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 without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-17 and 24-42 in the reply filed on December 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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) 1-2, 7-11, 16-17, 24-25, 34-37, and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (WO 2020214482 A1, hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a method of in-situ hearing assessment and customized fitting of a hearing device that can be implemented by a user of the hearing device, said method comprising: (see [0004]: self-fitting hearing instruments with self-reported measures of hearing loss and listening perception)
sending instructions to the hearing device to output audio signals having predefined frequencies and loudness levels; (see [0067]: output audio signals to hearing defines with predefined frequency and loudness levels)
outputting the audio signals to an ear of the user while the hearing device is in an operational position for use by the user; (see [0067]: audio signals output to an ear of user while hearing device is in an operational position for use by the user)
measuring user hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies based on feedback provided by the user when listening to the audio signals; (see [0046], [0054]-[0055], [0086]: estimating hearing thresholds via a hearing test, mapping between user questionnaire results and their hearing threshold, determining mean hearing threshold)
finding a best fit audiogram, based on comparisons of the measured user hearing threshold levels with hearing threshold levels from a plurality of audiograms stored in memory; (see [0081]-[0091]: comparison of measured user hearing threshold with hearing thresholds from plurality of audiograms to calculate initial fitting)
and programming the hearing device with the best fit audiogram. (see [0070]: result from BHI score (standard audiogram) is determined and results are programmed to hearing instruments 102)
Regarding claim 2, Xu teaches the plurality of audiograms has been pre-calculated using a fitting formula and the memory is a memory of the hearing device. (see [0056]: set of standard audiograms are defined by standard audiograms for hearing aid testing (and/or by defined by another standard-setting organization), using processors of computing systems, which inherently would include a memory for the hearing device.)
Regarding claim 7, Xu teaches said programming comprises directly programming the hearing device by wireless communication. (see [0039]: enable computing device 300 to communicate wirelessly)
Regarding claim 8, Xu teaches said wireless communication is sent from an app on a computing device to the hearing device. (see [0039]-[0042]: wireless communication sent from application module on computing device to hearing device.)
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches said finding a best fit comprises mapping the hearing threshold levels to audiograms in the plurality of audiograms and selecting gain settings of a best fit audiogram from the plurality of audiograms that also has gain settings within constraints imposed by the hearing device. (see [0052]-[0056], [0067]: mapping the hearing threshold levels to plurality of audiograms, predetermined gain changes imposed by hearing device)
Regarding claim 10, Xu teaches performing an environmental noise check prior to said sending instructions to output audio signals, and preventing said sending instructions to output audio signals unless an environmental noise level below a predetermined threshold noise level is detected. (see [0064]: analyze a current acoustic environment of user 104 to ensure appropriate quiet situation. Output indication to move or adjust acoustic environment for appropriate quiet situation, which inherently means instructions to output audio signals are prevented by indication/alert user to move or adjust acoustic environment, if above a predetermined threshold noise level.)
Regarding claim 11, Xu teaches determining whether to calculate an estimate of a hearing threshold value at a first of the predefined frequencies based upon a hearing threshold value at a second of the predefined frequencies, wherein the estimate is calculated when the determined user hearing threshold level at the first frequency is greater than the determined user hearing threshold level at the second frequency by more than a predetermined value. (see [0088]: if a first frequency threshold is 3000 Hz and second frequency threshold is 4000 Hz of the initial audiogram, processing system will calculate an estimate of a hearing threshold value.)
Regarding claim 16, Xu teaches creation of the audiograms stored in memory comprises calculating insertion gains for audiogram hearing threshold levels for the audiograms. (see [0067]: adjusting the gain for audiogram hearing threshold levels based on the difference between the measurement of the hearing aid.)
Regarding claim 17, Xu teaches at least one of the audiograms stored in memory have been customized by adjusting at least one of expansion threshold, low level threshold, high level threshold, low level gain, high level gain and/or output limit. (see [0044]-[0045]: adjusting output levels of hearing instruments, fitting refers to the set of output parameters determined by fitting the hearing instrument, which may include levels listed above.)
Regarding claims 24, the claimed limitations are a system claim directly corresponding to the method claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 25, Xu teaches stored computer program instructions are provided in an app executable on a smartphone, hearing aid charger, laptop computer, or desktop computer. (see [0042]-[0045]: instructions executable to device performed by a mobile app or web on a computing device.)
Regarding claim 34, Xu teaches best fit comprises mapping the hearing threshold levels to audiograms in the plurality of audiograms and selecting gain settings of a best fit audiogram from the plurality of audiograms that also has gain settings within constraints imposed by the hearing device. (see [0052]-[0056], [0067]: mapping the hearing threshold levels to plurality of audiograms, predetermined gain changes imposed by hearing device)
Regarding claim 35, Xu teaches stored computer program instructions are executable by the at least one processor of the system to perform an environmental noise check prior to sending said instructions to the hearing device to output audio signals. (see [0064]: analyze a current acoustic environment of user 104 to ensure appropriate quiet situation. Output indication to move or adjust acoustic environment for appropriate quiet situation, which inherently means instructions to output audio signals are prevented by indication/alert user to move or adjust acoustic environment, if above a predetermined threshold noise level.)
Regarding claims 36-37, and 41-42, the claimed limitations are a system claim directly corresponding to the method claim 10-11, and 16-17; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 10-11, and 16-17 as discussed above.
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) 3-6 and 26-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (WO 2020214482 A1, hereinafter “Xu”) in view of Clad (US 20210092529 A1, hereinafter “Clad”).
Regarding claim 3, Xu teaches placing the hearing device in a holding device (see [0006], [0027]: device may include cases for bearing hearing instruments 102, storage cases for hearing instruments 102, …)
However, Xu is silent to instructing the holding device to perform said programming.
Clad teaches instructing the holding device to perform said programming. (see [0036]: …charging station to receive operating data from the hearing aid and to store said data in the data memory if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position, and to transmit operating data stored in the data memory to the hearing aid if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position.)
Xu and Clad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of hearing aid systems and signal processing. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Clad for a holding device that instructs to perform programming to Xu in order to perform the hearting test and programming using the charger, or holding device, in place of a phone (in the case that a user doesn’t have a mobile phone).
Regarding claim 4, Xu teaches sending instructions and (see Fig. 1, [0027], [0042]-[0045]: computing system 108 may comprise computing device, handheld devices, wireless communication, … programming based on a hearing test through mobile application.)
However, Xu is silent to instructing the holding device.
Clad teaches instructing the holding device. (see [0036]: …charging station to receive operating data from the hearing aid and to store said data in the data memory if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position, and to transmit operating data stored in the data memory to the hearing aid if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position.)
Xu and Clad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of hearing aid systems and signal processing. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Clad for a holding device that instructs to perform programming to Xu in order to perform the hearting test and programming wirelessly by an app operating on a computing device.
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches sending instructions and (see [0042]-[0045]: instructions sent to holding device performed by a mobile app on holding device.)
However, Xu is silent to instructing the holding device.
Clad teaches instructing the holding device. (see [0036]: …charging station to receive operating data from the hearing aid and to store said data in the data memory if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position, and to transmit operating data stored in the data memory to the hearing aid if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position.)
Xu and Clad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of hearing aid systems and signal processing. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Clad for a holding device that instructs to perform programming to Xu in order to perform the hearting test and programming wirelessly by an app operating on a computing device.
Regarding claim 6, Xu in view of Clad teaches the holding device comprises a charger, said method further comprising charging the hearing device in the holding device. (see [0027]: device may include charging cases for bearing instruments 102, storage cases for hearing instruments 102, …)
Regarding claim 26, Xu teaches a hearing device can be docked, said (see [0027], [0041]-[0042]: charging cases for bearing instruments 102 inherently indicates that the hearing will be docked, connected, or cradled. execute instructions by processors 302 to storage device and configure computing device to apply instructions.)
However, Xu is silent to the holding device configured to program said hearing devices.
Clad teaches the holding device configured to program said hearing devices. (see [0036]: …charging station to receive operating data from the hearing aid and to store said data in the data memory if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position, and to transmit operating data stored in the data memory to the hearing aid if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position.)
Xu and Clad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of hearing aid systems and signal processing. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Clad for a holding device that instructs to perform programming to Xu in order to perform the hearting test and programming using the charger, or holding device, in place of a phone (in the case that a user doesn’t have a mobile phone).
Regarding claim 27, Xu is silent to a stored computer program instructions are configured to be executable by said at least one processor of a computing device external to the holding device, and the at least one processor external to the holding device sends instructions to said holding device to program said hearing device with the best fit audiogram.
However, Clad teaches a stored computer program instructions are configured to be executable by said at least one processor of a computing device external to the holding device, and the at least one processor external to the holding device sends instructions to said holding device to program said hearing device with the best fit audiogram. (see [0036]: …charging station to receive operating data from the hearing aid and to store said data in the data memory if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position, and to transmit operating data stored in the data memory to the hearing aid if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position.)
Xu and Clad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of hearing aid systems and signal processing. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Clad for a holding device that instructs to perform programming to Xu in order to perform the hearting test and programming using the charger, or holding device, in place of a phone (in the case that a user doesn’t have a mobile phone).
Regarding claim 28, Xu is silent to a holding device comprises the processor provided with said computer program instructions executable to send said instructions to said hearing device.
However, Clad teaches a holding device comprises the processor provided with said computer program instructions executable to send said instructions to said hearing device. (see [0036]: …charging station to receive operating data from the hearing aid and to store said data in the data memory if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position, and to transmit operating data stored in the data memory to the hearing aid if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position.)
Xu and Clad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of hearing aid systems and signal processing. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Clad for a holding device that instructs to perform programming to Xu in order to perform the hearting test and programming using the charger, or holding device, in place of a phone (in the case that a user doesn’t have a mobile phone).
Regarding claim 29, Xu in view of Clad teaches holding device comprises a charger configured to also charge a battery of said hearing device. (see [0027]: device may include charging cases for bearing instruments 102, storage cases for hearing instruments 102, …)
Regarding claim 30, Xu in view of Clad teaches stored computer program instructions are configured to be executed by the at least one processor to wirelessly send said instructions to the hearing device. (see [0039]: enable computing device 300 to communicate wirelessly)
Regarding claim 31, Xu teaches stored computer program instructions are configured to be executed by the at least one processor to wirelessly(see [0041]-[0042], [0070]: execute instructions by processors 302 to storage device and configure computing device to apply instructions wirelessly. Result from BHI score (standard audiogram) is determined and results are programmed to hearing instruments 102)
However, Xu is silent to send instructions to said holding device to program said hearing device.
Clad teaches to send instructions to said holding device to program said hearing device. (see [0036]: …charging station to receive operating data from the hearing aid and to store said data in the data memory if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position, and to transmit operating data stored in the data memory to the hearing aid if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position.)
Xu and Clad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of hearing aid systems and signal processing. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Clad for a holding device that instructs to perform programming to Xu in order to perform the hearting test and programming wirelessly by an app operating on a computing device.
Regarding claim 32, Xu teaches stored computer program instructions are configured to be executed by the at least one processor of a smart phone. (see [0027]: computing system 108 may comprise smartphone wherein computer program instructions are configured to be executed by a processor of computing system.)
Regarding claim 33, Xu is silent to stored computer instructions are stored in said holding device and are configured to be executed by at least one processor in the holding device.
However, Clad teaches to stored computer instructions are stored in said holding device and are configured to be executed by at least one processor in the holding device. (see [0036]: …charging station to receive operating data from the hearing aid and to store said data in the data memory if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position, and to transmit operating data stored in the data memory to the hearing aid if the hearing aid is arranged in a transmission position.)
Xu and Clad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of hearing aid systems and signal processing. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Clad for a holding device that instructs to perform programming to Xu in order to perform the hearting test and programming using the charger, or holding device, in place of a phone (in the case that a user doesn’t have a mobile phone).
Claim(s) 12-13 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (WO 2020214482 A1, hereinafter “Xu”) in view of Van Tasell (US 20130085411 A1, hereinafter “Van Tasell”).
Regarding claim 12, Xu is silent to determining whether an unexpected lowered threshold (referred to as a spike) occurs in one or more of the hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies;
and correcting any of the hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies where a spike has been determined to occur.
However, Van Tasell teaches determining whether an unexpected lowered threshold (referred to as a spike) occurs in one or more of the hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies;
and correcting any of the hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies where a spike has been determined to occur. (see claim 2: (e) if the difference is out of the predetermined range (spike) repeating steps (a) through (d), which is correcting the spike.)
Xu and Van Tasell are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of fitting method for hearing devices and systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Van Tasell for determining and correcting where a spike has been determined to occur to Xu in order to accurately determine hearing threshold levels without unexpected lowered thresholds.
Regarding claim 13, Xu teaches finding a best fit audiogram comprises selecting the audiogram determined to have a lowest target score; (see [0055]-[0059]: sets of standard audiograms are defined to find closest match, or lowest average hearing threshold (target score))
wherein target scores are calculated by: calculating an average hearing threshold level of the determined user hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies; (see [0055]: PTA score is calculated by an average hearing threshold at predetermined frequencies. )
calculating an average audiometric slope per octave from the determined user hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies; (see [0086]-[0088]: determining slope of thresholds of standard audiogram at predetermined frequencies)
However, Xu is silent to for each of the plurality of audiograms, calculating an absolute hearing level difference between the average hearing threshold level of the determined user hearing 1 threshold levels and an average hearing threshold level of the audiogram; and calculating an absolute slope difference between the average audiometric slope per octave from the determined user hearing threshold levels and an average audiometric slope per octave from the audiogram; wherein a target score is calculated to be a sum of the absolute hearing level difference and the absolute slope difference.
Van Tasell teaches for each of the plurality of audiograms, calculating an absolute hearing level difference between the average hearing threshold level of the determined user hearing 1 threshold levels and an average hearing threshold level of the audiogram; and calculating an absolute slope difference between the average audiometric slope per octave from the determined user hearing threshold levels and an average audiometric slope per octave from the audiogram; wherein a target score is calculated to be a sum of the absolute hearing level difference and the absolute slope difference. (see Fig. 7, [0086]-[0093]: steps 718 and 724, computation of an average slope and average hearing threshold level and finds best fit audiogram.)
Xu and Van Tasell are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of fitting method for hearing devices and systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Van Tasell for computing an absolute slope and level difference to Xu in order to determine the best fit audiogram based on the plurality of slopes and hearing threshold levels.
Regarding claim 38, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the system claim 13; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 13 as discussed above.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (WO 2020214482 A1, hereinafter “Xu”) in view of Van Tasell (US 20130085411 A1, hereinafter “Van Tasell”) and Rieger (US 20130223634 A1, hereinafter “Rieger”).
Regarding claim 14, Xu in view of Van Tasell is silent to the hearing device is a first hearing device, said method being repeated for a second hearing device, wherein said first and second hearing devices are for use in left and right ears of the user, respectively; said method further comprising: determining if there is a significant asymmetry in hearing loss between the left and right ears of the user by comparing the hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies for the first device to the respective hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies for the second device; and calculating mean hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies from the hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies for the first and second devices when the absolute hearing threshold level difference between the first and second devices, for any measured frequency, does not exceed a predetermined threshold difference; wherein said finding a best fit audiogram comprises comparing the mean hearing threshold levels with the hearing threshold levels from the plurality of audiograms stored in memory; and wherein both the first and second hearing devices are programmed with the same best fit audiogram.
However, Rieger teaches the hearing device is a first hearing device, said method being repeated for a second hearing device, wherein said first and second hearing devices are for use in left and right ears of the user, respectively; said method further comprising: determining if there is a significant asymmetry in hearing loss between the left and right ears of the user by comparing the hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies for the first device to the respective hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies for the second device; and calculating mean hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies from the hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies for the first and second devices when the absolute hearing threshold level difference between the first and second devices, for any measured frequency, does not exceed a predetermined threshold difference; wherein said finding a best fit audiogram comprises comparing the mean hearing threshold levels with the hearing threshold levels from the plurality of audiograms stored in memory; and wherein both the first and second hearing devices are programmed with the same best fit audiogram. (see [0007], [0043]-[0052]: similarly, first and second hearing devices are for use in left and right ears of users determining asymmetry in hearing loss between the left and right ears of user by comparing hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies.)
Xu and Rieger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of fitting method for hearing devices and systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of a first and second hearing device comparing difference in hearing threshold levels of Rieger to Xu in order to determine asymmetry in hearing loss between the left and right ears of a user.
Regarding claim 15, Xu in view of Van Tasell is silent to the hearing device is a first hearing device, said method being repeated for a second hearing device, wherein said first and second hearing devices are for use in left and right ears of the user, respectively; said method further comprising: determining if there is a significant asymmetry in hearing loss between the left and right ears of the user by comparing the hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies for the first device to the respective hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies for the second device; and when it is determined that there is a significant asymmetry, said finding a best fit audiogram comprises finding best fit audiograms individually for the first and second devices; and the first and second hearing devices are programmed with the individually found best fit audiograms.
However, Rieger teaches the hearing device is a first hearing device, said method being repeated for a second hearing device, wherein said first and second hearing devices are for use in left and right ears of the user, respectively; said method further comprising: determining if there is a significant asymmetry in hearing loss between the left and right ears of the user by comparing the hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies for the first device to the respective hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies for the second device; and when it is determined that there is a significant asymmetry, said finding a best fit audiogram comprises finding best fit audiograms individually for the first and second devices; and the first and second hearing devices are programmed with the individually found best fit audiograms. (see [0007], [0043]-[0052], [0108]-[0118]: similarly, first and second hearing devices are for use in left and right ears of users determining asymmetry in hearing loss between the left and right ears of user by comparing hearing threshold levels at predefined frequencies and finding best fit audiograms individually for the first and second devices.)
Xu and Rieger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of fitting method for hearing devices and systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of a first and second hearing device comparing difference in hearing threshold levels and best fit audiograms of Rieger to Xu in order to determine asymmetry in hearing loss between the left and right ears of a user.
Regarding claim 39-40, the claimed limitations are a method claim directly corresponding to the system claim 14-15; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 14-15 as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695