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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/6/2026 has been entered.
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 § 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) 1, 3, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum et al. (US 2017/0078809) hereinafter Solum809 in view of Meincke et al. (US 2013/0195302).
Regarding claim 1, Solum809 discloses a method, comprising:
transmitting, from the first hearing device (100A) via a wireless connection to a second hearing device (Fig. 1: 100B) configured to be worn or implanted in a second ear of the user (¶ 0009), the first device parameter data (Fig. 2: S4 and ¶ 0011), wherein the second hearing device is of a different device type than the first hearing device (¶ 0024: first device type can be a device designed for use in the right ear, and second device type can be a device designed for use in the left ear);
receiving, at the second hearing device (100B) via the wireless connection, the first device parameter data from the first hearing device (100A) (Fig. 2: S4 and ¶ 0011); and
configuring the second hearing device (100B) for coordinated binaural operations with the first hearing device (100A) using the first device parameter data (Fig. 2: S5 and ¶ 0011).
Solum809 is not relied upon to disclose configuring, using a first hearing device configured to be worn or implanted in a first ear of a user, first device parameter data.
In a similar field of endeavor, Meincke discloses configuring, using a first hearing device configured to be worn or implanted in a first ear of a user, first device parameter data (¶ 0052: first hearing device configures parameter data as data packets to be transmitted by the first hearing device to a second hearing device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first hearing device (100A of Solum809) to configure the programming information as data packets, which would result in: configuring, using a first hearing device configured to be worn or implanted in a first ear of a user, first device parameter data, the motivation being to configure the data to be suitable for wireless transmission (Meincke - ¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 3, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device is a hearing aid (¶ 0002).
Regarding claim 6, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first device parameter data includes a first device configuration (¶ 0017).
Regarding claim 9, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first device parameter data includes a first device wireless communication circuit type (¶ 0017: receiver type) (¶ 0009: receiver 180).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum809 in view of Meincke in view of Solum et al. (US 2018/0014131) hereinafter Solum131.
Regarding claim 2, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1.
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose further comprising using an external or central device to transmit the first device parameter data between the first hearing device and the second hearing device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Solum131 discloses further comprising using an external or central device (auxiliary device) to transmit the first device parameter data between the first hearing device and the second hearing device (hearing assistance devices) (¶ 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: further comprising using an external or central device to transmit the first device parameter data between the first hearing device and the second hearing device, the motivation being to rely on an auxiliary device to relay the information if conditions are preventing reliable direct communication (Solum131 - ¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 4, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1, and Solum809 discloses wherein at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device is a BTE, ITE, ITC, RIC, CIC, or RITE, but not limited to such (¶ 0025).
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose wherein at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device is a cochlear implant.
In a similar field of endeavor, Solum131 discloses wherein at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device is a BTE, ITE, ITC, RIC, CIC, RITE, or cochlear implant (¶ 0042).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try any of BTE, ITE, ITC, RIC, CIC, RITE, or cochlear implant as the first hearing device and the second hearing device, where the last choice would result in: wherein at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device is a cochlear implant, the motivation being to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success to address the issue of what type of hearing device to use. See MPEP § 2143(E).
Regarding claim 5, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1.
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose wherein the wireless connection includes a Bluetooth® compatible wireless connection.
In a similar field of endeavor, Solum131discloses wherein the wireless connection includes a Bluetooth® compatible wireless connection (¶ 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the wireless connection includes a Bluetooth® compatible wireless connection, the motivation being to modernize the wireless connection with a standard protocol (Solum131 - ¶ 0030).
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum809 in view of Meincke in view of Meskens (US 2013/0308804).
Regarding claim 7, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1.
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose wherein the first device parameter data includes a first device timing transmission parameter.
In a similar field of endeavor, Meskens discloses a first hearing device transmitting, from a first hearing device to a second hearing device, first device parameter data that includes a first device timing transmission parameter (transmit interval) (¶ 0021, 0031, 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the first device parameter data includes a first device timing transmission parameter (transmit interval), the motivation being to provide a way to determine a data rate for communication between the hearing devices (Meskens - Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1.
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose wherein the first device parameter data includes a first device timing receipt parameter.
In a similar field of endeavor, Meskens discloses a first hearing device transmitting, from a first hearing device to a second hearing device, first device parameter data that includes a first device timing receipt parameter (receive interval) (¶ 0021, 0031, 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the first device parameter data includes a first device timing receipt parameter (receive interval), the motivation being to provide a way to determine a data rate for communication between the hearing devices (Meskens - Abstract).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum809 in view of Meincke in view of Solum et al. (US 2014/0023216) hereinafter Solum216.
Regarding claim 10, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1, and Solum809 discloses wherein the first device parameter data includes a first device
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose wherein the first device parameter data includes a first device antenna type.
In a similar field of endeavor, Solum216 discloses that hardware configuration includes antenna type (¶ 0028, 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the first device parameter data includes a first device antenna type as the hardware configuration, the motivation being to include a more specific hardware configuration than what is taught by Solum809 (Solum216 - ¶ 0028).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum809 in view of Meincke in view of Bauml et al. (US 2007/0030988).
Regarding claim 21, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1.
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes synchronizing reception or transmission between the first hearing device and the second hearing device with respect to audio applications.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bauml discloses wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes synchronizing reception or transmission between the first hearing device and the second hearing device with respect to audio applications (¶ 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes synchronizing reception or transmission between the first hearing device and the second hearing device with respect to audio applications,
the motivation being to achieve synchronization where no count value has to be transmitted (Bauml - ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 22, Solum809-Meincke-Bauml discloses the method of claim 21, and Bauml disclose wherein synchronizing reception or transmission includes synchronizing audio (signal tones) output from the first hearing device and audio output from the second hearing device (¶ 0009).
The teachings of Bauml relied upon above are combinable with Solum809-Meincke-Bauml for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 21 rejection.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum809 in view of Meincke in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0007995).
Regarding claim 23, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1.
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes activating noise suppression in a binaural streaming mode.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pedersen discloses wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes activating noise suppression in a binaural streaming mode (¶ 0069, 0148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes activating noise suppression in a binaural streaming mode, the motivation being to provides reliable detection of presence of binaural noise and provides binaural noise suppression in such a way that binaural artefacts are avoided (Pedersen - ¶ 0021).
Regarding claim 24, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1, wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes balancing audio output between the first hearing device and the second hearing device (¶ 0129).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes balancing audio output between the first hearing device and the second hearing device, the motivation being to attenuate the respective processed ear canal audio signals in such a way that balanced occlusion cancellation in the two ears is obtained (Pedersen - ¶ 0129).
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum809 in view of Meincke in view of Seok et al. (US 2023/0217150).
Regarding claim 25, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1.
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose further comprising sharing a device address of the first hearing device with the second hearing device via the wireless connection.
In a similar field of endeavor, Seok discloses further comprising sharing a device address of the first hearing device with the second hearing device via the wireless connection (¶ 0192).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: further comprising sharing a device address of the first hearing device with the second hearing device via the wireless connection, the motivation being to check pairing status (Seok - ¶ 0192).
Regarding claim 26, Solum809-Meincke-Seok discloses the method of claim 25, and Seok discloses wherein the device address includes a Bluetooth® address (¶ 0192).
The teachings of Seok relied upon above are combinable with Solum809-Meincke-Seok for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 25 rejection.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum809 in view of Meincke in view of Guindi et al. (US 2016/0157026).
Regarding claim 27, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 1.
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose further comprising receiving, at the first hearing device (100A), second device parameter data from the second hearing device, and configuring the first hearing device for coordinated binaural operations with the second hearing device using the second device parameter data.
In a similar field of endeavor, Guindi discloses further comprising receiving, at the first hearing device (100A), second device parameter data from the second hearing device, and configuring the first hearing device for coordinated binaural operations with the second hearing device using the second device parameter data (¶ 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: further comprising receiving, at the first hearing device (100A), second device parameter data from the second hearing device, and configuring the first hearing device for coordinated binaural operations with the second hearing device using the second device parameter data, the motivation being make available settings/commands required for binaural operation (Guindi - ¶ 0024).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum809 in view of Meincke in view of Roeck et al. (US 2021/0204078).
Regarding claim 28, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 3.
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose further comprising controlling the first hearing device and the second hearing device using a smartphone application connected to at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Roeck discloses further comprising controlling the first hearing device and the second hearing device using a smartphone application connected to at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device (¶ 0020-0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: further comprising controlling the first hearing device and the second hearing device using a smartphone application connected to at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device, the motivation being to provide a way to communicate with the hearing devices and/or stream music or conduct a phone call (Roeck - ¶ 0020-0022).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum809 in view of Meincke in view of Barthel (US 2011/0238419).
Regarding claim 29, Solum809-Meincke discloses the method of claim 3.
Solum809-Meincke is not relied upon to disclose further comprising controlling the first hearing device and the second hearing device using a voice control of at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Barthel discloses further comprising controlling the first hearing device and the second hearing device using a voice control of at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: further comprising controlling the first hearing device and the second hearing device using a smartphone application connected to at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device, the motivation being to frequently avoid the frequently irksome operation by a remote control or small adjustment buttons on the hearing device (Barthel - ¶ 0005).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solum809 in view of Meincke in view of Solum131 in view of Dittberner et al. (US 2011/0116666).
Regarding claim 30, Solum809-Meincke-Solum131 discloses the method of claim 4.
Solum809-Meincke-Solum131 is not relied upon to disclose wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes applying an audio-crossing mechanism based on an acoustic environment detected by at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Dittberner discloses wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes applying an audio-crossing mechanism based on an acoustic environment detected by at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device (¶ 0118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein configuring the second hearing device for coordinated binaural operations includes applying an audio-crossing mechanism based on an acoustic environment detected by at least one of the first hearing device and the second hearing device, the motivation being so that the frequency ranges of the LP audio signal and the HP audio signal are optimized for the specific prevailing ambient sound environment of the hearing aid (Dittberner - ¶ 0118).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 6) that:
“With respect to the added limitation that the second hearing device is of a different device type than the first hearing device, Applicant respectfully submits that Solum809 does not disclose and does not suggest this limitation. Solum809 discloses a system in which hearing devices 100A and 100B operate as a coordinated pair (Solum809, paragraph 0009, Fig. 1), and the disclosure of Solum809 is directed to hearing instruments of the same type operating together. Solum809 does not disclose or suggest a method in which a first hearing device transmits first device parameter data to a second hearing device that is of a different device type than the first hearing device. The Examiner has not identified any teaching in Solum809 that would supply this limitation, and Applicant respectfully submits that this limitation alone distinguishes amended claim 1 from the disclosure of Solum809. Applicant further notes that the combination of Solum809 and Meincke does not supply this limitation. Meincke likewise discloses only identical hearing aids operating as a binaural pair (Meincke, paragraphs 0052-0053, FIG. 4), and contains no disclosure of hearing devices of different types. Neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a method in which a first hearing device transmits its hardware parameters to a second hearing device of a different device type for use in configuring coordinated binaural operations.”
In response, the examiner submits that the term “device type” is broad enough to also be interpreted as referring to types such as a left device type and a right device type, such as a device designed for use in the right ear or a device designed for use in the left ear, which is what is taught in ¶ 0024 of Solum809.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 6-7) that:
“With respect to the limitation that the first device parameter data includes one or more hardware parameters of the first hearing device, Applicant respectfully submits that neither Meincke nor the combination of Solum809 and Meincke discloses or suggests this limitation. Reading Meincke in its entirety, the parameters that Meincke's hearing device collects and transmits to the contralateral hearing device are speech detection parameters derived from the acoustic environment, specifically voiced speech frequencies detected by the speech detector and 90% percentile signal level values (Meincke, paragraphs 0039, 0052, 0065). These are real-time acoustic signal processing parameters, not hardware parameters of the hearing device itself. Meincke's bidirectional communications link block (paragraph 0052) converts these acoustic parameters into data packets for wireless transmission. Meincke contains no disclosure of transmitting hardware parameters of the transmitting device.”
In response, the examiner submits that ¶ 0017 of Solum809 teaches that the programming information can include configuration of device hardware such as volume controls and receiver type, which the examiner considers to be hardware parameters.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 6-7) that:
“The Examiner's stated motivation for combining Solum809 with Meincke is 'to configure the data to be suitable for wireless transmission' (Final Office Action, p. 6). This motivation, drawn from Meincke's packet-formatting function, addresses only the form of data transmission, not its content. A person of ordinary skill in the art following this motivation would format Solum809's programming information as data packets for transmission, but would have no reason, based on Meincke's disclosure, to select hardware parameters of the transmitting device as the content of those packets. Meincke's parameters are acoustic and signal-processing in nature, and nothing in Meincke's disclosure would direct a skilled artisan toward including hardware parameters in the transmitted data.”
In response, the examiner submits that ¶ 0017 of Solum809 teaches that the programming information can include configuration of device hardware such as volume controls and receiver type, which the examiner considers to be hardware parameters, and which would be formatted as data packets for transmission.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm 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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
