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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The claims are directed towards a method or apparatus as recited in claims 1, 20. The closest prior art is directed towards Kindred et al (US Patent No. 7489790 B2), Zhuge (US Publication No. 2024/0039497), Riemer (US Patent No. 11265661 B1)or Dissenso et al (CN 105814913 A). However, when considering the teaching of the Prior Art individually or in combination, fails to explicitly anticipate or render obvious every limitation as recited in the recording a segmented conversation between the user and other person(s) that allows for the user to interact using user controlled functions with the recorded data in a hearing aid as recited in the claims 1, 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) , or 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.
Claim 14 is/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.
The claim recited a “fourth” as if there was a recitations of a first, second, and third with functionality of the first, second, and third; however, there is not. To further prosecurtion, it is believed that the Applicant intended –another--.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Rohde et al (US Pub No. 20210274296).
Regarding claim 1, Rohde teaches an apparatus capable of performing a method for operating a hearing aid device (HA), the method comprising: recording a set of segments (para. 0016-0017, wherein start/stop recording of audio data forming a time segment) of audio data during a conversation between a user and other people (para 0081, wherein the identifying the user, non-user, or other sounds within the segment); and, allowing the user to interact with the recorded audio data through a set of predefined functions (fig. 4B, 4C; para. 0206; wherein the auxiliary device (AD) allows for calibrating HRTF or OVTF by pressing buttons).
Regarding claim 2, Rohde teaches the method hearing aid system in claim 1, further comprising has a speech detection module to determine when the hearing aid device system should start active recording, and when to stop recording (para. 0016-0017; detector initiates start/stop recording).
Regarding claim 3, Rohde teaches the speech detection module in claim 2, has a capability to detect whether each a voice data segment is by the user or another person (para 0081, wherein the identifying the user, non-user, or other sounds within the segment).
Regarding claim 11, Rohde teaches the method hearing aid system in claim 1 further comprising provides a visual indicator on a headset the hearing aid device during active recording (para. 0028, camera on hearing aid).
Regarding claim 12, Rohde teaches the apparatus capable of performing the method hearing aid system in claim 1, further comprising provides an action button (para. 0206, wherein a button is present) to trigger a default action when the action button is clicked.
Regarding claim 13, Rohde teaches the default action in claim 12, is to play back the recorded audio data (para 0202, wherein calibrated sound is played through speaker, AD-SPK).
Regarding claim 14, Rohde teaches the default action in claim 12 can be modified through a fourth set of user controls settings (para. 0203-0229, wherein the auxiliary device can perform other control options, such as mode switching).
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, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde in view of O’Callaghan et al (US Publication No. 20230179901).
Regarding claim 4, Rohde does not teach the apparatus capable of performing the method hearing aid system in claim 1, has a replay function capability to play back the recorded audio data based on a first set of user controls command.
O’Callaghan teaches replay function capability to play back the recorded audio data based on a first set of user controls command (para. 0058; playback) for communication audio.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the communication technique would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde in view of Joergensen (US Publication No. 20050008178).
Regarding claim 15, Rohde fails to specifically teach the action button in claim 12 is a button on a headset the hearing aid device.
Joergensen teaches a button (300, button panel) on a hearing aid device for receiving a user input.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying buttons would have yielded a predictable result.
Regarding claim(s) 16-18, the combination of Rohde and Joergensen fails to teach the action button in claim 15 can further be used to pause or resume playback during a playback session (claim 16), turn on or turn off the power of the hearing aid system (claim 17), visual indication (claim 18).
However, the Examiner takes Office Notice that it is known in the art to use an action button to perform additional functions, for example (Devine US Publication No. 20100119100; para. 0008, 0029, 0037 wherein it uses action button(s) to perform operations, such as ON/OFF, volume, pause, visual functions).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying button operation(s) would have yielded a predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-10, 19 is/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.
Claim 20 is/are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLESHA DABNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday and Friday 10:30-4:30PM.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 5712727547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
For general questions such as application status, Monday–Friday, 8:30AM -5:00PM, inquiry to:
Local: 571-272-1000
Toll-Free: 800-786-9199
TTY: 800-877-8339
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(703) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for informal or draft communications, please label "Proposed" or "Draft" when submitting an informal amendment.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
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.
February 18, 2026
/PHYLESHA DABNEY/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694