Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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.
Claims 1–5, 10–13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2023/0199413 (effectively filed 28 May 2021 as PCT/CA2021/050730) (“Komeilipoor”). Komeilipoor incorporates by reference Doclo et al., Acoustic Beamforming for Hearing Aid Applications, in Handbook on Array Processing and Sensor Networks (Hoboken, NJ, USA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2019) (“Doclo”) and Miran et al., Real-Time Tracking of Selective Auditory Attention from M/EEG: A Bayesian Filtering Approach, in 12 Frontiers in Neuroscience (May 2018) (“Miran”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Komeilipoor and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0390952 (published 16 December 2021) (“Shirazi”).
Claims 8, 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Komeilipoor.
Claim 1 is drawn to “a hearing system.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed hearing system and the Komeilipoor reference.
Claim 1
The Komeilipoor Reference
“1. A hearing system comprising at least one hearing device adapted to be worn by a user, the hearing system comprising:
The Komeilipoor reference describes a hearing assistance system including hearing assistance devices 201 worn in both a left ear and a right ear. Komeilipoor at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 15, 22, 26, 83, 86, 88, 89, FIG.2.
“at least two input transducers for providing corresponding at least two electric input signals representing sound in an environment around the user;
Each hearing assistance device 201 includes inputs 101, including at least two microphones, such as directional microphones 303 and omnidirectional microphones 304. Id. at ¶¶ 80, 88, FIGs.1, 2.
“a beamformer filter connected to said at least two input transducers and configured to provide a spatially filtered signal comprising a target signal from a target sound source in dependence of said at least two electric input signals, adaptively updated beamformer weights, and a target direction relative to the user;
Hearing assistance device 201 includes a digital signal processor that performs beamforming on the inputs from microphones 303, 304. Id. at ¶ 88. The beamforming spatially filters the audio from its input microphones to present a target audio source at a target direction relative to a user of device 201, for example, a sound that a user is currently attending. Id. at ¶¶ 84, 105. Further details of beamforming are included in the incorporated Doclo reference. In particular, Doclo describes that an adaptive beamformer includes a set of weights its internal weights that are adaptively updated based on the specified target direction and the target direction itself. Doclo at pp. 270–271, 273, FIG.9.1.
“at least one earpiece forming part of said at least one hearing device, each earpiece comprising a housing being adapted to be located at or at least partially in an ear of the user;
Each hearing assistance device 201 similarly includes a body, or housing, 306 that fits behind the ear and includes a part 301 that fits partially in the ear canal. Komeilipoor at ¶¶ 81, 86, FIGs.2, 3.
“a brainwave detection system configured to provide a brainwave-based control signal, the brainwave detection system comprising:
“a plurality of brainwave signal sensors located in or on said housing of said at least one earpiece, each sensor providing a brainwave signal representative of said sound in the environment around the user; and
“electric circuitry connected to said plurality of brainwave signal sensors and configured to receive and process said plurality of brainwave signals,
Hearing assistance device 201 includes EEG sensors located on housing 306 so that the sensors are in contact with the ear. Id. at ¶¶ 81, 86, FIGs.2, 3. The EEG sensors produce a measure of a user’s EEG in response to a sound in the user’s environment. Id. at ¶ 85, 90.
Komeilipoor further describes a processor 102 that receives and processes the EEG signals to determine a user’s auditory attention—namely, which sounds the user is attending and which sounds (e.g., distractions) the user is not attending. Id. Details on EEG-based auditory attention are presented in the incorporated Miran reference. Miran at Abs.
“wherein said electric circuitry is configured to identify a further direction to a further sound source, said further direction being different from said target direction, based on one or more of said plurality of brainwave signals, and to provide said brainwave-based control signal indicative thereof,
Komeilipoor likewise describes processor 102 as using EEG signals to determine a user’s current auditory attention in order to adjust a beamformer to look in direction corresponding to a sound corresponding to the user’s auditory attention. Komeilipoor at ¶¶ 84–85, 105. When the user’s EEG indicates that the user is attending a sound, a beamformer is steered towards that sound. When the user’s EEG indicates that the user is not attending a sound, the beamformer is not steered towards that sound (e.g., a distraction), but is configured to suppress the sound.
One of ordinary skill would have understood from Komeilipoor’s description of tracking, separating and switching between sources among multiple concurrent and moving sources that processor 102 is configured to identify any number of sound sources over the course of being used, such that processor 102 switches to new sources in new directions by steering a beamformer between any number of sound sources corresponding to a user’s current auditory attention (reflected by current EEG signals). Id. at Abs. ¶¶ 12, 13, 80, 94.
“weight estimator configured to estimate said adaptively updated beamformer weights, wherein said adaptively updated beamformer weights represent a beamformer comprising a local minimum in said further direction; and
In practice, Komeilipoor will steer a beam towards a source to enhance a sound that the user is currently attending while configuring a beamformer to suppress sounds from a source that the user is not currently attending. Id. at ¶¶ 84, 88, 105.
However, Komeilipoor does not describe a weight estimator that estimates adaptively updated beamformer weights that represent a local minimum in the direction of an unattended distraction.
“wherein said hearing system is further configured to determine said spatially filtered signal in dependence of said brainwave-based control signal and said adaptively updated beamformer weights.”
As discussed above, Komeilipoor describes steering a beamformer (i.e., adaptively updating its weights) towards an attended sound while controlling a beamformer to suppress sounds from unattended distracting sound sources. Id.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Komeilipoor reference describes a system that corresponds closely to the claimed system. Komeilipoor does not anticipate the claimed weight estimator.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Komeilipoor reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. Komeilipoor describes a system that adapts a beamformer based on the sounds a user is attending. Komeilipoor at ¶¶ 84, 88, 105. This presumes that sounds in a user’s environment are first identified and separated in space. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 57, 84. Then as a user is attending sounds produced by a first sound source located in a first direction, the beamformer is steered towards that first sound source. Id. at ¶¶ 84, 88, 105. When a user is ignoring sounds produced by a second sound source located in a second direction, the beamformer is adjusted to second sound source to suppress sounds from that second source. Id.
The Doclo reference describes adapting beamformer weights to steer a null (i.e., local minimum) towards a dominant noise source. Doclo at p. 270. This reasonably suggests steering a null towards a distracting sound source that a user is not attending in order to suppress the sound.
The combination of Komeilipoor and Doclo together suggest various mechanisms for steering a beamformer. For example, Doclo suggests steering a beamformer null to suppress a sound source that is creating a distracting noisy environment. Komeilipoor describes scenarios in which a user is attending a sound and not attending other sounds, such as distractions. Together, Komeilipoor and Doclo thus suggest steering a null towards a distracting sound that the user is not attending. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Komeilipoor and the Doclo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the electric circuitry is configured to determine said further direction as a direction of current attention of the user based on one or more of said plurality of brainwave signals.”
Komeilipoor describes performing real-time auditory attention tracking in order to steer a beamformer based on the user’s current EEG signals. Komeilipoor at ¶¶ 80, 84, 85. Komeilipoor describes directing a beam towards a sound that a user is currently attending. The Examiner is in general agreement with Applicant that this is in contrast to the Applicant’s disclosed idea of steering of a null, or local minimum, towards a sound that a user is currently attending. (See Reply at 6–7 (17 February 2026)). However, claims 1 and 2 broadly require a weight estimator configured to estimate adaptively updated beamformer weights that represent a beamformer with a local minimum in a further direction without requiring that the adaptation occurs at a particular time or in response to any other determination, such as the identification/determination that a sound source in a further direction is currently being attended by a user. Thus, it is sufficient that the Komeilipoor-Doclo combination contemplates a beamformer that is adapted to steer a null, or local minimum, to a sound source in a further direction when sounds in that further direction are not currently attended and that is adapted to steer a beam towards the further direction when sounds in that further direction are being attended by the user. Applicant may amend the claims to avoid this application of the prior art by requiring the weight estimator to perform adaptation (i.e., adaptation that produces a local minimum in a further direction) when it is determined that the user is currently attending a sound from a sound source in the further direction. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Komeilipoor and the Doclo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“comprising a memory containing reference brainwave data representing brainwave signals recorded while the user is instructed to suppress a distracting sound source on the left or on the right side relative to the user.”
The Miran reference, incorporated by Komeilipoor, similarly describes determining auditory attention using a trained model that is trained on EEG signals. Miran at §§ 2.4, 2.5. Miran describes the training EEG signals as EEG signals generated by playing different sounds in a user’s left ear and right ear. Id. During production of the training signals, the users were instructed to attend one of the sounds while ignoring the other. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the electric circuitry is configured to compare the reference brainwave data stored in the memory with current brainwave data representing one or more of said plurality of brainwave signals and to determine said brainwave-based control signal in dependence thereof.”
Miran describes determining a user’s auditory attention by comparing current EEG signals with the model (i.e., reference brainwave data). Miran at § 2, FIG.1 (describing the fitting of a model to current neural data in real time). Komeilipoor further describes using a user’s auditory attention to steer a beamformer towards a target sound source. Komeilipoor at ¶¶ 84–85, 105. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the electric circuitry comprises a learning algorithm trained to determine said further direction from said plurality of brainwave signals.”
Miran describes the use of a supervised learning algorithm trained on EEG signals in order to tune the algorithm prior to real-time operation. Miran at §§ 2.4, 4. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“comprising a speech detector for estimating whether or not, or with what probability, an input signal comprises speech at a given point in time and providing a speech activity control signal indicative thereof, and
“wherein said hearing system is further configured to determine said spatially filtered signal in dependence of said speech activity control signal.”
Shirazi teaches and suggests an adaptive beamformer that adapts a beamformer based on the presence/absence of voice detected by a voice (i.e., speech) activity detector. Shirazi at ¶¶ 38–41, FIG.4. This would have reasonably suggested implementing Komeilipoor’s beamformer in a similar manner. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Komeilipoor and the Shirazi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the target direction is a look direction of the user.”
Komeilipoor describes a sensor fusion approach that determines a beamformer target based on a combination of a user’s look direction and a user’s auditory attention. Komeilipoor at ¶¶ 84, 85, 90. This reasonably suggests steering a beamformer towards a user’s look direction, particularly when the direction of a user’s auditory attention overlaps with audio aligned with the user’s look direction. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the further direction is in a left or right half plane relative to the user.”
Komeilipoor describes a sensor fusion approach that determines a beamformer target based on a combination of a user’s look direction and a user’s auditory attention. Komeilipoor at ¶¶ 84, 85, 90. This reasonably suggests steering a beamformer towards a user’s left or right half plane, particularly when the direction of a user’s auditory attention overlaps with either the user’s left or right half plane. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the at least one earpiece comprises said at least two input transducers.”
Each of Komeilipoor’s hearing assistance devices 201 includes at least two microphones 303, 304. Komeilipoor at ¶ 80, FIGs.2, 3. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“comprising at least one output transducer providing stimuli to the user in dependence of said spatially filtered signal or on a further processed version thereof.”
By nature of being hearing assistance devices, one of ordinary skill would have understood that each of Komeilipoor’s hearing assistance devices 201 includes at least one output transducer so that devices 201 can actually assist a user in hearing. See Komeilipoor at ¶ 4 (describing the improvement of speech intelligibility). For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“comprising an external signal processor separate from and in communication with said at least one earpiece.”
Komeilipoor describes a set of external signal processors 202, 203 in communication with hearing assistance device 201. Komeilipoor at ¶ 88, FIG.2. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein said brainwave signal sensors are constituted by or comprise electric potential sensors.”
Similarly, Komeilipoor’s sensors 301, 302 are electric potential sensors that produce an EEG. Komeilipoor at ¶ 81, FIG.3. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“comprising first and second hearing devices adapted to be worn by a user at or at least partially in left and right ears, respectively, of the user,
“the first and second hearing devices being configured to exchange data between them.”
The Komeilipoor reference describes a hearing assistance system including hearing assistance devices 201 worn on and partially in both a left ear and a right ear. Komeilipoor at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 15, 22, 26, 83, 86, 88, 89, FIG.2.
Komeilipoor describes that hearing assistance devices 201, smartwatch 202 and smartphone 203 may share and process microphone signals. Id. at ¶ 88. This reasonably suggests sharing data between each of hearing assistance device 201. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“comprising first and second hearing devices adapted to be worn by a user at and at least partially in left and right ears, respectively, of the user,
“the first and second hearing devices being configured to exchange data between them.”
The Komeilipoor reference describes a hearing assistance system including hearing assistance devices 201 worn on and partially in both a left ear and a right ear. Komeilipoor at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 15, 22, 26, 83, 86, 88, 89, FIG.2.
Komeilipoor describes that hearing assistance devices 201, smartwatch 202 and smartphone 203 may share and process microphone signals. Id. at ¶ 88. This reasonably suggests sharing data between each of hearing assistance device 201. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the plurality of brainwave signal sensors is located in and on said housing of said at least one earpiece.”
Komeilipoor describes locating EEG sensors 301 in and on a housing. In particular, each EEG sensor includes an internal portion (e.g., wires, not shown) that connects with a processor and housed in body 306 and an external electrode portion on the exterior of body 306. See Komeilipoor at ¶ 81, FIG.3. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein each earpiece comprises the housing being adapted to be located at and at least partially in an ear of the user.”
The Komeilipoor reference describes a hearing assistance system including hearing assistance devices 201 worn on and partially in both a left ear and a right ear. Komeilipoor at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 15, 22, 26, 83, 86, 88, 89, FIG.2. For the foregoing reasons, the Komeilipoor anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–5 and 7–17 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
Response to Applicant’s Arugments
Applicant’s Reply (17 February 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply further includes comments pertaining to the rejections presented in this Office action. Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s comments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, Carolyn 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
4/1/2026