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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5 “the series of words” should be –the series of first words--.
Claim 2, line 2 “the made-up word’ should be –the first made-up word--.
Claim 10, line 11 “the series of words” should be –the series of first words--.
Claim 11, line 2 “the made-up word’ should be –the first made-up word--.
Claim 19, line 8 “the series of words” should be –the series of first words--.
Claim 20, line 2 “the made-up word’ should be –the first made-up word--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10-18 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 10 recites the limitation “a tablet device with external speakers” in line 2 of the claim and “playing a first made-up word on an external speaker” in line 7 of the claim. It is not clear if “an external speaker” is meant to be one of the external speakers of the tablet device with external speakers or if it is intended to refer to some external speaker separate from the tablet such as an earbud. The limitation is currently interpreted as referring to an external speaker of the tablet device with external speakers.
Claims 11-18 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite due to their dependence on claim 10 which has been rejected as indefinite.
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.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US
Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan
2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 U.S.C. 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong One), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then in the second part of Step 2A (Prong Two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2, 4-5, 11, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claim recite(s) "determining that the one word selected by the user matches the made-up word". This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 satisfies Step 1, namely the claim is directed to one of the four statutory classes, process. Following Step 2A Prong one, any judicial exceptions are identified in the claims. In claim 2, the limitations " determining that the one word selected by the user matches the made-up word" are abstract ideas as they are directed to a mental process. With the identification of an abstract idea, the next phase is to proceed Step 2A, Prong Two, wherewith additional elements and taken as a whole, evaluation occurs of whether the identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim does not recite any additional elements or evidence that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements “the method of claim 1” and “playing a second made-up word on the external speaker at the first volume; displaying a second series of words to the user to match to the second made-up word; and receiving a second selection of one word of the second series of words from the user”. However, these components may be seen as the use of well-understood, routine, or conventional elements to perform a non-mental process in order to gather data for the mental process step, much like the example given in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(c), such that these limitations are extra-solution activity and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The receiving of inputs and selections leads to the step of “determining” which is followed by only the receiving of additional inputs and selections such that the end result of use of the system is only the generic determined match which may be any generic output, or no output at all. As this determination is not defined as requiring any further action, such as a form of prophylaxis or treatment or an improvement to a computer or other technology, the claim limitations constitute mere generation of data, in this case the receiving of inputs and selections from the user, such that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into any practical application. In particular, this claim does not prompt or otherwise require any change in operating parameters which is required by other claims of the instant application. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim elements are recited with a high level of generality (as written, each claimed step of the process may be performed by a person in an undefined manner) that there are no meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, the next step is Step 2B, evaluating whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “the method of claim 1” and “playing a second made-up word on the external speaker at the first volume; displaying a second series of words to the user to match to the second made-up word; and receiving a second selection of one word of the second series of words from the user” constitutes extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to an inventive concept when the activity is well-understood, routine, or conventional, and are thus not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claim limitation constitutes adding a generic display and speaker, which Perscheid (US 20200069224 A1) describes as well-understood, routine, or conventional in its description of hearing tests being performable using commercially available mobile devices such as “a smartphone, a tablet or any other kind of mobile computing device having an audio output and a screen” (Paragraph 0030, 0052) as well as “most commonly, such a fitting software application 52, 164 will run on a computing device of an audiologist or other specialist or hearing professional, such as an iPad or other tablet” (Paragraph 0079). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the present elements amount to no more than mere indications to apply the exception.
In Summary, claim 2 recites abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and does not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more. As such, taken as a whole, the claim and is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons. Claims 11 and 20 further include the additional elements of “a tablet device with external speakers” and “a computing node”, and “program instructions executable by a processor” respectively which under Step 2B constitute extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to an inventive concept when the activity is well-understood, routine, or conventional, and are thus not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claim limitations constitutes adding a generic display, speaker, memory, and processor, which Perscheid (US 20200069224 A1) describes as well-understood, routine, or conventional in its description of hearing tests being performable using commercially available mobile devices such as “a smartphone, a tablet or any other kind of mobile computing device having an audio output and a screen” (Paragraph 0030, 0052) as well as “most commonly, such a fitting software application 52, 164 will run on a computing device of an audiologist or other specialist or hearing professional, such as an iPad or other tablet” (Paragraph 0079) where it is known that such devices include these generic components.
Claims 4 and 13 is rejected for similar reasons, as “determining that the one word selected by the user is different from the first made-up word” is similarly directed to a mental process.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. As each of these claims depends respectively from claim 4 and 13, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in paragraph 9-11 of this action, these claims must be evaluated on whether they sufficiently add to the practical application of claim 4 or 5, or comprise significantly more than the limitations of claim 4 or 5.
Claims 5 and 14 are directed toward the use of well-understood, routine, or conventional elements to perform a non-mental process in order to gather data for the mental process step, much like the example given in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(c), such that these limitations are extra-solution activity and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the limitations of claims 5 and 14 amount to additional limitations of “playing a second made-up word on the external speaker at the second volume”, which is itself extra-solution activity directed toward the gathering of data for an abstract idea (the determining step).
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) 1-4 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Krause '350 (US 20070286350 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Krause ‘350 teaches a method of screening speech hearing (Paragraph 0013-0021; Method 500), the method comprising:
receiving an input from a user to indicate a screening is beginning (Paragraph 0053, 0066-0069, 0079—the method can begin…);
playing a first made-up word on an external speaker at a first volume for the user (Paragraph 0031-0035, 0069-0071-- the playback system 105 can simply play aloud to a user recorded and/or generated audio…The playback system 105 can be configured to play any of a variety of different test words and/or syllables to the user (test audio)… according to one embodiment of the present invention, the well-known Iowa Test Battery, as disclosed by Tyler et al. (1986), of consonant vowel, consonant nonsense words can be used);
displaying a first series of words to the user to match to the first made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0069-0071-- the playback of particular test words or syllables can be coordinated and/or synchronized with the display of possible answer selections that can be chosen by the user. For example, if the playback system 105 played the word "Sam," possible selections could include the correct choice "Sam" and one or more incorrect choices, such as "sham."); and
receiving a selection of one word of the series of words from the user (Paragraph 0045-0046, 0071--The user chooses the selection corresponding to the user's understanding or ability to perceive the test audio).
Regarding claim 2, Krause ‘350 teaches the method of claim 1. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches further comprising:
determining that the one word selected by the user matches the made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0055-0056, 0064-- either one or both methods can be used to determine the distinctive features that are perceived correctly and those that are not);
playing a second made-up word on the external speaker at the first volume (Fig. 5, step 525; paragraph 0034, 0056, 0074-- a determination can be made as to whether additional test words and/or syllables remain to be played;);
displaying a second series of words to the user to match to the second made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0071, 0074; Fig. 5, step 525 allows for looping back to steps 505-510); and
receiving a second selection of one word of the second series of words from the user (Paragraph 0045-0046, 0071-- a user response can be received by the monitor system. The user response can indicate the user's perception of what was heard.).
Regarding claim 3, Krause ‘350 teaches the method of claim 2. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches further comprising:
determining that the second selection of one word by the user matches the second made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0055-0056, 0064-- either one or both methods can be used to determine the distinctive features that are perceived correctly and those that are not);
playing a third made-up word on the external speaker at the first volume (Fig. 5, step 525; paragraph 0034, 0056, 0074-- a determination can be made as to whether additional test words and/or syllables remain to be played);
displaying a third series of words to the user to match to the third made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0071, 0074; Fig. 5, step 525 allows for looping back to steps 505-510);
receiving a third selection of one word of the third series of words from the user (Paragraph 0045-0046, 0071-- a user response can be received by the monitor system. The user response can indicate the user's perception of what was heard.);
determining that the third selection of one word by the user matches the third made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0055-0056, 0064-- either one or both methods can be used to determine the distinctive features that are perceived correctly and those that are not); and
setting a default volume of the external speaker to the first volume (Fig. 5, step 530 and 535; paragraph 0075--In step 530, based upon the knowledge base, a strategy for adjusting the hearing device to improve the performance of the hearing device with respect to the distinctive feature(s) can be identified. As noted, the strategy can specify one or more operational parameters of the hearing device to be changed to correct for the perceived hearing deficiency. Notably, the implementation of strategies can be limited to only those cases where the user misrecognizes a test word or syllable. Note: since adjustments may be limited to only situations where the user misrecognizes a test word, situations where the user provides a correct response may maintain the same parameters); and
indicating to the user that the screening is complete (Paragraph 0055, 0071-0072, 0074--until completion of a test).
Regarding claim 4, Krause ‘350 teaches the method of claim 1. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches further comprising:
determining that the one word selected by the user is different from the first made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0055-0056, 0064-- either one or both methods can be used to determine the distinctive features that are perceived correctly and those that are not);
playing a second made-up word on the external speaker (Fig. 5, step 525; paragraph 0034, 0056, 0074-- a determination can be made as to whether additional test words and/or syllables remain to be played) at a second volume (Fig. 5, step 530 and 535; paragraph 0075--In step 530, based upon the knowledge base, a strategy for adjusting the hearing device to improve the performance of the hearing device with respect to the distinctive feature(s) can be identified. As noted, the strategy can specify one or more operational parameters of the hearing device to be changed to correct for the perceived hearing deficiency.);
displaying a second series of words to the user to match to the second made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0071, 0074; Fig. 5, step 525 allows for looping back to steps 505-510); and
receiving a second selection of one word of the second series of words from the user (Paragraph 0045-0046, 0071-- a user response can be received by the monitor system. The user response can indicate the user's perception of what was heard.).
Regarding claim 19, Krause ‘350 teaches a computer program product for screening speech hearing, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method (Control system 405; paragraph 0066-0067-- The control system 405 can be a computer and/or information processing system which can coordinate the operation of the components of system 400. The control system 405 can access the CEM 420 being developed in a test session to begin developing an optimized mapping for the hearing device under test. More particularly, based upon the user's responses to test audio, the control system 405 can determine proper parameter settings for the user's hearing device) comprising:
receiving an input from a user to indicate a screening is beginning (Paragraph 0053, 0066-0069, 0079—the method can begin…);
playing a first made-up word on an external speaker at a first volume for the user (Paragraph 0031-0035, 0069-0071-- the playback system 105 can simply play aloud to a user recorded and/or generated audio…The playback system 105 can be configured to play any of a variety of different test words and/or syllables to the user (test audio)… according to one embodiment of the present invention, the well-known Iowa Test Battery, as disclosed by Tyler et al. (1986), of consonant vowel, consonant nonsense words can be used);
displaying a first series of words to the user to match to the first made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0069-0071-- the playback of particular test words or syllables can be coordinated and/or synchronized with the display of possible answer selections that can be chosen by the user. For example, if the playback system 105 played the word "Sam," possible selections could include the correct choice "Sam" and one or more incorrect choices, such as "sham."); and
receiving a selection of one word of the series of words from the user (Paragraph 0045-0046, 0071--The user chooses the selection corresponding to the user's understanding or ability to perceive the test audio).
Regarding claim 20, Krause ‘350 teaches the computer program product of claim 19. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches further comprising:
determining that the one word selected by the user matches the made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0055-0056, 0064-- either one or both methods can be used to determine the distinctive features that are perceived correctly and those that are not);
playing a second made-up word on the external speaker at the first volume (Fig. 5, step 525; paragraph 0034, 0056, 0074-- a determination can be made as to whether additional test words and/or syllables remain to be played;);
displaying a second series of words to the user to match to the second made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0071, 0074; Fig. 5, step 525 allows for looping back to steps 505-510); and
receiving a second selection of one word of the second series of words from the user (Paragraph 0045-0046, 0071-- a user response can be received by the monitor system. The user response can indicate the user's perception of what was heard.).
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) 5-6 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause '350 in view of Lasry (US 20170273602 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Krause ‘350 teaches the method of claim 4. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches wherein a parameter of the hearing device is adjusted when a user provides an incorrect answer (Paragraph 0075-0077--In step 530, based upon the knowledge base, a strategy for adjusting the hearing device to improve the performance of the hearing device with respect to the distinctive feature(s) can be identified. As noted, the strategy can specify one or more operational parameters of the hearing device to be changed to correct for the perceived hearing deficiency… the strategy implemented can include adjusting parameters of the hearing device that affect the way in which low frequencies are processed. For instance, the strategy can specify that the mapping should be updated so that the gain of a channel responsible for low frequencies is increased…As the nature of a user's hearing is non-linear, the strategies further can be tailored to adjust more than a single parameter as well as offset the adjustment of one parameter with the adjusting (i.e. raising or lowering) of another.; Fig. 5, step 530 and 535).
However, Krause ‘350 does not explicitly disclose that the parameter being adjusted is the volume, wherein the second volume is an increment above the first volume.
Lasry, in the same field of endeavor of a computer hearing test system and method, discloses increasing a volume of a test from a first volume an increment above to a second volume when a response is incorrect (Paragraph 0014, 0062-0063-- an incorrect subject response to a vocal test sound at a given volume may result in vocal test sounds being transmitted at an increased volume in a subsequent execution of the Audyx hearing test; Paragraph 0062-0063--a starting volume of 20 dB (decibel), an ending volume of 60 dB, and a volume step of 20 dB).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Krause ‘350 to increase the volume in response to an incorrect answer as described by Lasry as Krause ‘350 generally teaches modifying a parameter of a hearing device and this would predictably improve the ability of the method to determine ideal operating settings of a hearing device for a user including volume.
Regarding claim 6, Krause ‘350 teaches the method of claim 4. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches wherein a parameter of the hearing device is adjusted when a user provides an incorrect answer (Paragraph 0075-0077--In step 530, based upon the knowledge base, a strategy for adjusting the hearing device to improve the performance of the hearing device with respect to the distinctive feature(s) can be identified. As noted, the strategy can specify one or more operational parameters of the hearing device to be changed to correct for the perceived hearing deficiency… the strategy implemented can include adjusting parameters of the hearing device that affect the way in which low frequencies are processed. For instance, the strategy can specify that the mapping should be updated so that the gain of a channel responsible for low frequencies is increased…As the nature of a user's hearing is non-linear, the strategies further can be tailored to adjust more than a single parameter as well as offset the adjustment of one parameter with the adjusting (i.e. raising or lowering) of another.; Fig. 5, step 530 and 535) and indicating to the user that the screening is complete (Paragraph 0055, 0071-0072, 0074--until completion of a test).
However, Krause ‘350 does not explicitly disclose increasing the external speaker to a maximum volume upon a subsequent incorrect match between a played word and a selected word.
Lasry, in the same field of endeavor of a computer hearing test system and method, discloses increasing the external speaker to a maximum volume upon a subsequent incorrect response (Paragraph 0014, 0062-0063-- an incorrect subject response to a vocal test sound at a given volume may result in vocal test sounds being transmitted at an increased volume in a subsequent execution of the Audyx hearing test; Paragraph 0062-0063--a starting volume of 20 dB (decibel), an ending volume of 60 dB, and a volume step of 20 dB).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Krause ‘350 to further increase the volume in response to an incorrect answer as described by Lasry as Krause ‘350 generally teaches modifying a parameter of a hearing device and this would predictably improve the ability of the method to determine ideal operating settings of a hearing device for a user including volume.
Regarding claim 10, Krause ‘350 teaches a system for screening speech hearing (System 400), the system comprising:
a display device (Monitoring system 415) with external speakers (Playback system 410);
a computing node comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therein, the program instructions executable by a processor of the computing node to cause the processor to perform a method (Control system 405; paragraph 0066-0067-- The control system 405 can be a computer and/or information processing system which can coordinate the operation of the components of system 400. The control system 405 can access the CEM 420 being developed in a test session to begin developing an optimized mapping for the hearing device under test. More particularly, based upon the user's responses to test audio, the control system 405 can determine proper parameter settings for the user's hearing device) comprising:
receiving an input from a user to indicate a screening is beginning (Paragraph 0053, 0066-0069, 0079—the method can begin…);
playing a first made-up word on an external speaker at a first volume for the user (Paragraph 0031-0035, 0069-0071-- the playback system 105 can simply play aloud to a user recorded and/or generated audio…The playback system 105 can be configured to play any of a variety of different test words and/or syllables to the user (test audio)… according to one embodiment of the present invention, the well-known Iowa Test Battery, as disclosed by Tyler et al. (1986), of consonant vowel, consonant nonsense words can be used);
displaying a first series of words to the user to match to the first made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0069-0071-- the playback of particular test words or syllables can be coordinated and/or synchronized with the display of possible answer selections that can be chosen by the user. For example, if the playback system 105 played the word "Sam," possible selections could include the correct choice "Sam" and one or more incorrect choices, such as "sham."); and
receiving a selection of one word of the series of words from the user (Paragraph 0045-0046, 0071--The user chooses the selection corresponding to the user's understanding or ability to perceive the test audio).
However, Krause ‘350 does not disclose the display device is a tablet device.
Lasry, in the same field of endeavor of a computer hearing test system and method, discloses a tablet device with external speakers (Paragraph 0040-0041-- The computer device in which acoustic system 50 and/or test response system 60 are housed may comprise, by way of example, a desktop computer, laptop computer, or a portable computer device such as a tablet computer, a handheld computer or a smartphone… The ACD may comprise a portable computer device such as a tablet computer, a handheld computer or a smartphone.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Krause ‘350 with the tablet implementation of Lasry in order to predictably improve the portability of the system to allow a user to screen speech hearing from a variety of locations including at home.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Krause ‘350 and Lasry teaches the system of claim 10. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches further comprising:
determining that the one word selected by the user matches the made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0055-0056, 0064-- either one or both methods can be used to determine the distinctive features that are perceived correctly and those that are not);
playing a second made-up word on the external speaker at the first volume (Fig. 5, step 525; paragraph 0034, 0056, 0074-- a determination can be made as to whether additional test words and/or syllables remain to be played;);
displaying a second series of words to the user to match to the second made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0071, 0074; Fig. 5, step 525 allows for looping back to steps 505-510); and
receiving a second selection of one word of the second series of words from the user (Paragraph 0045-0046, 0071-- a user response can be received by the monitor system. The user response can indicate the user's perception of what was heard.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Krause ‘350 and Lasry teaches the system of claim 11. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches further comprising:
determining that the second selection of one word by the user matches the second made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0055-0056, 0064-- either one or both methods can be used to determine the distinctive features that are perceived correctly and those that are not);
playing a third made-up word on the external speaker at the first volume (Fig. 5, step 525; paragraph 0034, 0056, 0074-- a determination can be made as to whether additional test words and/or syllables remain to be played);
displaying a third series of words to the user to match to the third made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0071, 0074; Fig. 5, step 525 allows for looping back to steps 505-510);
receiving a third selection of one word of the third series of words from the user (Paragraph 0045-0046, 0071-- a user response can be received by the monitor system. The user response can indicate the user's perception of what was heard.);
determining that the third selection of one word by the user matches the third made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0055-0056, 0064-- either one or both methods can be used to determine the distinctive features that are perceived correctly and those that are not); and
setting a default volume of the external speaker to the first volume (Fig. 5, step 530 and 535; paragraph 0075--In step 530, based upon the knowledge base, a strategy for adjusting the hearing device to improve the performance of the hearing device with respect to the distinctive feature(s) can be identified. As noted, the strategy can specify one or more operational parameters of the hearing device to be changed to correct for the perceived hearing deficiency. Notably, the implementation of strategies can be limited to only those cases where the user misrecognizes a test word or syllable. Note: since adjustments may be limited to only situations where the user misrecognizes a test word, situations where the user provides a correct response may maintain the same parameters); and
indicating to the user that the screening is complete (Paragraph 0055, 0071-0072, 0074--until completion of a test).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Krause ‘350 and Lasry teaches the system of claim 10. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches further comprising:
determining that the one word selected by the user is different from the first made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0055-0056, 0064-- either one or both methods can be used to determine the distinctive features that are perceived correctly and those that are not);
playing a second made-up word on the external speaker (Fig. 5, step 525; paragraph 0034, 0056, 0074-- a determination can be made as to whether additional test words and/or syllables remain to be played) at a second volume (Fig. 5, step 530 and 535; paragraph 0075--In step 530, based upon the knowledge base, a strategy for adjusting the hearing device to improve the performance of the hearing device with respect to the distinctive feature(s) can be identified. As noted, the strategy can specify one or more operational parameters of the hearing device to be changed to correct for the perceived hearing deficiency.);
displaying a second series of words to the user to match to the second made-up word (Paragraph 0045, 0071, 0074; Fig. 5, step 525 allows for looping back to steps 505-510); and
receiving a second selection of one word of the second series of words from the user (Paragraph 0045-0046, 0071-- a user response can be received by the monitor system. The user response can indicate the user's perception of what was heard.).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Krause ‘350 and Lasry teaches the system of claim 13. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches wherein a parameter of the hearing device is adjusted when a user provides an incorrect answer (Paragraph 0075-0077--In step 530, based upon the knowledge base, a strategy for adjusting the hearing device to improve the performance of the hearing device with respect to the distinctive feature(s) can be identified. As noted, the strategy can specify one or more operational parameters of the hearing device to be changed to correct for the perceived hearing deficiency… the strategy implemented can include adjusting parameters of the hearing device that affect the way in which low frequencies are processed. For instance, the strategy can specify that the mapping should be updated so that the gain of a channel responsible for low frequencies is increased…As the nature of a user's hearing is non-linear, the strategies further can be tailored to adjust more than a single parameter as well as offset the adjustment of one parameter with the adjusting (i.e. raising or lowering) of another.; Fig. 5, step 530 and 535).
However, Krause ‘350 does not explicitly disclose that the parameter being adjusted is the volume, wherein the second volume is an increment above the first volume.
Lasry, in the same field of endeavor of a computer hearing test system and method, discloses increasing a volume of a test from a first volume an increment above to a second volume when a response is incorrect (Paragraph 0014, 0062-0063-- an incorrect subject response to a vocal test sound at a given volume may result in vocal test sounds being transmitted at an increased volume in a subsequent execution of the Audyx hearing test; Paragraph 0062-0063--a starting volume of 20 dB (decibel), an ending volume of 60 dB, and a volume step of 20 dB).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Krause ‘350 to increase the volume in response to an incorrect answer as described by Lasry as Krause ‘350 generally teaches modifying a parameter of a hearing device and this would predictably improve the ability of the method to determine ideal operating settings of a hearing device for a user including volume.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Krause ‘350 and Lasry teaches the system of claim 13. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches wherein a parameter of the hearing device is adjusted when a user provides an incorrect answer (Paragraph 0075-0077--In step 530, based upon the knowledge base, a strategy for adjusting the hearing device to improve the performance of the hearing device with respect to the distinctive feature(s) can be identified. As noted, the strategy can specify one or more operational parameters of the hearing device to be changed to correct for the perceived hearing deficiency… the strategy implemented can include adjusting parameters of the hearing device that affect the way in which low frequencies are processed. For instance, the strategy can specify that the mapping should be updated so that the gain of a channel responsible for low frequencies is increased…As the nature of a user's hearing is non-linear, the strategies further can be tailored to adjust more than a single parameter as well as offset the adjustment of one parameter with the adjusting (i.e. raising or lowering) of another.; Fig. 5, step 530 and 535) and indicating to the user that the screening is complete (Paragraph 0055, 0071-0072, 0074--until completion of a test).
However, Krause ‘350 does not explicitly disclose increasing the external speaker to a maximum volume upon a subsequent incorrect match between a played word and a selected word.
Lasry, in the same field of endeavor of a computer hearing test system and method, discloses increasing the external speaker to a maximum volume upon a subsequent incorrect response (Paragraph 0014, 0062-0063-- an incorrect subject response to a vocal test sound at a given volume may result in vocal test sounds being transmitted at an increased volume in a subsequent execution of the Audyx hearing test; Paragraph 0062-0063--a starting volume of 20 dB (decibel), an ending volume of 60 dB, and a volume step of 20 dB).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Krause ‘350 to further increase the volume in response to an incorrect answer as described by Lasry as Krause ‘350 generally teaches modifying a parameter of a hearing device and this would predictably improve the ability of the method to determine ideal operating settings of a hearing device for a user including volume.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause '350 in view of Krause '148 (US 20100299148 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Krause ‘350 teaches the method of claim 1. Krause ‘350 generally teaches the made-up word may be any variety of word or syllables (Paragraph 0034-0037, 0045-- The playback system 105 can be configured to play any of a variety of different test words and/or syllables to the user (test audio)… For example, according to one embodiment of the present invention, the well-known Iowa Test Battery, as disclosed by Tyler et al. (1986), of consonant vowel, consonant nonsense words can be used…).
However, Krause ‘350 does not explicitly disclose wherein the made-up word comprises a vowel-consonant- vowel word.
Krause ‘148, in the same field of endeavor of a method and system for monitoring speech hearing (Paragraph 0030-0031), teaches a made-up word comprises a vowel-consonant- vowel word (Paragraph 0032-- isolated vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV) nonsense words may be used).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Krause ‘350 to utilize a vowel-consonant-vowel word as described by Krause ‘148 to improve the ability of the device to compare the presented word with the user response, as Krause ‘148 states that “Isolated VCV stimulus words are easy to compare with responses, producing primarily substitution errors of the consonant” (Paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Krause ‘350 and Krause ‘148 teaches the method of claim 7. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches wherein the made-up word is generated from a word bank (Paragraph 0034-0035, 0045-0046, 0055, 0070-- predetermined listing of test audio).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Krause ‘350 and Krause ‘148 teaches the method of claim 7. Krause ‘350 generally teaches the made-up word may be any variety of word or syllables (Paragraph 0034-0037, 0045-- The playback system 105 can be configured to play any of a variety of different test words and/or syllables to the user (test audio)… For example, according to one embodiment of the present invention, the well-known Iowa Test Battery, as disclosed by Tyler et al. (1986), of consonant vowel, consonant nonsense words can be used…).
However, Krause ‘350 does not explicitly disclose wherein the made-up word is randomly generated.
Krause ‘148, in the same field of endeavor of a method and system for monitoring speech hearing (Paragraph 0030-0031), teaches the made-up word is randomly generated (Paragraph 0032-- nonsense words may be used as the speech material 206 with variation in the consonant (e.g., /aba/, /ada/, /afa/)… The fact that the words are nonsensical significantly reduces the influence of language on the responses (i.e., prevents a patient from guessing at the correct response)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Krause to randomly generate a nonsense word as described by Krause ‘148 in order to predictably improve the accuracy method by reducing the ability of a user to guess a correct answer so that answers reflect a user’s true ability.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause '350 in view Lasry, further in view of Krause '148 (US 20100299148 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Krause ‘350 and Lasry teaches the system of claim 10. Krause ‘350 generally teaches the made-up word may be any variety of word or syllables (Paragraph 0034-0037, 0045-- The playback system 105 can be configured to play any of a variety of different test words and/or syllables to the user (test audio)… For example, according to one embodiment of the present invention, the well-known Iowa Test Battery, as disclosed by Tyler et al. (1986), of consonant vowel, consonant nonsense words can be used…).
However, Krause ‘350 does not explicitly disclose wherein the made-up word comprises a vowel-consonant- vowel word.
Krause ‘148, in the same field of endeavor of a method and system for monitoring speech hearing (Paragraph 0030-0031), teaches a made-up word comprises a vowel-consonant- vowel word (Paragraph 0032-- isolated vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV) nonsense words may be used).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Krause ‘350 to utilize a vowel-consonant-vowel word as described by Krause ‘148 to improve the ability of the device to compare the presented word with the user response, as Krause ‘148 states that “Isolated VCV stimulus words are easy to compare with responses, producing primarily substitution errors of the consonant” (Paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Krause ‘350, Lasry, and Krause ‘148 teaches the system of claim 16. Krause ‘350 additionally teaches wherein the made-up word is generated from a word bank (Paragraph 0034-0035, 0045-0046, 0055, 0070-- predetermined listing of test audio).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Krause ‘350, Lasry, and Krause ‘148 teaches the system of claim 16. Krause ‘350 generally teaches the made-up word may be any variety of word or syllables (Paragraph 0034-0037, 0045-- The playback system 105 can be configured to play any of a variety of different test words and/or syllables to the user (test audio)… For example, according to one embodiment of the present invention, the well-known Iowa Test Battery, as disclosed by Tyler et al. (1986), of consonant vowel, consonant nonsense words can be used…).
However, Krause ‘350 does not explicitly disclose wherein the made-up word is randomly generated.
Krause ‘148, in the same field of endeavor of a method and system for monitoring speech hearing (Paragraph 0030-0031), teaches the made-up word is randomly generated (Paragraph 0032-- nonsense words may be used as the speech material 206 with variation in the consonant (e.g., /aba/, /ada/, /afa/)… The fact that the words are nonsensical significantly reduces the influence of language on the responses (i.e., prevents a patient from guessing at the correct response)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Krause to randomly generate a nonsense word as described by Krause ‘148 in order to predictably improve the accuracy method by reducing the ability of a user to guess a correct answer so that answers reflect a user’s true ability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 EST.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/ANNA ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791