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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim4-7, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 calls for “measuring each temperature value several times, determining several respective discrepancies”. It is unclear what “each temperature value” refers to, as claim 1 does not call for measuring any temperature values but does call for determining a current value and also acquiring two values, Further, if each value is measured several times it appears the result would be the same as it is a singular value at a point in time repeatedly being measured, unless the intent is to call for measuring a plurality of values over time? Still further, it is unclear which values are compared to find these “several respective discrepancies” as, theoretically, a number of values have been acquired from each sensor such that these “respective discrepancies” could be a comparison of values over time of the values from a single sensor, or comparisons of values with matching timepoints of being sensed, or some other combination of values whose differences can be analyzed. Clarification is required.
Further, claim 4 defines that the state of health is based on a measure of a central tendency of the discrepancies; the method does not actually call for finding this measure, such that it is unclear if this should be part of the method or if this is a value obtained from some other source. Still further, as claim 1 already defines that the state of health is estimated based on the discrepancy it is unclear if the intent of claim 4 is to further define this estimation or if the estimation involves both the initial single discrepancy and also the measure of a central tendency of additional discrepancies. Clarification is required.
Claim 5 calls for “creating one such measure of central tendency for a plurality of successive time windows” – it is unclear if the intent is for this one measure of central tendency is a measure of the data acquired during a plurality of windows or to create a measure for each of a plurality of windows. Clarification is required.
Further, claim 5 defines that the estimating of the state of health is performed “with the aid of” an additional parameter. It is unclear how this measure can “aid” the estimation. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 calls for “monitoring whether the user additionally touches one of the hearing devices”. It is unclear if the intent is to define that the monitoring itself is performed in addition to the temperature sensing, or if this is intended to be a monitoring for an additional touch – that is, some first touch must have inherently already occurred in order to monitoring and detect an additional touch. Clarification is required.
Further, claim 7 calls for this monitoring to be performed “during a determination of the temperature values”; per claim 1 this determination takes place only once, such that it is not clear if the intent is to refer to only this determination or if the claim requires additional determinations to take place. Still further, if the claim refers to only the single determination performed per claim 1, it is not clear how the remainder of that method could be performed if those values are discarded. Clarification is required.
Claim 10 defines a system including hearing devices that is configured to operate according to the method of claim 1; the method of claim 1 includes a step of providing hearing devices. It is not clear how the hearing devices of claim 10 can be operated to perform the step of providing hearing devices. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “determining a discrepancy between the two temperature values” and “estimating a state of health of a user of the hearing devices based on the discrepancy between the two temperature values.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “providing two hearing devices each having a temperature sensor” and “determining a current temperature value by way of each temperature sensor to acquire two temperature values.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0016] and [0032] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0329952 to Silberzahn; see also MPEP 2106.05(d), where determining the level of a biomarker by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017) is held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2-11 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Thus, claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LeBoeuf (US 2008/0146890).
Regarding claim 1, LeBoeuf discloses a method of operating a hearing device system, the method comprising:
providing two hearing devices (paragraph [0122]) each having a temperature sensor (paragraph [0060]);
determining a current temperature value by way of each temperature sensor to acquire two temperature values (paragraph [0096], [0123]);
determining a discrepancy between the two temperature values (paragraph [0123]); and
estimating a state of health of a user of the hearing devices based on the discrepancy between the two temperature values (paragraph [0123]).
Regarding claim 2, LeBoeuf further discloses that the hearing devices are hearing aids (paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claim 3, LeBoeuf further discloses determining the two temperature values simultaneously (paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 8, LeBoeuf further discloses recording an ambient temperature when determining the temperature values and taking the ambient temperature into account when estimating the state of health (paragraphs [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, LeBoeuf further discloses recording a user activity when determining the temperature values and taking the user activity into account when estimating the state of health (paragraph [0119]).
Regarding claim 10, LeBoeuf discloses a hearing device system, comprising two hearing devices, each having a temperature sensor, and being configured to be operated by a method according to claim 1 (paragraphs [0122], [0123]).
Regarding claim 11, LeBoeuf further discloses that said hearing devices are hearing aids (paragraph [0122]).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf in view of Cross (US 2019/0117155).
Regarding claim 4, LeBoeuf further discloses measuring each temperature value several times and determining several respective discrepancies with the plurality of discrepancies being used in estimating the state of health (paragraphs [0096], [0135], [0147]), but does not disclose estimating the state of health based on a measure of a central tendency of the discrepancies. Cross teaches a method comprising obtaining a plurality of temperature values from multiple sources and finding discrepancies between the values, and further determining a measure of a central tendency of the discrepancies (paragraphs [0128], [0170]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed LeBoeuf using a measure of a central tendency of the discrepancies to estimate the state of health, as taught by Cross, in order to eliminate the effects of outlier values.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Cross further teaches creating one such measure of central tendency for a plurality of successive time windows, and finding a further measure of central tendency of the measures of central tendency and determining a statistical property of the further measure paragraph [0146], [0176]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed LeBoeuf, as modified, and further included use of a statistical property of a measure of central tendency of the plurality of measures of central tendency in estimating the state of health, as further taught by Cross, in order to further smooth the data.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf in view of Qi (US 2024/0315569).
LeBoeuf does not disclose monitoring whether the user additionally touches one of the hearing devices during a determination of the temperature values, and disregarding those temperature values that were determined while the user touched one of the hearing devices. Qu teaches a method of operating a hearing device system comprising providing hearing devices each having a temperature sensor (paragraph [0184]) and determining a current temperature value from each temperature sensor (paragraph [0195]) and further monitoring whether the user additionally touches one of the hearing devices during a determination of the temperature values, and disregarding those temperature values that were determined while the user touched one of the hearing devices (paragraphs [0205]-[0207], [0214]-[0217], [0221]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed LeBoeuf and further included monitoring whether the user touches one of the hearing devices during determination of the temperature values and disregarding those temperature values that were determined while the user touched one of the hearing devices, as taught by Qi, in order to eliminate a potential source of error.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2025/0255494 to Mostafaei
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
/KAREN E TOTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791