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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-34 are pending in the application, with claim 2 being cancelled and claims 30-34 being newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112, 102, and 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 8, 2026. Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate new grounds of rejection, as described in the Response to Arguments and 102 and 103 Rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-13, 16, 22-24, and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140254828 A1 (Ray et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Ray teaches a device for hearing assessment and/or correction, said device comprising a software unit arranged for performing a method ([0055] “computational device 100 contains electronic elements and/or software required to perform the equal loudness hearing test used to establish the listener's hearing profile, to compute the equalization filter, and to perform the signal processing for applying the equalization filter to the audio signal to be reproduced”) comprising:
- performing a hearing test with different frequencies and with different sound levels on a test subject, said hearing test involving using a reference sound and a test sound and adjusting the test sound level until the test subject perceives the test sound level to be substantially equal to the reference sound in loudness ([0048]; [0053] “the hearing test module 110 of the computation device 100, presents a user interface through which a set of test tones at frequencies within the audio band are presented to the listener and the listener can manually adjust and set the relative volume level of each test tone to a level at which the listener perceives all of the tones to be at the same loudness or other relationship chosen by the listener”; [0054] “the listener can select the reference equal-loudness contour for the hearing test via the "select contour" control 402 (in this example, a pull-down menu), and buttons 104 for playing and adjusting levels of individual tones are presented to measure hearing profile”); and
- obtaining data on the test sound level and the reference sound for the different frequencies at different sound levels ([0048] “Equal-loudness contours are derived through listening tests in which a listener compares the loudness of different tones and perceives the levels at which two tones separated by frequency to be of equal loudness”; [0055] “a personalized hearing profile for the listener, specifically by measuring, for each tone, the deviation of the recorded phon level from the corresponding phon level in the reference equal-loudness contour.”),
wherein one or more dynamic filters are involved for compensating the data ([0055] “adaptive equalization filter module 120, generates a personalized hearing profile for the listener, specifically by measuring, for each tone, the deviation of the recorded phon level from the corresponding phon level in the reference equal-loudness contour.”; [0068] “a series of filters”), and said one or more dynamic filters change amplification depending on a change in sound pressure ([0054] “The resulting sound pressure level vs. frequency plot, overlaid with the equal-loudness contour at the phon level at which the test is conducted, provide the deviation of the combined transfer function of the listening device and listener's auditory system from which a personalized equalization filter is derived”; [0057] “the equalization filter may require amplification of some frequencies”; [0062] “a digital equalization filter is created using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation, given the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference contour”; Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 3, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein input sound pressure is amplified so that the experienced sound level is fully compensated ([0002] “Equalization alters the frequency response of an audio signal reproduced using an electronic means of transduction by filtering of the audio signal. For example, if the listener has hearing loss in certain audio bands, signals in these bands can be amplified to recreate natural listening conditions intended for the audio signal.”; [0054] “The sound pressure level in dB of the tone, given the volume setting, can be established, for example, based on a database containing the frequency response of common listening devices in testing using an ear simulator, such as a manikin having an in-ear microphone, establishing the phon level at which the hearing test is conducted”; [0055]; [0057] “In general, the equalization filter may require amplification of some frequencies, and attenuation of others.”; [0062] “a digital equalization filter is created using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation”).
Regarding claim 5, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the method also comprises the step of:
- processing and compensating the data to provide substantially equal loudness at each used frequency at different sound levels ([0044] “perform the equal loudness hearing test used to establish the listener's hearing profile, to compute the equalization filter, and to perform the signal processing for applying the equalization filter to the audio signal to be reproduced.”; [0062] “To create the equalization filter based on a response profile, the audio spectrum is divided into bands, and the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference equal-loudness contour for the phon level at which the hearing test is conducted is used to generate an equalization filter for that band”; [0064] “the coefficients of the equalization filter for each band are derived (e.g., through interpolation between known levels or extrapolation outside of known levels) and then the filters are cascaded to provide adaptive, personal equalization filters as a function of listening volume”).
Regarding claim 6, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein multiple dynamic filters are involved for compensating the data ([0062] “Filters for each band are calculated and cascaded to provide the final equalization filter.”; [0065] “first and second personalized equalization filters”).
Regarding claim 7, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the method includes digital signal processing ([0017] “a digital signal processor for providing additional signal processing of the audio signal”; [0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Ray teaches the device according to claim 6, wherein the method involves determining dynamically changing amplification for each filter frequency ([0013] “the adaptive equalization filter module may be configured to automatically generate the first personalized equalization filter by automatically creating a first digital equalization filter using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation, based on the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference contour and cascading filters for each band to provide a personalized equalization filter.”; [0057]; [0062])
Regarding claim 9, Ray teaches the device according to claim 6, wherein table data is collected by drawing a straight vertical line at a particular center frequency creating table data from deviations between experienced level and real level (Figs. 3A-3F, Fig. 4, [0054] “The resulting sound pressure level vs. frequency plot, overlaid with the equal-loudness contour at the phon level at which the test is conducted, provide the deviation of the combined transfer function of the listening device and listener's auditory system from which a personalized equalization filter is derived.”).
Regarding claim 10, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the method includes digital signal processing of amplification data and filter center frequencies, preferably by involving one or more filter blocks ([0007] “automatically generating the first personalized equalization filter may involve automatically creating a first digital equalization filter using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency”; [0013] “the adaptive equalization filter module may be configured to automatically generate the first personalized equalization filter by automatically creating a first digital equalization filter using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation, based on the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference contour and cascading filters for each band to provide a personalized equalization filter.”; [0044-0046]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 11, Ray teaches the device according to claim 7, wherein the digital signal processing includes one or more filter blocks ([0013] “the adaptive equalization filter module may be configured to automatically generate the first personalized equalization filter by automatically creating a first digital equalization filter using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation, based on the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference contour and cascading filters for each band to provide a personalized equalization filter.”; [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein each dynamic filter involved has a center frequency in a range of 200 Hz - 12.8 kHz ([0051] “As shown in FIG. 2, for a given phon level, a low frequency tone must be increased in dB level significantly for it to be perceived as equal loudness to a 1000 Hz tone, while sensitivity in the 4000 Hz band is higher.”; [0054] “Once the volume is set for the 1000 Hz tone, the user plays additional tones, one at a time, from (in this example) 60 Hz to 16000 Hz and adjusts the volume of each tone to match the perceived loudness of the 1000 Hz tone”; [0055] “The reference phon level may be selected by the listener as part of the test or may be established explicitly or implicitly as part of the test, e.g., the computing device may use the volume level input by the listener for a particular one of the tones (e.g., a 1000 Hz pure tone) as the reference phon level. Based on the hearing profile, the computing device synthesizes an equalization filter such that, when the filter is applied to the audio signal prior to presentation through the transduction/listening device (for example, when the listener invokes an audio player via the "audio player" control 408 of FIG. 4)*-++96”).
Regarding claim 13, Ray teaches the device according to claim 6, wherein maximum amplification is determined for one or more frequencies ([0057] “In general, the equalization filter may require amplification of some frequencies, and attenuation of others.”; [0062] “In certain exemplary embodiments, a digital equalization filter is created using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation, given the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference contour. Filters for each band are calculated and cascaded to provide the final equalization filter.”).
Regarding claim 16, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein there is provided a dynamic filter for each frequency that needs to be amplified within a hearing restoration process ([0062] “n certain exemplary embodiments, a digital equalization filter is created using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation, given the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference contour. Filters for each band are calculated and cascaded to provide the final equalization filter.”).
Regarding claim 22, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises transposing phon-related data into sound pressure level-related data ([0049] “An equal-loudness contour is a way of mapping the dBSPL of a pure tone to the perceived loudness level in phons.”).
Regarding claim 23, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein multiple filter blocks are used ([0062] “Filters for each band are calculated and cascaded to provide the final equalization filter.”; [0065] “first and second personalized equalization filters”).
Regarding claim 24, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the method involves extending a model beyond obtained measured test data points by providing a fitted curve between at least multiple measured test data points, then providing an interpolation of the obtained fitted curve, and then providing a derivate fitted curve of the interpolation ([0064] “Equalization filters for the two hearing profiles are generated. Subsequently, the coefficients of the equalization filter for each band are derived (e.g., through interpolation between known levels or extrapolation outside of known levels) and then the filters are cascaded to provide adaptive, personal equalization filters as a function of listening volume”; [0065] “the third personalized equalization filter based on coefficients for the first and second personalized equalization filters, in block 1312, such as by interpolation and/or extrapolation.”; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 26, Ray teaches a hearing correction system ([0055] “computational device 100 contains electronic elements and/or software required to perform the equal loudness hearing test used to establish the listener's hearing profile, to compute the equalization filter, and to perform the signal processing for applying the equalization filter to the audio signal to be reproduced”) comprising:
- a hearing test arranged to perform a hearing test with different frequencies and sound pressure levels on a test subject, said hearing test involving using a reference sound and a test sound and adjusting the test sound level until the test subject perceives the test sound level to be substantially equal to the reference sound in loudness, to obtain data on the test sound level and the reference sound for the different frequencies and sound levels ([0048]; [0053] “the hearing test module 110 of the computation device 100, presents a user interface through which a set of test tones at frequencies within the audio band are presented to the listener and the listener can manually adjust and set the relative volume level of each test tone to a level at which the listener perceives all of the tones to be at the same loudness or other relationship chosen by the listener”; [0054] “the listener can select the reference equal-loudness contour for the hearing test via the "select contour" control 402 (in this example, a pull-down menu), and buttons 104 for playing and adjusting levels of individual tones are presented to measure hearing profile”);
- a data processing unit arranged to process the obtained data and provide settings to a digital signal processing unit ([0046] “a digital signal processor for providing additional signal processing of the audio signal”; [0048] “Equal-loudness contours are derived through listening tests in which a listener compares the loudness of different tones and perceives the levels at which two tones separated by frequency to be of equal loudness”; [0055] “a personalized hearing profile for the listener, specifically by measuring, for each tone, the deviation of the recorded phon level from the corresponding phon level in the reference equal-loudness contour.”; [0081]); and
- the digital signal processing unit arranged to perform dynamic compensation, wherein one or more dynamic filters are involved for the dynamic compensation of the data ([0045-0046]; [0055] “adaptive equalization filter module 120, generates a personalized hearing profile for the listener, specifically by measuring, for each tone, the deviation of the recorded phon level from the corresponding phon level in the reference equal-loudness contour.”; [0068] “a series of filters”; [0081]) and said one or more dynamic filters change amplification depending on a change in sound pressure ([0054] “The resulting sound pressure level vs. frequency plot, overlaid with the equal-loudness contour at the phon level at which the test is conducted, provide the deviation of the combined transfer function of the listening device and listener's auditory system from which a personalized equalization filter is derived”; [0057] “the equalization filter may require amplification of some frequencies”; [0062] “a digital equalization filter is created using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation, given the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference contour”; Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 27, Ray teaches the system according to claim 26, wherein the digital signal processing unit comprises software, hardware or a combination thereof ([0044] “the computational device 100 contains electronic elements and/or software”).
Regarding claim 28, Ray teaches a system comprising a hearing correction system according to claim 26 and a hearing aid unit, headphones or a sound reproduction system ([0001]; [0058] “a separate hearing profile and filter may be generated for each ear of the listener (e.g., for listening through a stereo listening device such as headphones)”).
Regarding claim 29, Ray teaches a method for hearing assessment and/or correction ([0055] “computational device 100 contains electronic elements and/or software required to perform the equal loudness hearing test used to establish the listener's hearing profile, to compute the equalization filter, and to perform the signal processing for applying the equalization filter to the audio signal to be reproduced”), said method comprising:
- performing a hearing test with different frequencies and with different sound levels on a test subject, said hearing test involving using a reference sound and a test sound and adjusting the test sound level until the test subject perceives the test sound level to be substantially equal to the reference sound in loudness ([0048]; [0053] “the hearing test module 110 of the computation device 100, presents a user interface through which a set of test tones at frequencies within the audio band are presented to the listener and the listener can manually adjust and set the relative volume level of each test tone to a level at which the listener perceives all of the tones to be at the same loudness or other relationship chosen by the listener”; [0054] “the listener can select the reference equal-loudness contour for the hearing test via the "select contour" control 402 (in this example, a pull-down menu), and buttons 104 for playing and adjusting levels of individual tones are presented to measure hearing profile”); and
- obtaining data on the test sound level and the reference sound for the different frequencies at different sound levels ([0048] “Equal-loudness contours are derived through listening tests in which a listener compares the loudness of different tones and perceives the levels at which two tones separated by frequency to be of equal loudness”; [0055] “a personalized hearing profile for the listener, specifically by measuring, for each tone, the deviation of the recorded phon level from the corresponding phon level in the reference equal-loudness contour.”),
and wherein one or more dynamic filters are involved for compensating the data ([0055] “adaptive equalization filter module 120, generates a personalized hearing profile for the listener, specifically by measuring, for each tone, the deviation of the recorded phon level from the corresponding phon level in the reference equal-loudness contour.”; [0068] “a series of filters”) and said one or more dynamic filters change amplification depending on a change in sound pressure ([0054] “The resulting sound pressure level vs. frequency plot, overlaid with the equal-loudness contour at the phon level at which the test is conducted, provide the deviation of the combined transfer function of the listening device and listener's auditory system from which a personalized equalization filter is derived”; [0057] “the equalization filter may require amplification of some frequencies”; [0062] “a digital equalization filter is created using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation, given the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference contour”; Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 30, Ray teaches the device of claim 6, wherein 2 - 20 dynamic filters are involved for
compensating the data ([0062] “Filters for each band are calculated and cascaded to provide the final equalization filter.”; [0065] “first and second personalized equalization filters”).
Regarding claim 31, Ray teaches the device of claim 9, The device according to claim 6, wherein table data is collected with amplification of input signal at a certain frequency at different input sound pressures (Figs. 3A-3F, Fig. 4, [0054] “The resulting sound pressure level vs. frequency plot, overlaid with the equal-loudness contour at the phon level at which the test is conducted, provide the deviation of the combined transfer function of the listening device and listener's auditory system from which a personalized equalization filter is derived.”).
Regarding claim 32, Ray teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein each filter block handles an individual frequency ([0013] “the adaptive equalization filter module may be configured to automatically generate the first personalized equalization filter by automatically creating a first digital equalization filter using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation, based on the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference contour and cascading filters for each band to provide a personalized equalization filter.”; [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 33, Ray teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein maximum amplification is determined for each dynamic filter's center frequency ([0057] “In general, the equalization filter may require amplification of some frequencies, and attenuation of others.”; [0062] “In certain exemplary embodiments, a digital equalization filter is created using a set of parametric equalizing filters by automatically specifying the center frequency, bandwidth, and desired amplification or attenuation, given the difference between the listener's measured contour and the reference contour. Filters for each band are calculated and cascaded to provide the final equalization filter.”).
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 4, 14, 17, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140254828 A1 (Ray et al.) in view of US 20100278356 A1 (Hersbach et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Ray teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein input sound pressure is amplified so that the experienced sound level is fully compensated ([0055] “Based on the hearing profile, the computing device synthesizes an equalization filter such that, when the filter is applied to the audio signal prior to presentation through the transduction/listening device (for example, when the listener invokes an audio player via the "audio player" control 408 of FIG. 4), the user's listening profile is adjusted to match the equal-loudness contour at the baseline phon level”).
Ray does not explicitly teach the experienced sound level is fully compensated within limits set by acoustic feedback.
However,
Hersbach teaches the experienced sound level is fully compensated within limits set by acoustic feedback ([0069-0070] “adjusting frequency-dependent amplification”, “determining activation levels for feedback suppression in the audio amplification apparatus according to the above described activation level determining method.”; [0104] “activate the feedback suppression at the frequency of each of the 24 bands. The characteristics of the feedback path may be different for each situation, and may change over time. Accordingly, the activation levels may be fixed or may be adaptable to change according to changes in the characteristics of the feedback path over time”.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Ray to include sound level compensation within acoustic feedback limits. One would have been motivated to make this modification because acoustic feedback occurs when the output signal is picked up by the input transducer which causes whistling or howling and compensating the sound level suppresses the feedback, as suggested by Hersbach ([0002-0003]).
Regarding claim 14, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1.
Ray does not explicitly teach wherein maximum amplification is limited to avoid acoustic feedback.
However,
Hersbach teaches wherein maximum amplification is limited to avoid acoustic feedback ([0005] “the amplifier output may be increased to a level which causes unwanted artefacts. Such artefacts are introduced when the output of the amplifier is at a sufficiently high level”; [0055-0057] “lowest amplification at which feedback oscillation is detected”; [0159] “the amplification at each frequency can be adjusted, and the feedback path transfer function at that frequency derived from the lowest amplification at which feedback oscillation is detected. This onset indicates that the magnitude of the feedback path and the magnitude of the amplification are equal in units of dB”; [0069-0070]; [0107]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Ray to include limiting maximum amplification. One would have been motivated to make this modification because high level amplification causes unwanted artifacts and reducing amplification reduces the output sound level, thus reducing feedback artifacts, as suggested by Hersbach ([0002-0003, 0107]).
Regarding claim 17, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1.
Ray does not explicitly teach wherein said one or more dynamic filters is operating with dynamically changing gain dependent on a dynamically changing input signal level at a certain filter frequency.
However,
Hersbach teaches wherein said one or more dynamic filters is operating with dynamically changing gain dependent on a dynamically changing input signal level at a certain filter frequency ([0004] “The introduction of such a frequency shifting component can make the closed loop gain of the system stable and avoid spontaneous oscillation under certain conditions.”; [0085] “an input sound signal received at a microphone 11 is pre-amplified and filtered to limit its bandwidth in the preamplifier and anti aliasing filter. An analogue to digital converter 13 samples the band limited signal at a constant rate and converts the sampled signal into digital form”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Ray to include gain changing based on signal levels at certain a certain frequency. One would have been motivated to make this modification because gain is unstable and can be impacted by frequency levels and frequency shifting can reduce feedback artifacts, as suggested by Hersbach ([0003]).
Regarding claim 25, Ray teaches the device according to claim 24,
Ray does not explicitly teach wherein the method involves a filtration step for removal of data points of the obtained measured test data points that are outside of a relationship for the obtained measured test data points, for enabling provision of a fitted curve between at least multiple measured test data points.
However,
Hersbach teaches wherein the method involves a filtration step for removal of data points of the obtained measured test data points that are outside of a relationship for the obtained measured test data points, for enabling provision of a fitted curve between at least multiple measured test data points (Fig. 6; [0101] “Feedback artefacts resulting from the frequency translation carried out in the sound processing device 10 are compensated for or removed. Given the input to output frequency mapping employed by the sound processing device 10, it is possible to predict the frequency of the feedback signal produced by any given external signal.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Ray to include limiting removing data points outside a relationship to create a fitted curve. One would have been motivated to make this modification because removing feedback signals helps reduce distortion amplified to the user and allows amplification values to be fitted representing the comfort of the user, as suggested by Hersbach ([0002 0006], [0112]).
Claims 15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140254828 A1 (Ray et al.) in view of US 20090018466 A1 (Materna et al.)
Regarding claim 15, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1.
Ray does not explicitly teach wherein said one or more dynamic filters are wideband filters with low order and wherein the method involves compensation for adjacent frequency filter boost to ensure a control of obtained aggregate gain.
However,
Materna teaches wherein said one or more dynamic filters are wideband filters with low order and wherein the method involves compensation for adjacent frequency filter boost to ensure a control of obtained aggregate gain ([0117] “Some patients experience a tinnitus sensation that is more adequately matched by a narrowband or a broadband noise”; [0119]; [0048] “linear interpolation between adjacent points”; [0049] “second order filter with normalized gain”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Ray to include a wideband filter. One would have been motivated to make this modification because patients experience noise differently and some hearing sensations may be best matched using a broad-band filter, as suggested by [0117].
Regarding claim 18, Ray teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein said one or more filter blocks comprise a sound pressure detector ([0048] “a measure of sound pressure”; [0054] “The resulting sound pressure level vs. frequency plot, overlaid with the equal-loudness contour at the phon level at which the test is conducted, provide the deviation of the combined transfer function of the listening device and listener's auditory system from which a personalized equalization filter is derived”), and a dynamic filter ([0005] “a personalized equalization filter”).
Ray does not explicitly teach a band pass filter.
However,
Materna teaches a band pass filter ([0049] “bandpass filtered”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Ray to include a band pass filter. One would have been motivated to make this modification because filtering the signals and adjusting the bandwidth of signals can be used to match sounds heard by a patient, as suggested by Materna [0117-0119].
Regarding claim 19, Ray teaches the device according to claim 18.
Ray does not explicitly teach wherein the band pass filter is arranged to filter out and the detector is arranged to measure the signal level at a dynamic filter frequency and suppress sound signals present at other frequencies.
However,
Materna teaches wherein the band pass filter is arranged to filter out and the detector is arranged to measure the signal level at a dynamic filter frequency and suppress sound signals present at other frequencies ([0049] “bandpass filtered”, Fig. 3(b) depicts a frequency range that is heard by a patient).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Ray to include a band pass filter. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the noiseband can differ among patients’ experienced sounds and external noise can interfere with the sound matching process and therefore should be limited, as suggested by Materna [0035, 0117].
Regarding claim 20, Ray teaches the device according to claim 18.
Ray does not explicitly teach wherein the band pass filter has a low order, preferably second order, more preferably with Q below 1.
However, Materna teaches wherein the band pass filter has a low order, preferably second order, more preferably with Q below 1 ([0049] “bandpass filtered”, “second order filter with normalized gain”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Ray to include a band pass filter with low order. One would have been motivated to make this modification because a second-order bandpass can match sounds experienced by users focusing on a center frequency, as suggested by Materna ([0049, 0117]).
Regarding claim 21, Ray teaches the device according to claim 20.
Ray does not explicitly teach wherein said one or more filter blocks also comprise a gain table.
However,
Materna teaches wherein said one or more filter blocks also comprise a gain table ([0049] “normalized gain”; [0051-0052]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Ray to include a gain table. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the gain should be normalized and recorded because it is dependent on frequencies being filtered by the filter, and peak gain increases at the center frequency as the bandwidth is narrowed, as suggested by Materna ([0049]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140254828 A1 (Ray et al.) in view of US 20160255443 A1 (Backus, Bradford).
Regarding claim 34, Ray teaches the device according to claim 24.
Ray does not explicitly teach wherein providing the derivate fitted curve of the interpolation includes providing a first derivative fitted curve at a comparatively lower sound pressure level of the interpolation and a second derivative fitted curve at a comparatively higher sound pressure level of the interpolation.
However,
Backus teaches wherein providing the derivate fitted curve of the interpolation includes providing a first derivative fitted curve at a comparatively lower sound pressure level of the interpolation and a second derivative fitted curve at a comparatively higher sound pressure level of the interpolation ([0023] “adjust the mapping of the stimulation level to the target charge amounts if the rate of change of the band pass limited audio signal and/or a derived band pass limited audio signal is below a first derivative threshold value or beyond a second derivative threshold value”; Figs. 3B-3C).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Ray to include a first derivative fitted curve and second derivative fitted curve. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the derivate values allow for events of different sound levels to be anticipated to adjust the audio signal accordingly to be at a comfortable level for the user, as suggested by Backus [0023, 0078].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 102 Rejections in the Non-Final Office Action (See Pages 9-13 of Applicant’s Response “B. Response to §102(a)(1) Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-13, 16, 22-24, and 26-29”), Applicant argues that Ray lacks a pairwise loudness balancing procedure in which a test sound is perceptually matches against a separate reference sound. Applicant claims that Ray does not teach the relational reference/test sound structure and type of measurement data structure required by Claim 1. Applicant also argues that Ray does not disclose using dynamic filters as part of the hearing test itself to compensate or correct the measurement data obtained from the loudness assessment. Applicant states that the rejected claims are not rendered obvious over Ray because Ray fails to teach or suggest the same technical effects as the features of claim 1. Applicant states that the filters taught by Ray are applied exclusively to audio playback signals, not to hearing test measurement data, and does not adapt the filter based on continuous pressure dependent compensation of test data. Applicant states that independent claims 26 and 29 are not taught by Ray for the same reasons as claim 1. Regarding the 103 rejections (See Pages 13-14 of Applicant’s Response, Applicant states that Hersbach and Materna do not remedy the deficiencies of Ray.
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. The requirements for anticipation are discussed in MPEP § 2131.
Under BRI, “performing a hearing test” as recited in claim 1 may be interpreted to be any assessment of the hearing of an individual. Ray teaches a hearing test in [0053], which involves adjusting more than one test tone so that the user perceives the tones to be the same loudness. This reads on the claim language as written under BRI, as the more than one test tones means one tone is a reference sound and another tone is a test sound that is adjusted to be substantially equally loud to the reference sound. Claim 1 also requires obtaining data from the test sound level and reference sound for the difference frequencies at different sound levels, which is taught by Ray in [0048], as the equal-loudness contours are data resulting from the two tones at different frequencies. Applicant’s argument regarding the acquiring or storing pairs of reference sound levels and test sound levels does not reflect the language recited in the claim. As written, the data may be interpreted to be any measurement resulting from the test sound levels and reference sound under BRI, which is disclosed by Ray. Additionally, Applicant’s argument that Ray does not disclose using dynamic filters as part of the hearing test itself does not reflect the language recited in the claim. The claim language only requires that the filters are involved for compensating the data. Claim 1 requires one or more dynamic filters are involved for compensating the data, which means the data must be adjusted using filters under BRI, which is taught by Ray in [0054]. The amended claim language requires the one or more dynamic filters change amplification based on sound pressure, which is also taught by Ray in [0054], [0057], and [0062]. The equal-loudness contour (data) taught by Ray is used in combination with the sound pressure and frequency to develop an equalization filter, which may require amplification of some frequencies. Independent claims 26 and 29 are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 described above. The claims, as written and interpreted under BRI, are rejected for being anticipated by Ray.
Claims 3-25, 27-28, and 30-34 are rejected because the rejection of claims 1, 26, and 29 are proper and the prior art teaches or suggests all the features of these claims for the reasons described in the 102 and 103 Rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EVELYN GRACE PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-0651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5:00PM.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/EVELYN GRACE PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights