James, in a related art, teaches using a coding strategy to determine timing and intensity of electrical stimulation applied to a recipient (e.g., column 1, line 55- column 2, line 3 of James); and that in the application of electrical stimulation to the cochlea, there is commonly some residual overlap of the current fields produced when stimulation is applied using adjacent electrodes and that stimulation levels for multiple simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes are controlled in order to focus a collective stimulate current field to a relatively narrow spatial region (e.g., column 11, line 62-column 12, line 43 of James).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of controlling stimulation levels for multiple simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes to focus a collective stimulation current field to a relatively narrow region in view of the teachings of James. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski so that the delivering of electrical stimulation signals includes for at least one of the one or more target harmonics, controlling stimulation levels for two simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes in view of the teachings of James that such was a known protocol for selecting stimulation channels, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claims 8-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milczynski as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0286618 to Vandali et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Vandali”).
With respect to claim 8, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein distinctly coding the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency in electrical stimulation signals generated by the hearing device comprises: generating spectral enhanced signals from the sound signals (e.g., paragraphs [0012]: CI coding strategies improve pitch perception by enhancing temporal information delivered to spectral channels; and [0042]: poor detection threshold for the spectral contrast requires more enhancement imply that spectral enhanced signals are generated from the captured sound signals); but does not expressly disclose generating non-enhanced signals from the sound signals; and mixing the spectral enhanced signals with the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined based on the target fundamental frequency. However, Vandali, in a related art: enhanced envelope encoded tone, sound processor and system, teaches adaptively combining (or mixing) the unmodulated channel envelope signals with the modulated channel signals from channel modulator 7 where the degree to which the signal in each frequency channel is related to the estimated fundamental frequency F0 (via PPE 6) in order to assist in the perception of voice pitch and musical tone in the sound signal (e.g., paragraph [0072] of Vandali). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of mixing spectral enhanced signals with the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined based on the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski to generate non-enhanced signals from the sound signals, and to mix the spectral enhanced signals with the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined by the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali that such was a known protocol for enhancing envelope encoded tones, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 9, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein distinctly coding the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency in electrical stimulation signals generated by the hearing device generating spectral enhanced signals from the sound signals (e.g., paragraphs [0012]: CI coding strategies improve pitch perception by enhancing temporal information delivered to spectral channels; and [0042]: poor detection threshold for the spectral contrast requires more enhancement imply that spectral enhanced signals are generated from the captured sound signals); but does not expressly disclose generating temporal enhanced signals from the sound signals; generating non-enhanced signals from the sound signals; and mixing the spectral enhanced signals with the temporal enhanced signals and the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined based on the target fundamental frequency. However, Vandali, in a related art: enhanced envelope encoded tone, sound processor and system, teaches generating temporal enhanced signals in an encoder 25 (e.g., paragraphs [0067]-[0069] of Vandali); and adaptively combining (or mixing) the unmodulated channel envelope signals with the modulated channel signals according to a gain ratio determined based on the target fundamental frequency (e.g., Vandali paragraph [0072]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of mixing spectral with temporal enhanced signals with the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined based on the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski to generate temporal enhanced signals; generate non-enhanced signals from the sound signals, and to mix the spectral with temporal enhanced signals with the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined by the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali that such was a known protocol for enhancing envelope encoded tones, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 10, Milczynski in view of Vandali teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: controlling the mixing ratio based on an estimate of how much energy in the received sound signals is related to the target fundamental frequency at different points in time (e.g., paragraphs [0016] of Vandali : the fundamental frequency estimator may generate a signal representative of the ratio of power related to the most dominate fundamental frequency to total signal power present in the signal; [0017]: periodic probability estimator obtains information relating to the harmonic nature of the electrical signals by passing the signal representative of the ratio of power present in the electrical signal to the periodic probability estimator; and [0116]: output of PPE 6: Periodic Probability 60 and Channel Periodic Probability 61 are mixed with non-modulated signals). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski in view of Vandali further to control the mixing ratio based on an estimate of how much energy in the received sound signals is related to the target fundamental frequency at different points in time in view of the teachings of Vandali that such was a known protocol for enhancing envelope encoded tones, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 11, Milczynski in view of Vandali teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: controlling the mixing ratio based on a target harmonic signal power-to-noise power ratio of the received sound signals at different points in time (e.g., Vandali paragraphs [0072]: F0 estimator 5 receives a sampled signal 30 and estimates, in real-time, the most dominant fundamental frequency of the signal and the ratio of F0 signal to total signal power which are output to the Periodic probability estimator 6 and the channel modulator 7 where modulated signals are mixed with non-modulated signals; [0078]: F0 Estimator 5 also provides an estimate of the harmonic signal-to-total signal power ratio, or the F0 Signal-to-Noise+Signal power ratio 53 to the PPE 6 – thus, the output signals 60, 61 mixed with unmodulated signals are based on a harmonic signal power-to- noise power ratio). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski in view of Vandali further to control the mixing ratio based on a target harmonic signal power-to-noise power ratio of the received sound signals at different points in time in view of the teachings of Vandali that such was a known protocol for enhancing envelope encoded tones, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 12, Milczynski in view of Vandali teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: controlling the mixing ratio based on a target harmonic signal power-to-total power ratio for the received sound signals at different points in time (e.g., paragraph [0031] of Vandali: the predetermined mixing ratio is derived from a degree to which the frequency channel signal is related to the most dominant fundamental frequency in the electrical signal). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski in view of Vandali further to control the mixing ratio based on a target harmonic signal power-to-total power ratio for the received sound signals at different points in time in view of the teachings of Vandali that such was a known protocol for enhancing envelope encoded tones, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 13, Milczynski in view of Vandali teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: controlling the mixing ratio based on an input received from a user of the hearing device (e.g., paragraph [0090] of Vandali: users selects “quiet conditions” or “noisy condition” parameters). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski in view of Vandali further to control the mixing ratio based on an input received from a user of the hearing device in view of the teachings of Vandali that such was a known protocol for enhancing envelope encoded tones, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 20, Milczynski discloses the method of claim 14, but does not expressly disclose using the frequency of the one or more target harmonics to control a stimulation rate for the stimulation signals generated to code the one or more target harmonics. However, Vandali, in a related art, teaches since the stimulation rate can be a non-integer of F0, amplitude beating in the sampled output can arise, To avoid this, at the beginning of every F0 cycle, sampling of the modulation function is reset so that the first sample always aligns with the first sample of the modulation function. The start of each F0 cycle is determined by the F0 modulation phase or frequency (e.g., paragraph [0121] of Vandali). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of using frequency of the one or more target harmonics to control a stimulation rate for the stimulation signals in view of the teachings of Vandali. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski to include using the frequency of the one or more target harmonics to control a stimulation rate for the stimulation signals generated to code the one or more harmonics in view of the teachings of Vandali that such would avoid amplitude beating, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milczynski as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Croghan.
Milczynski discloses the method of claim 14, wherein delivering the electrical stimulation signals corresponding to each of the one or more target harmonics at the determined stimulation locations but does not expressly disclose that the delivering each of the stimulation signals uses a sequential coding strategy. However, Croghan, in a related art: multiple sound source encoding in hearing protheses, teaches that coding strategies may include continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) using a stimulation pulse determination module where amplitudes of selected signals may be mapped into electrical stimulation signals so as to evoke perception of at least a portion of the received sound signals to a recipient of the stimulation signals and that this channel mapping may include sequential stimulation strategies (e.g., paragraphs [0052]-[0053] of Croghan). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of using a sequential coding strategy in view of the teachings of Croghan. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski so that the delivery of stimulation signals using a sequential coding strategy in view of the teachings of Croghan that such was a well-known protocol for delivering stimulation signals in a hearing prosthesis, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milczynski in view of Croghan as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of James.
Milczynski in view of Croghan teaches the method of claim 15, but does not expressly teach for at least one of the one or more target harmonics, controlling stimulus amplitudes for two sequentially stimulated adjacent channels so that a mean place and intensity of activation for the two sequentially stimulated adjacent channels elicits a percept that corresponds to a frequency and intensity of at least one of the one or more target harmonics. However, James, in a related art teaches controlling stimulation levels for two simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes by determining the current levels of stimulation to be applied on adjacent channels where residual overlap of the current fields is produced when stimulation is applied using adjacent electrodes, “pitch steering” or the ratio between current levels of pulses applied on adjacent electrodes simultaneously determines the perceived pitch in a continuous fashion (e.g., column 11, line 52 to column 12, line 34 of James). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of controlling stimulation levels for multiple simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes so that a mean place and intensity of activation for the two electrodes elicits a percept that corresponds to a frequency and intensity of at least one of the one or more target harmonics in view of the teachings of James. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski so that the delivering of electrical stimulation signals includes for at least one of the one or more target harmonics, controlling stimulation levels for two simultaneously stimulated adjacent electrodes in view of the teachings of James that such was a known protocol for selecting stimulation channels, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milczynski as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0215332 to Zeng et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Zeng”).
Milczynski discloses the method of claim 14, but does not expressly disclose determining temporal envelope modulations based on the target fundamental frequency; and generating one or more of the electrical stimulation signals in accordance with the temporal envelope modulations. However, Zeng, in a related art: method and apparatus for adapting speech coders to improve cochlear implant performance, teaches that pitch encoding is important for sound quality, noisy speech recognition, speaker identification, auditory scene analysis, music appreciation, and tonal language perception and that pitch information can be extracted and encoded into the processor of a cochlear implant by time-domain processing to extract and encode into the CIS-based processor using envelopes (e.g., paragraph [0026] of Zeng); finer temporal information may be provided by the harmonic frequencies of sound (e.g., paragraph [0027]; and encoding pitch may be frequency modulated to the carrier in a standard CIS processor and electrodes maybe interleaves so that the odd-numbered electrodes encode pitch whereas even-numbered electrodes encode the temporal envelope to significantly improve performance in the melody and speaker recognition (e.g., paragraphs [0028]-[0029] of Zeng). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of temporal envelope modulations based on the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Zeng. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Milczynski to determine temporal envelope modulations based on the target fundamental frequency and generated one or more of the electrical stimulation signals in accordance with the temporal envelope modulations in view of the teachings of Zeng that such was a well-known protocol in the cochlear implant art to improve performance, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claims 49, 58-59, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milczynski in view of James.
Regarding claim 49, Milczynski discloses a processor that estimates a target fundamental frequency of sound signals received at a hearing device; determines information associated with harmonics of the target fundamental frequency; and determines stimulation signals from the sound signals, wherein the stimulation signals are configured to enhance perception of one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency preferential to other signal components (see rejection of claim 1 above). Milczynski differs from the claimed invention in that it does expressly disclose storing the process steps above in one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media as instructions. However, James, in a related art: stimulation channel selection for a cochlear implant, teaches that the sound processor of Fig. 3 may be realized as software implemented on a programmable system that received instructions from a storage device (e.g., column 14, lines 36-65 of James). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of memory or a storage device comprising instructions that cause the processor to perform one of more of the operations in a sound processor for a cochlear implant in view of the teachings of James. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the operation taught by Milczynski to have a storage media comprising instructions to perform the operation of the cochlear implant method in view of the teachings of James that such was a well-known engineering expedient in the cochlear implant art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 58, Milczynski in view of James teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 49, wherein the instructions operable to determine stimulation signals from the sound signals comprise instructions operable to: increase a relative spectral contrast of the one or more target harmonics relative to non-target information in the sound signals (e.g., paragraphs [0042]-[0043] of Milczynski: CI device 10 comprises a control device 31 which provides an output signal representative of the individual hearing abilities of the patient and its output signal is supplied to the electric signal pitch enhancement unit 27 and the acoustic pitch enhancement unit 127 in order to adjust at least one parameter used in the modified pitch processing (MPP 27 or 127) according to the individual hearing abilities of the patient where the MPP may include enhancement of the spectral contrast of the fundamental frequency and its harmonics as illustrated in Fig. 5 – spectral contrast of at least one target harmonic is enhanced/increased).
As to claim 59, Milczynski in view of James teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 49, wherein the hearing device comprises a band-pass filterbank configured to generate a plurality of channelized signals from the received sound signals, wherein each of the plurality of channelized signals are associated with a corresponding one of a plurality of output stimulation channels (e.g., paragraph [0064]-[0066] of Milczynski: Fig. 4, BPF 1-m 38 and envelope detector 42 (D1-m) create m Analysis Channels 40 from received signals from microphone 20 where signals in the analysis channels 40 are map to the stimulation channels; and claim 21: sound processor is provided with a filterbank …).
With respect to claim 70, Milczynski in view of James teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 49, wherein the instructions operable to determine stimulation signals from the sound signals comprise instructions operable to: determine stimulation locations for electrical stimulation signals corresponding to each of the one or more target harmonics to enhance the recipient's perception of the one or more target harmonics preferential to other signal components; and deliver the electrical stimulation signals corresponding to each of the one or more target harmonics at the determined stimulation locations (e.g., paragraphs [0066]-[0067] of Milczynski).
Claims 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milczynski in view of James as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Zeng.
With respect to claim 50, Milczynski in view of James teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 49, but does not expressly teach that the coding instructions are operable to: distinctly place code the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency in electrical stimulation signals delivered to a recipient of the hearing device. However, Zeng, in a related art: methods for adapting speech coders to improve cochlear implant performance, teaches combining stimulation rate and place codes to improve pitch perception; and place-based pitch perception may be improved by using measured frequency-to-electrode map that conforms to both ranking and ratio scales in the perceived pitch (e.g., paragraphs [0036]-[0038] of Zeng); and place-coding of the fundamental frequency by relatively narrow-filters and temporal-coding of F0 by dynamically varying the stimulation rate (e.g., paragraphs [0041]-[0044] of Zeng). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of place-coding one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency into the stimulation signals in view of the teachings of Zeng that optimum performance, pitch information may be delivered to cochlear implant users using place only or combined rate and place pitch as shown in Table 1 of Zeng. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the storage media of Milczynski in view of James to distinctly place code one or more target harmonics of the target frequency into the stimulation signals in view of the teachings of Zeng that such was a well-known engineering expedient in the cochlear implant art, and because the combination would have yielded a predicable result.
As to claim 51, Milczynski in view of James teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 49, wherein the instructions operable to distinctly code the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency into the electrical stimulation signals, but does not expressly teach that the instructions are further operable to: code frequency and intensity information about the one or more target harmonics into electrical stimulation signals using place of stimulation. However, Zeng as discussed above teaches that coding frequency and intensity information into electrical signals using place of stimulation was known to those skilled in the art (e.g., paragraphs [0036]-[0038] and [0041]-[0044] of Zeng). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of place-coding one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency into the stimulation signals in view of the teachings of Zeng that optimum performance, pitch information may be delivered to cochlear implant users using place only or combined rate and place pitch as shown in Table 1 of Zeng. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the storage media of Milczynski in view of James to distinctly place code one or more target harmonics of the target frequency into the stimulation signals in view of the teachings of Zeng that such was a well-known engineering expedient in the cochlear implant art, and because the combination would have yielded a predicable result.
Claims 52-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milczynski in view of James as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Vandali and Zeng.
With respect to claim 52, Milczynski in view of James teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 49, wherein the instructions operable to distinctly code the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency into electrical stimulation signals comprise instructions operable to: code frequency and intensity information about the one or more target harmonics into electrical stimulation signals (e.g., Zeng as applied to claim 51) but does not expressly disclose using a weighted combination of place of stimulation (e.g., Zeng as applied to claim 51) and temporal envelope modulations. Milczynski discloses that modified pitch processing may be implemented using modified temporal queues, i.e., rate or envelope pitch cues where variations of the stimulation rate are applied to the temporal envelopes (e.g., paragraph [0046] of Milczynski). Vandali, in a related art: enhanced envelope encoded tone, sound processor and system, teaches that spectral cues in a detected sound signal are typically encoded via electrode place and temporal envelope cues are encoded via amplitude fluctuations in the envelope stimulus signal to produce an encoded signal that is sent to the implanted stimulator unit (e.g., paragraph [0067] of Vandali) and that weighting functions were known in the art to minimize octave errors and noisy conditions (e.g., paragraph [0078] of Vandali). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of coding frequency and intensity information about the one of more target harmonics into the stimulation signals, and using a weighted combination of place of stimulation and temporal envelope modulations in view of the teachings of Milczynski and Vandali. Consequently, at the very least one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Vandali, would have also recognized the desirability of using a weighted combination of two types of signals. Since Vandali generally teaches the use of weighted combination to avoid errors and noise, it would have been reasonably expected to be applicable to a weighted combination of place of stimulation as taught by Zeng and temporal envelope modulations as taught by Milczynski. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a weighted combination of place of stimulation and temporal envelope modulation to code frequency and intensity information to a stimulation signal since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
As to claim 53, Milczynski in view of James teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 49, wherein the instructions operable to distinctly code the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency into the electrical stimulation signals comprise instructions operable to: code frequency and intensity information about the one or more target harmonics into electrical stimulation signals (e.g., Zeng as applied to claim 51) but does not expressly teach using a weighted combination of place of stimulation (e.g., Zeng as applied to claim 51) and rate of stimulation. However, Milczynski discloses that modified pitch processing may be implemented using modified temporal queues, i.e., rate or envelope pitch cues where variations of the stimulation rate are applied to the temporal envelopes (e.g., paragraph [0046] of Milczynski). Vandali, in a related art: enhanced envelope encoded tone, sound processor and system, teaches that spectral cues in a detected sound signal are typically encoded via electrode place and temporal envelope cues are encoded via amplitude fluctuations in the envelope stimulus signal to produce an encoded signal that is sent to the implanted stimulator unit (e.g., paragraph [0067] of Vandali) and that weighting functions were known in the art to minimize octave errors and noisy conditions (e.g., paragraph [0078] of Vandali). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of coding frequency and intensity information about the one of more target harmonics into the stimulation signals, and using a weighted combination of place of stimulation and rate of stimulation in view of the teachings of Milczynski and Vandali. Consequently, at the very least one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Vandali, would have also recognized the desirability of using a weighted combination of two types of signals. Since Vandali generally teaches the use of weighted combination to avoid errors and noise, it would have been reasonably expected to be applicable to a weighted combination of place of stimulation and rate of stimulation as taught by Milczynski. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a weighted combination of place of stimulation and rate of stimulation to code frequency and intensity information to a stimulation signal since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
With respect to claim 54, Milczynski in view of James teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 49, wherein the instructions operable to distinctly code the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency into the electrical stimulation signals comprise instructions operable to: code frequency and intensity information about the one or more target harmonics into electrical stimulation signals (e.g., Zeng as applied to claim 51) but does not expressly teach using a weighted combination of place of stimulation (e.g., Zeng as applied to claim 51), rate of stimulation, and temporal envelope modulations. However, Milczynski discloses that modified pitch processing may be implemented using modified temporal queues, i.e., rate or envelope pitch cues where variations of the stimulation rate are applied to the temporal envelopes (e.g., paragraph [0046] of Milczynski). Vandali, in a related art: enhanced envelope encoded tone, sound processor and system, teaches that spectral cues in a detected sound signal are typically encoded via electrode place and temporal envelope cues are encoded via amplitude fluctuations in the envelope stimulus signal to produce an encoded signal that is sent to the implanted stimulator unit (e.g., paragraph [0067] of Vandali) and that weighting functions were known in the art to minimize octave errors and noisy conditions (e.g., paragraph [0078] of Vandali). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of coding frequency and intensity information about the one of more target harmonics into the stimulation signals, and using a weighted combination of place of stimulation, rate of stimulation, and temporal envelope modulations in view of the teachings of Milczynski and Vandali. Consequently, at the very least one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Vandali, would have also recognized the desirability of using a weighted combination of two types of signals. Since Vandali generally teaches the use of weighted combination to avoid errors and noise, it would have been reasonably expected to be applicable to a weighted combination of place of stimulation as taught by Zeng, rate of stimulation and temporal envelope modulations as taught by Milczynski. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a weighted combination of place of stimulation, rate of stimulation and temporal envelope modulation to code frequency and intensity information to a stimulation signal since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
As to claim 55, Milczynski in view of James, Zeng, and Vandali teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 54, wherein the weighted combination is determined based on the target fundamental frequency (e.g., paragraphs [0006]-[0007] of Vandali: it has been established that voice pitch is crucial for perception of tonal languages and a sound processing strategy focuses on coding fundamental voicing frequency). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of basing the weighted combination on the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the storage media of Milczynski in view of James, Zeng, and Vandali so that the weighted combination is based on the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali that basing speech coding on the target fundamental frequency is crucial for perception of tonal languages and is a well-known protocol in sound processing strategies, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 56, Milczynski in view of James, Zeng, and Vandali teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 54, wherein the weighted combination is determined based how much of energy in the received sound signals is related to the target fundamental frequency at different points in time (e.g., paragraphs [0016] of Vandali: the fundamental frequency estimator may generate a signal representative of the ratio of power related to the most dominate fundamental frequency to total signal power present in the signal; [0017]: periodic probability estimator obtains information relating to the harmonic nature of the electrical signals by passing the signal representative of the ratio of power present in the electrical signal to the periodic probability estimator; [0116]: output of PPE 6: Periodic Probability 60 and Channel Periodic Probability 61 are mixed with non-modulated signals, and paragraph [0093] of Vandali). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of the weighted combination being determined based on how much energy of the received sound signals is related to the fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali that weighted matched power is calculated by scaling power of each frequency component that is summed by a function that is proportional to how close the component frequency matches its nearest integer of the average F0. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the storage media of Milczynski in view of James, Zeng, and Vandali so that the weighted combination is determined based how much of energy in the received sound signals is related to the fundamental frequency at different points in time in view of the teachings of Vandali that such was a well-known protocol in the cochlear sound processing art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 57, Milczynski in view of James, Zeng, and Vandali the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 54, wherein the weighted combination is determined based on one or more user inputs (e.g., paragraph [0090] of Vandali: users selects “quiet conditions” or “noisy condition” parameters). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the storage media of Milczynski in view of James, Zeng, and Vandali further to control the mixing ratio based on an input received from a user of the hearing device in view of the teachings of Vandali that such was a known protocol for enhancing envelope encoded tones, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claims 64-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milczynski in view of James as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Vandali.
With respect to claim 64, Milczynski in view of James teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 49, wherein the instructions operable to distinctly code the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency into the electrical stimulation signals comprise instructions operable to: generate spectral enhanced signals from the sound signals(e.g., paragraphs [0012]: CI coding strategies improve pitch perception by enhancing temporal information delivered to spectral channels; and [0042]: poor detection threshold for the spectral contrast requires more enhancement imply that spectral enhanced signals are generated from the captured sound signals); but does not expressly disclose generating non-enhanced signals from the sound signals; and mixing the spectral enhanced signals with the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined based on the target fundamental frequency. However, Vandali, in a related art: enhanced envelope encoded tone, sound processor and system, teaches adaptively combining (or mixing) the unmodulated channel envelope signals with the modulated channel signals from channel modulator 7 where the degree to which the signal in each frequency channel is related to the estimated fundamental frequency F0 (via PPE 6) in order to assist in the perception of voice pitch and musical tone in the sound signal (e.g., paragraph [0072] of Vandali). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of mixing spectral enhanced signals with the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined based on the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the storage media of Milczynski in view of James to generate non-enhanced signals from the sound signals, and to mix the spectral enhanced signals with the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined by the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali that such was a known protocol for enhancing envelope encoded tones, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 65, Milczynski in view of James teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 49, wherein the instructions operable to distinctly code the one or more target harmonics of the target fundamental frequency into the electrical stimulation signals comprise instructions operable to: generate spectral enhanced signals from the sound signals(e.g., paragraphs [0012]: CI coding strategies improve pitch perception by enhancing temporal information delivered to spectral channels; and [0042]: poor detection threshold for the spectral contrast requires more enhancement imply that spectral enhanced signals are generated from the captured sound signals); but does not expressly disclose generating temporal enhanced signals from the sound signals; generating non-enhanced signals from the sound signals; and mixing the spectral enhanced signals with the temporal enhanced signals and the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined based on the target fundamental frequency. However, Vandali, in a related art: enhanced envelope encoded tone, sound processor and system, teaches generating temporal enhanced signals in an encoder 25 (e.g., paragraphs [0067]-[0069] of Vandali); and adaptively combining (or mixing) the unmodulated channel envelope signals with the modulated channel signals according to a gain ratio determined based on the target fundamental frequency (e.g., Vandali paragraph [0072]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of mixing spectral with temporal enhanced signals with the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined based on the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the storage media of Milczynski in view of James to generate temporal enhanced signals; generate non-enhanced signals from the sound signals, and to mix the spectral with temporal enhanced signals with the non-enhanced signals according to a mixing ratio determined by the target fundamental frequency in view of the teachings of Vandali that such was a known protocol for enhancing envelope encoded tones, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0080087 to Vandali is directed to pitch perception in an auditory prosthesis where temporal pitch perception is improved when the temporal peaks across channels are aligned (e.g., paragraph [0169]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M VOORHEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571 272-8506. 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.
/CATHERINE M VOORHEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792