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.
This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 3/2/2026.
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);
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, Solum131discloses 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 2) that:
“The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Solum 809 in view of Meincke is respectfully traversed. The Examiner concedes that Solum 809 does not disclose "configuring, using a first hearing device configured to be worn or implanted in a first ear of a user, first device parameter data," and relies on Meincke to supply this limitation. However, Meincke discloses only that the first hearing device configures parameter data as data packets to be transmitted to a second hearing device (Meincke, 1 0052). This teaching is directed to routine data formatting for wireless transmission ----- specifically, the packaging of data into a transmittable form ------ and does not disclose or suggest the configuration of substantive device parameter data by the first hearing device itself for the purpose of enabling coordinated binaural operations with a second hearing device of a different type, as recited in claim 1.”
In response, the examiner submits that Applicant’s above-cited statement that “The Examiner concedes that Solum 809 does not disclose ‘configuring, using a first hearing device configured to be worn or implanted in a first ear of a user, first device parameter data,’ and relies on Meincke to supply this limitation”, is taken out of context because it leaves out that “configuring, using” was emphasized by bold/underline in the original examiner’s statement. The Examiner stated on page 5 of the previous Office Action that 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” (i.e. Solum809 is not relied upon to disclose just the “configuring, using” part of the limitation) because it was already stated earlier in the Office Action on page 5 that Solum809 discloses “a first hearing device configured to be worn or implanted in a first ear of a user, first device parameter data”. Thus, Applicant’s above-cited argument is based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Office Action.
Meincke does not need to teach the configuration of substantive device parameter data by the first hearing device itself for the purpose of enabling coordinated binaural operations with a second hearing device of a different type at least because the combination of Solum809-Meincke is used to teach this, rather than Meincke alone.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 2-3) that:
“The distinction is not merely semantic. The claimed "configuring...first device parameter data" is directed to the hearing device assembling its own device-specific parameters such as device configuration, timing transmission parameters, timing receipt parameters, wireless communication circuit type, and antenna type, as further recited in dependent claims 6-10 so that those parameters can be shared with and used by a second hearing device to achieve binaural coordination. Meincke's disclosure of packet formatting (¶ 0052) addresses only the structural form of data for transmission, not the substantive assembly of device-specific parameters that enable two hearing devices to configure themselves for coordinated binaural operation. The Examiner has not identified any teaching in Meincke, or in Solum 809, that discloses or suggests this substantive configuration step.”
In response, the examiner submits that Meincke and Solum809 individually do not need to teach the substantive configuration step because the combination of Solum809-Meincke is used to teach this.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 3) that:
“Furthermore, the Examiner's stated motivation for the combination "to configure the data to be suitable for wireless transmission" (Office Action, p. 6) confirms that the combination addresses only transmission formatting, not the configuration of device parameter data for binaural coordination. Combining Solum 809 with Meincke on this basis would yield, at most, a system in which programming information is packaged into data packets for transmission, which falls short of the claimed invention. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest a first hearing device configuring its own device parameter data for use by a second hearing device to achieve coordinated binaural operations. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable over the cited combination, and requests withdrawal of the rejection.”
In response, the examiner submits that the claim was written broadly enough for the interpretation used by the examiner to reject the claims.
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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights