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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument on pages 7-8 recite:
“In response, Applicant submits that Higgins does not teach or suggest the use of a single EPS having a single monitoring electrode to provide a voltage difference representing an EOG signal from one eye of a user…In addition, Kidmose fails to teach or suggest such feature. In fact, there is no disclosure in Kidmose regarding providing an EOG signal, let alone an EOG signal from one eye as presently claimed”
The examiner contests that Higgins teaches providing a voltage difference representing an EOG signal from one eye of said user. As illustrated in Fig. 1A of Higgins, an electrooculogram (EOG) is obtained. An electrooculogram is a recording of eye movement and eye position provided by a difference in electrical potential between two electrodes. Accordingly, Fig. 1A of Higgins illustrates a voltage difference representing an EOG signal from one eye of said user. Further, Higgins discloses in paragraph [0024] that “The method includes tracking eye movements of the wearer using an electrode on or in the hearing assistance device to obtain an electrooculogram (EOG)”. While Higgins does not explicitly specify that the electrode is a single monitoring electrode, and Kidmose is relied upon to teach this feature. Kidmose discloses an active electrode comprising an electrode for sensing an electric potential. The electrode for sensing an electric potential in Kidmose reads on the claimed single monitoring electrode. Because Higgins already teaches obtaining an EOG signal, Kidmose is not relied upon to teach the EOG signal itself, but rather to clarify that such sensing can be performed using a single monitoring electrode. A motivation is provided explaining why one or ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and reasonable to combine the teachings of Higgins, Hwang and Kidmose. Therefore, the combined teachings of the Higgins, Hwang and Kidmose are considered to suggest the limitations recited in claims 1 and 18.
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.
Claims 1, 8-11, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2014/0198936) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2016/0210407) in view of Kidmose et al. (CA2970757C).
Regarding claim 1, Higgins et al. (hereinafter Higgins) discloses a portable electrooculography (EOG) signal capture system (Higgins, [0022], “FIG. 1C illustrates a block diagram of a system 300 including a hearing assistance device 310 adapted to be worn by a wearer”. In addition, in paragraph [0005], “obtain an electrooculogram (EOG)”) comprising:
a single electric potential sensor (EPS) being adapted to be located at one of a left or a right ear of a user (Higgins, [0021], [0022], “The electronics enclosed in the first housing 321 includes a microphone 304, hearing assistance electronics 305 and a sensor or electrode 306 for determining an EOG”. In addition, in paragraph [0016], “The measured potential 110 in either direction is proportional to the amount of eye rotation 120”. A user can wear the hearing assistance electronic on either the left or right ear. Furthermore, claim 4 discloses a sensor includes using an Electric Potential Sensing (EPS) sensor), and
wherein, at least in a specific EOG mode of operation, provide a voltage difference representing an EOG signal from one eye of said user (Higgins, [0016], “An electrooculogram (EOG) is a recording of eye movement and eye position provided by a difference in electrical potential between two electrodes. Currently, EOGs require addition of facial worn elements like electrodes or cameras to capture eye movement. FIG. 1A illustrates a system used to obtain an electrooculogram (EOG)”. Fig. 1A illustrates a voltage difference representing an EOG signal from one eye of said user. The difference in electric potential is considered a voltage difference representing EOG from one or both eyes of said user. In addition, in paragraph [0017], “the method includes tracking eye movements of the wearer using a sensor, such as an electrode, on or in the hearing assistance device to obtain an electrooculogram (EOG)”), and
a signal processor configured to estimate eye angle based on the EOG signal (Higgins, [0023], “The resulting EOG for each eye movement is shown at 250. In FIG. 2A, the electrodes 202 detect movement of the eye 200 to the right 30 degrees. In FIG. 2B, the electrodes 202 detect movement of the eye 200 to the left 15 degrees”. The movement of a wearer's eye can be detected based on an EOG signal, with such movement indicating the direction in which the eyes are looking. As illustrated in Figs. 2A and 2B, the angles represent the direction of gaze. In addition, in paragraph [0029], “a processor. The processor may be a digital signal processor (DSP), microprocessor, microcontroller, other digital logic, or combinations thereof”);
Higgins does not expressly disclose “sense electric potentials from the user’s head”;
Hwang et al. (hereinafter Hwang) discloses sense electric potentials from the user’s head (Hwang, [0050], “Brainwaves are bio-signals showing the states of activities in the human brain. When a brain nerve cell is activated, an electrical potential difference occurs due to ions such as sodium (Na) and potassium (K) ions that pass through a nerve cell membrane. The brainwaves are a weak flow of electricity caused by the electrical potential difference…brainwaves may be measured via an electrode attached to a scalp. The device 100 according to the present embodiment may detect a user's status by measuring brainwaves that may vary according to a change in an individual's consciousness and behavior, and process content according to the user's status to be output”),
eye gaze (Hwang, [0127], “the device 100 may control the state of the display by further using information about a result of analysis of an object located in a user's gaze direction”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Hwang’s detect a user's status by measuring brainwaves in the hearing assistance device, as taught by Higgins. The motivation for doing so would have been measuring brainwaves without requiring a user's action to perform a specific task, thereby providing more user convenience.
Higgins as modified by Huang does not expressly disclose “the single EPS having a single monitoring electrode”;
Kidmose et al. (hereinafter Kidmose) discloses a single monitoring electrode being configured to provide a voltage difference (Kidmose, “An active electrode according to an aspect of the invention comprises an electrode for sensing an electric potential and generating an input signal”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of Kidmose’s single electrode to detect Higgin’s electrical potentials. The motivation for doing so would have been reducing hardware complexity and manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 8, Higgens discloses execute an algorithm, or access stored data, provide corresponding values of eye angle and said EOG signal (Higgins, [0023], “The resulting EOG for each eye movement is shown at 250. In FIG. 2A, the electrodes 202 detect movement of the eye 200 to the right 30 degrees. In FIG. 2B, the electrodes 202 detect movement of the eye 200 to the left 15 degrees).
Higgins as modified by Hwang with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses eye gaze (Hwang, [0127], “the device 100 may control the state of the display by further using information about a result of analysis of an object located in a user's gaze direction”).
Regarding claim 9, Higgins discloses a hearing aid adapted for being located at or in an ear of a user (Higgins, [0018], “uses an EOG to provide a control means for hearing aid”. Fig. 1B), and comprising a portable EOG signal capture system (Higgins, [0017], “obtain an electrooculogram (EOG). At least one parameter of the hearing assistance device is adjusted using the EOG”. Fig. 1C) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Higgins discloses a forward audio signal path comprising an input unit for providing an electric input signal representative of sound (Higgins, [0022], “allowing the processor and other components to process audio received by the microphone 304”), a configurable signal processor for executing a number of processing algorithms to provide a processed electric signal based on said electric input signal (Higgins, [0022], “transmit processed audio signals to the speaker 302… the hearing assistance electronics includes functionality to amplify, filter, limit, condition or a combination thereof, the sounds received using the microphone 304”. Analog-to-Digital conversion, amplify and filter are considered a number of processing algorithms), and an output unit for providing stimuli perceivable as sound based on said processed signal (Higgins, [0022], “The speaker emits the processed audio signal as sound in the user's ear canal”), wherein said configurable signal processor is adapted to control one or more of said processing algorithms in dependence of an electrooculography signal measured by the portable EOG signal capture system (Higgins, [0019], “By placing EOG electrodes in the ear canal or on the ear as part of a hearing assistance device, a wearer's eye movement can be precisely detected and those movements are used to control desired functions of the hearing device”. In addition, in paragraph [0024], “At 304, at least one parameter of the hearing assistance device is adjusted using the EOG”).
Regarding claim 11, Higgins as modified by Hwang with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses said brain wave or EEG (electroencephalogram) signals (Hwang, [0137], “The device 100 may acquire bio-signals of the user (S1103). The bio-signals may be signals used to detect a user's status, such as brainwaves and pulses. For example, brainwaves may be obtained by extracting EEG signals”).
Regarding claim 13, Higgins discloses an in-the-ear (ITE) part adapted for being located at or in an ear canal of the user (Higgins, Fig. 1B), wherein said ITE part comprises at least a part of said portable EOG signal capture system (Higgins, [0021], “each hearing assistance device having a sensor 102 or electrode on or in the device. The sensors 102 are configured to sense movement of the wearer's eyes 100 to obtain an EOG”).
Regarding claim 14, Higgins as modified by Hwang with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses one or more sensors for picking up potentials from the brain of the user (Hwang, [0050], “Brainwaves are bio-signals showing the states of activities in the human brain. When a brain nerve cell is activated, an electrical potential difference occurs due to ions such as sodium (Na) and potassium (K) ions that pass through a nerve cell membrane”. In addition, in paragraph [0055], “The sensor 110 may acquire bio-signals from a user”).
Regarding claim 15, Higgins discloses a hearing system comprising left and right hearing aids according to claim 9 (Higgins, Figs. 1B and 1C).
Regarding claim 18, Higgins discloses a method of capturing an electrooculography (EOG) signal from a user (Higgins, [0016], “An electrooculogram (EOG) is a recording of eye movement and eye position provided by a difference in electrical potential between two electrodes”. Fig. 3).
The limitations recite in claim 18 are similar in scope to the functions recited in claim 1 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2014/0198936) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2016/0210407) in view of Kidmose et al. (CA2970757C), as applied to claims 1-3, in further view of Van Der Reijden (US 2010/0249635).
Regarding claim 2, Higgens discloses an electronic circuitry coupled to the EPS (Higgins, Fig. 1C); Higgens as modified by Hwang and Kidmose does not expressly disclose “determine a single channel amplified output”;
Van Der Reijden discloses determine a single channel amplified output (Van Der Reijden, [0156], “utilizes at least two electrodes to provide at least a single-channel system wherein respective potential differences are first amplified with the total differential gain and subsequently a difference between respective output potentials of the amplified potential differences is provided”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Van Der Reijden’s single-channel system wherein respective potential differences are amplified in the hearing assistance device, as taught by Higgins. The motivation for doing so would have been allowing for focused processing of a specific input source, ensuring more accurate and reliable amplification.
Regarding claim 3, Higgins discloses output represents at least in a specific EOG mode of operation, said EOG signal (Higgins, [0019], “a relatively low amplification and filtering, and hence a low power, can be used for detection. Hearing assistance devices, in which space and power are limited, can accommodate the detection of EOG signals in various embodiments. EOG technology depends upon detecting electric field changes due to charge differentials on each eyeball. By placing EOG electrodes in the ear canal or on the ear as part of a hearing assistance device, a wearer's eye movement can be precisely detected and those movements are used to control desired functions of the hearing device”);
Higgins as modified by Hwang, Kidmose and Van Der Reijden with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses the single channel amplified output (Van Der Reijden, [0156], “utilizes at least two electrodes to provide at least a single-channel system wherein respective potential differences are first amplified with the total differential gain and subsequently a difference between respective output potentials of the amplified potential differences is provided”).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites function that is similar in scope to the function recited in claim 4 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites function that is similar in scope to the function recited in claim 4 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2014/0198936) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2016/0210407) in view of Kidmose et al. (CA2970757C), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Nakashima (US 2013/0096410).
Regarding claim 5, Higgins teaches said electric potentials (Higgins, [0016], “An electrooculogram (EOG) is a recording of eye movement and eye position provided by a difference in electrical potential between two electrodes”); Higgins as modified by Hwang and Kidmose does not expressly disclose “a reference potential”;
Nakashima discloses a reference potential for allowing potentials to be referred to the same potential (Nakashima, [0052], “acquiring a potential (reference potential) to be a reference for measurement potentials from the electrodes 13a to 13d”. The reference for measurement potentials is considered allowing potentials to be referred to the same potential).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Nakashima’s obtain a reference potential in the hearing assistance device, as taught by Higgins. The motivation for doing so would have been establishing a consistent and stable framework for measuring and processing electrical signals.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2014/0198936) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2016/0210407) in view of Kidmose et al. (CA2970757C) in view of Nakashima (US 2013/0096410), as applied to claim 5, in further view of Townsend (US 2015/0109007).
Regarding claim 6, Higgins a modified by Hwang, Kidmose and Nakashiam does not expressly “a potential relative to a battery voltage”;
Townsend discloses a potential relative to a battery voltage (Townsend, [0031], “The presence of the battery 118 and the fact that the potential differential signal from the two OP-AMPs should not exceed more than the battery voltage, since the differential signal may be relatively small in comparison to the battery voltage”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Townsend’s the potential differential signal relative to a battery voltage in the hearing assistance device, as taught by Higgins. The motivation for doing so would have been using the battery as a reference ensures consistent and reliable voltage levels for accurate signal processing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2014/0198936) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2016/0210407) in view of Kidmose et al. (CA2970757C) in view of Nakashima (US 2013/0096410), as applied to claim 5, in further view of Holberg et al. (US 2014/0183060).
Regarding claim 7, Higgins as modified by Hwang, Kidmose and Nakashima with the same motivation from claim 5 teaches the reference potential; they do not expressly disclose “a virtual ground”;
Holberg et al. (hereinafter Holberg) discloses a virtual ground (Holberg, [0017], “A "virtual ground" is to be understood in the context of the present invention as a point in an electrical circuit that exhibits ground potential even though currents are flowing”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define Higgins as modified by Hwang and Nakashima’s reference potential as Holberg’s virtual ground. The motivation for doing so would have been removing the requirement for a physical dual power supply, simplifying the design and lowering costs.
Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2014/0198936) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2016/0210407) in view of Kidmose et al. (CA2970757C), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Helwani et al. (US 2018/0253275).
Regarding claim 12, Higgins teaches the user wearing the hearing aid; Higgins as modified by Hwang and Kidmose does not expressly disclose “a current state of the user wearing the hearing aid”;
Helwani et al. (hereinafter Helwani) discloses provide status signal relating to a current state of a user wearing a hearing device (Helwani, [0038], “detection of deliberate head movement via one or more inertia sensors of the hearing device, such as an accelerometer or a gyroscope”. Head movement is considered current state of a user).
Helwani discloses adapted to control one or more of said processing algorithms in dependence of said electrooculography signal as well as said status signals (Helwani, [0038], “user navigation of an auditory display is based on analyzing one or more of a bioelectrical signal, biomechanical movement or voice command…One wearer input involves detection of deliberate eye movement or eye lid movement using an electrooculogram (EOG) signal sensed by an EOG sensor in the hearing device. Another wearer input involves detection of deliberate head movement via one or more inertia sensors of the hearing device”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Helwani’s user navigation of an auditory display is based on analyzing one or more of a bioelectrical signal, biomechanical movement in the hearing assistance device, as taught by Higgins. The motivation for doing so would have been providing a user interface that enables interaction with the hearing device.
Regarding claim 16, Higgins discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing an application comprising executable instructions configured to be executed on an auxiliary device for a hearing aid according to claim 9 (Higgins, [0022], “The memory components store program instructions for the at least one processor…The speaker emits the processed audio signal as sound in the user's ear canal”),
Higgins as modified by Hwang, Kidmose and Helwani with the same motivation from claim 12 discloses implement a user interface (Helwani, [0030], “an auditory display of the present disclosure presents user options in the form of sequential or simultaneous sound icons. A sound icon refers to one or more sounds that is/are associated with an independent spatial zone in a binaurally rendered sound field”).
Higgins as modified by Hwang, Kidmose and Helwani with the same motivation from claim 12 discloses allow a user to select functions of the hearing aid for eye gaze control (Helwani, [0040], “Wearer selection of an option can be implemented by detection of a fixation dependent microsaccade pattern or intentional gazes in the EOG signal produced by an EOG sensor of the hearing device”).
Regarding claim 17, Higgins as modified by Hwang, Kidmose and Helwani with the same motivation from claim 12 discloses controlling volume (Helwani, [0051], “The wearer can provide a user input to select a desired function, such as volume adjustment”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ZHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3740. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached on (571) 272 - 7776. 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.
/KYLE ZHAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612