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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment & remarks filed on 05/26/2026.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
Claims 1, 10 are amended.
Claims 1-6, 8-11 are rejected.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/26/2026 has rendered moot the rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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, 3, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JINGUANG Dong et al (WO 2020/093937 A1 PUBLISHED ON 14-May-2020).
For Claim 1, Dong discloses a method for operating a hearing system via a network having at least one decentralized network node (Dong teaches, on Page 13, that As shown in FIG. 3, an embodiment of the present application provides a method of controlling a hearing aid), the method comprising:
automatically, without user action, starting a search for a decentralized network node of the network by the hearing system (Dong teaches, on Page 13, under S301: that when using the mobile phone 200 to connect the hearing aid 100, you can activate the respective Bluetooth device, scan to find the nearby hearing aid 100, and then initiate a Bluetooth connection. After pairing, the Bluetooth connection can be established. There can be multiple Bluetooth pairing processes, such as direct pairing, PIN code pairing, physical or virtual button pairing, and so on);
automatically, without user action, connecting the hearing system to at least one decentralized network node of the network upon a successful search (Dong teaches, on Page 13, step S301: The terminal establishes a wireless communication link with the hearing aid); and automatically, without user action, carrying out a data exchange between the hearing system and the at least one decentralized network node of the network (Dong teaches, on Page 14, step S303: The terminal generates a parameter configuration instruction according to the environmental data, and sends the parameter
configuration instruction to the hearing aid … the parameter configuration instruction is an instruction that can be executed by the hearing aid 100, conforms to a preset format, and is sent to the hearing aid 100 for execution by the terminal (for example, the mobile phone 200) through the wireless communication link).
Dong also teaches, on Page 12, that The WiFi device 211 is used to provide the mobile phone 200 with network access following WiFi related standard protocols. For example, the mobile phone 200 can be connected to a WiFi access point through the WiFi device 211 to connect to the network.
Further, Dong, teaches on Page 15, that The mobile phone 200 can set the parameter configuration menu of the hearing aid 100 in the setting menu. For example, the user can manually configure various parameters of the hearing aid 100, or can turn on the automatic setting function, that is, the mobile phone 200 generates a parameter configuration instruction according to the collected environmental data, and sends the parameter configuration instruction to the hearing aid 100 to implement automatic setting.
For Claim 3, Dong discloses a method, wherein the network comprises a data cloud and the method further comprises: storing data from the data cloud on the at least one decentralized network node, and transmitting the data to the hearing system during the data exchange (Dong teaches, on Page 14, last para: when the user sound collected by the microphone of the mobile phone 200 is small (for example, lower than a preset first sound threshold), a parameter configuration instruction for increasing the volume may be generated).
For Claim 9, Dong discloses a hearing system, comprising: a hearing aid having a search unit configured to search for a decentralized network node, having a transceiver for a signaling connection to the decentralized network node, and having a controller (Dong teaches, on Page 9, that FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a BTE hearing aid 100, including a microphone 101, an earphone 102, a battery 103, a volume adjustment button 104, and a switch 105) for carrying out the method according to claim 1 (please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above).
For Claim 10, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JINGUANG Dong et al (WO 2020/093937 A1 PUBLISHED ON 14-May-2020) in view of Jung-Keun Park et al (US 20150201284 A1).
For Claim 2, Dong discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of terminating the connection between the hearing system and the at least one decentralized network node.
However, Park, in analogous art, discloses terminating the connection between the hearing system and the at least one decentralized network node (Park teaches, in ¶ 0013, that the method may further include terminating the connection with the first hearing aid, wherein the termination of the connection with the first hearing aid is performed before or after the establishing of the connection with the second hearing aid.).
Park teaches, in ¶ 0081, that the controller 303 may transmit a signal corresponding to an instruction for activating the first wireless unit of the hearing aid of the other side (e.g., a unit of performing a communication with the first electronic device) to the hearing aid of the other side, and may allow its first wireless unit 308 to transition to an inactive state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Dong with the connection termination taught in Park. The motivation is so that the hearing aid can minimize energy consumption.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JINGUANG Dong et al (WO 2020/093937 A1 PUBLISHED ON 14-May-2020) in view of Eli Dow et al (US 20180108370 A1).
For Claim 4, Dong discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of storing data from the data cloud on the at least one decentralized network node, and transmitting the data to the hearing system during the data exchange.
However, Dow, in analogous art, discloses storing data from the data cloud on the at least one decentralized network node, and transmitting the data to the hearing system during the data exchange (Dow teaches, in ¶ 0015, that the hearing aid 104 and/or one or more connected remote resources 102 may be configured to access one or more programs, applications, and/or software that are accessible in the cloud, e.g., stored on one or more internet based servers … data stored in the storage device or remote server may include, but is not limited to, one or more user applications and/or data, including but not limited to, historical audio data, learned responses, user-specific data, metadata related to the same, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Dong with the cloud-stored information taught in Dow. The motivation is to monitor hearing loss and/or comprehension of users.
Claims 5-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JINGUANG Dong et al (WO 2020/093937 A1 PUBLISHED ON 14-May-2020) in view of Sriram Hariharan et al (US 20250088815 A1).
For Claim 5, Dong discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of transferring status data about a status of the hearing system from the hearing system to the at least one network node.
However, Hariharan, in analogous art, discloses that the hearing system is configured to automatically start the search for a decentralized network node with a settable repetition rate (Hariharan teaches, in ¶ 0027, that send to the companion device data regarding the in-ear status of the wireless ear bud in the primary role and the wireless ear bud in the secondary role).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Dong with the status information taught in Hariharan. The motivation is to minimize the time required to perform the role swap.
For Claim 6, Dong discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the hearing system is configured to automatically start the search for a decentralized network node with a settable repetition rate.
However, Hariharan, in analogous art, discloses that the hearing system is configured to automatically start the search for a decentralized network node with a settable repetition rate (Hariharan teaches, in ¶ 0030, that the wireless ear buds 1005, 1010 are configured to attempt to wirelessly connect with a companion device automatically when the cover 1045 opens. Hariharan teaches, in ¶ 0058, that The swap manager on the wireless ear bud in a secondary role can try a predetermined number of times or for a predetermined duration to re-connect to the wireless ear bud in the primary role).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Dong with the role swap taught in Hariharan. The motivation is to ensure minimal or disruption in the data exchange when the battery level of the wireless ear bud in the primary role is low and needs to be charged, while the wireless ear bud in the secondary role has sufficient power.
For Claim 8, Dong discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of setting the repetition rate in dependence on a wearing state of the hearing system.
However, Hariharan, in analogous art, discloses setting the repetition rate in dependence on a wearing state of the hearing system (Hariharan teaches, in ¶ 0030, that the wireless ear buds 1005, 1010 are configured to attempt to wirelessly connect with a companion device automatically when the cover 1045 opens. Hariharan teaches, in ¶ 0058, that The swap manager on the wireless ear bud in a secondary role can try a predetermined number of times or for a predetermined duration to re-connect to the wireless ear bud in the primary role).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Dong with the role swap taught in Hariharan. The motivation is to ensure minimal or disruption in the data exchange when the battery level of the wireless ear bud in the primary role is low and needs to be charged, while the wireless ear bud in the secondary role has sufficient power.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JINGUANG Dong et al (WO 2020/093937 A1 PUBLISHED ON 14-May-2020) in view of Gabriel Aldaz et al (US 9113287 B2).
For Claim 11, Dong discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of localizing the hearing system.
However, Aldaz, in analogous art, discloses localizing the hearing system (Aldaz teaches, in Col. 6, lines 57-63, that In the wireless communication system depicted in FIG. 2, a mobile Bluetooth device 100, which may be e.g. a hearing device, such as a hearing aid, or a hearing-aid streamer, is located at a current device location 121 (which is more or less identical to the current location of a user wearing the mobile Bluetooth device 100)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Dong with the location information taught in Aldaz. The motivation is to allow the mobile Bluetooth device 100 to determine the distance--or at least an indication of the distance--to each of the other Bluetooth terminals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, 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:
Claim 7 is considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations including.
“during an operation of the hearing system, determining a measure of a period of time since a last connection to a network node, and setting the repetition rate depending on the measure,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited in dependent claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Rejection under 35 USC 102
Claims 1, 3, 9-10
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the Dong fails to teach or suggest, or render obvious “the automatic establishment of a connection and automatic data exchange without any user interaction,” (see remarks, pages 7-8).
The reason being Dong teaches, on Page 13, under S301: that when using the mobile phone 200 to connect the hearing aid 100, you can activate the respective Bluetooth device, scan to find the nearby hearing aid 100, and then initiate a Bluetooth connection. After pairing, the Bluetooth connection can be established. There can be multiple Bluetooth pairing processes, such as direct pairing, PIN code pairing, physical or virtual button pairing, and so on.
Clearly, Dong teaches that After pairing, the Bluetooth connection can be established. There is no indication or suggestion that establishing the Bluetooth connection requires user intervention/interaction. This explains Applicant’s apparent admission, in the remarks, that “An automatic connection without user interaction is … possible after the user-triggered pairing”.
In fact, applicant appears to be “arguing limitations which are not claimed,” (see MPEP 2145 (VI)). In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., [The features of the claim explicitly exclude a user-initiated pairing]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner asserts that there are no recitations in claim 1 that explicitly exclude a user-initiated pairing. In fact, claim 1 does not explicitly recite any pairing process.
Nevertheless, Applicant’s specification, in para 0021, states “The hearing system thus attempts to carry out a pairing process with a network or network node. In this case, for example, it is also conceivable that the network nodes actively search for a hearing system (for example a Bluetooth identifier)”. Admittedly, the specification’s pairing process , as stated, does not exclude a user-initiated pairing.
Thus, Examiner believes that an automatic connection is disclosed and/or suggested in Dong (even if that automatic connection is preceded by user-initiated pairing).
More importantly, Dong, teaches on Page 15, that The mobile phone 200 can set the parameter configuration menu of the hearing aid 100 in the setting menu. For example, the user can manually configure various parameters of the hearing aid 100, or can turn on the automatic setting function, that is, the mobile phone 200 generates a parameter configuration instruction according to the collected environmental data, and sends the parameter configuration instruction to the hearing aid 100 to implement automatic setting.
Once again, it is evidently clear from the above citation that Dong teaches turning on the automatic setting function in order for the hearing aid 100 to implement automatic setting. By implementing automatic setting, user action/intervention would not be necessary in carrying out the claimed initiating a connection, establishing a connection, or carrying out data exchange.
Examiner notes that MPEP §2144.01 states: “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).” In other words, one skilled in the art would reasonably recognize that Dong teaches automatic setting along with (or in lieu of) manual configuration.
Accordingly, Examiner believes that Dong discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 (along with claims 9-10), and therefore, Dong anticipates claims 1, 9-10.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Examiner submits that amended claim 1 (along with claims 9-10) is not yet patentable over the applied art.
Further, Examiner has established that Dong anticipates independent claim 1 (see above). Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, modifying the Dong reference by Park, and/or Dow and/or Hariharan and/or Aldaz would NOT change the principle of operation of Dong because Dong discloses turning on the automatic setting function in order for the hearing aid 100 to implement automatic setting.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11 be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PETERSEN et al (US 20150063612 A1) is pertinent to a hearing aid device configured to execute the directionality system optimization procedure automatically and/or by initiation from a user interface..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights