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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-11 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al, US Patent Pub. 20140348334 A1, in view of McIntosh et al, US Patent Pub. 20110096036 A1.
Re Claim 1, Ko et al discloses a hearing instrument comprising: a vibration unit (para 0052: vibration motor); a motion sensor (para 0056: motion sensor); and one or more processors configured to: cause the vibration unit to generate a vibration (para 0052: vibration motor generates vibration); obtain, from the motion sensor, a motion signal indicative of motion of one or more parts of the hearing instrument while the vibration unit is generating the vibration (paras 0056: motion sensor is able to determine motion of a device along with touches from a user as highlighted in paras 0052, 0063-0064); determine, based on the motion signal, whether a user has further touched the hearing instrument while the vibration unit is generating the vibration (para 0052: motions of touches can be determined by the motion sensor while vibration motor is being generated, wherein a touch motion could initiate the vibration motor and successive touch motions could control/adjust the vibration motor); and execute a command in response to determining that the user has further touched the hearing instrument while the vibration unit is generating the vibration (para 0052: motions of touches can be determined by the motion sensor while vibration motor is being generated, wherein a touch motion could initiate the vibration motor and successive touch motions could control/adjust the vibration motor); but fails to disclose determining that the vibration has been dampened by the user touching the hearing instrument. However, McIntosh teaches the concept of the system of where a user’s touch could excite vibration or dampen vibration (McIntosh, para 0050: dampening vibration implies that the surface was already vibrating). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ko et al system such that a touch can either excite vibration or dampen vibration as taught in McIntosh for the purpose of being able to not only excite vibrations but also minimize vibrations.
Re Claim 7, the combined teachings of Ko et al and McIntosh disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the speaker to generated a description of a notification (Ko et al, para 0051: speaker outputs notification sounds, which include but not limited to voice of another user, describing the type/reason for notification); and cause the vibration unit to generate the vibration in response to determining the notification (Ko et al, para 0052: motions of touches can be determined by the motion sensor while vibration motor is being generated, wherein a touch motion could initiate the vibration motor and successive touch motions could control/adjust the vibration motor). The combined teachings of Ko et al and McIntosh fail to disclose causing the speaker to generate a spoken description of a notification. Since Ko et al teaches that its system outputs different notification sounds, including voice of another user, for different types of notifications, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ko et al to output notification sounds that are spoken description of the type of notification for the purpose of making the system more interactive.
Re Claim 8, the combined teachings of Ko et al and McIntosh disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: cause the vibration unit to generate the vibration in a predetermined pattern to indicate a type of a notification to the user (Ko et al, para 0088: vibration intensity/cycle reads on vibration predetermined pattern).
Re Claim 9, the combined teachings of Ko et al and McIntosh disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the hearing instrument is communicatively coupled to a second hearing instrument and is further configured to: receive, from the second hearing instrument, data indicating that the user has provided input to the second hearing instrument (Ko et al, para 0085: second touch panel sends motion touch signals to the controller when touched); and execute the command in response to receiving the data indicating that the user has provided the input to the second hearing instrument (Ko et al, para 0085: second touch panel sends motion touch signals to the controller when touched; wherein vibration motor is controlled accordingly thereafter (para 0052: controller controls the vibration motor)).
Re Claim 10, the combined teachings of Ko et al and McIntosh disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the hearing instrument is further configured to: determine that alternate sound processing settings would be beneficial to the user (Ko et al, para 0036: controller controls vibration according to the determined user); and cause the vibration unit to generate the vibration in response to the determination that the alternate sound processing settings would be beneficial to the user (Ko et al, para 0036: controller controls vibration according to the determined user).
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 7.
Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 8.
Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 9.
Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 & 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 2-3: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Wherein: the motion signal is a first motion signal; the vibration is a first vibration; and the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the vibration unit to generate a second vibration; obtain, from the motion sensor, a second motion signal while the vibration unit is generating the second vibration and the user is not further touching the hearing instrument; the one or more processors are configured to, as part of determining whether the user has further touched the hearing instrument: compare the first motion signal and the second motion signal; and determine, based on the comparison of the first motion signal and the second motion signal, whether the user has further touched the hearing instrument.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 4-5: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Wherein the motion signal is a first motion signal, the vibration is a first vibration, the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the vibration unit to generate a second vibration; and obtain, from the motion sensor, a second motion signal while the vibration unit is generating the second vibration; determine, based on the second motion signal, that the user did not further touch the hearing instrument prior to an expiration of a time period; and refrain from executing the command in response to the determination that the user did not further touch the hearing instrument prior to the expiration of the time period.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 6: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Further comprising: a speaker; and a microphone; wherein the one or more processors further configured to: cause the speaker to generate an audio output; obtain, from the microphone, an audio signal indicative of the audio output of the speaker while the speaker is generating the audio output; and determine, based on the audio signal, whether the user has touched the hearing instrument while the speaker is generating audio output; and wherein the command is a first command and the one or more processors are configured to execute a second command in response to determining that the user has touched the hearing instrument while the speaker is generating the audio output.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 12-13: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Wherein: the motion signal is a first motion signal; the vibration is a first vibration; and the method further comprises: causing, by the hearing instrument, the vibration unit to generate a second vibration; and obtaining, by the hearing instrument and from the motion sensor, a second motion signal while the vibration unit is generating the second vibration and the user is not further touching the hearing instrument; and as part of determining whether the user has further touched the hearing instrument: comparing, by the hearing instrument, the first motion signal and the second motion signal; and determining, by the hearing instrument and based on the comparison of the first motion signal and the second motion signal, whether the user has further touched the hearing instrument.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 11.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 14-16: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Wherein the motion signal is a first motion signal; the vibration is a first vibration; and further comprising: causing, by the hearing instrument, the vibration unit to generate a second vibration; obtaining, by the hearing instrument and from the motion sensor, a second motion signal while the vibration unit is generating the second vibration; determining, by the hearing instrument and based on the second motion signal, that the user did not further touch the hearing instrument prior to an expiration of a time period; and refraining, by the hearing instrument, from executing the command in response to the determination that the user did not further touch the hearing instrument prior to the expiration of the time period.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C MONIKANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 9AM-5PM, ALT. Fridays off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/GEORGE C MONIKANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692 3/2/2026