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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on May 18, 2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 16-18, and 20-41 are pending in this action. Claims 3-5, 9-15, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 37-41 have been newly added.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-8, and 16-18, 20-41 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. For examiner’s response to the applicant’s arguments or comments, see the detailed discussion in the Response to the Arguments section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 16-18, and 20-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of method of modify/replace a hearing habilitation regime. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of modify/replace a hearing habilitation regime. The claim is drawn to process (a series of steps or acts) that similar to an idea 'Of itself such as an instantiated concept, plan or mind, or by a human using a pen and paper'.
The claim does not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine. The method does not require a particular transformation of a particular article. There is not transformation of a physical objects or data into a different state or thing. This capturing voice data, evaluating data, modifying/replacing habilitation, is similar to displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found by the courts to be abstract idea (Elec. Power Grp., LLC V. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims broadly recites the result (capturing voice data, evaluating data, modifying/replacing habilitation), rather than sufficiently claiming a technical means of achieving the result. See Two-Way Media Ltd. V. Comcast Cable Commons, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("The claim requires the functional results but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way."). The claims recite a Judicial exception relating to modify/replace a hearing habilitation regime Here the claims do not change the underlying or other technology, rather the claimed techniques playing using hearing assistance device/hearing prosthesis as pedagogical tool. The claimed additional elements - -machine- -"merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea" or "do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment." Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see Customedia Techs., LLC V. Dish Network Corp., No. 2018- 2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) ("We have held that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool."). Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-8, and 16-28 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is "directed to the judicial exception." Id. at 54.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic hearing assistance/hearing prosthesis. The claim amounts to no more than collecting voice/logging data, and analyzing captured data. Taking the claimed elements either individually or as ordered combination, that transform claims into patent-eligible application, since claims merely recite use of already existing hearing assistance/hearing prosthesis, and there is no "inventive concept" in using hearing assistance/hearing prosthesis well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry of hearing assistance/hearing prosthesis and rehabilitation, since claims, at most, attempt to limit abstract idea to particular technological environment, and such limitation has been held insufficient to save claims in this context, and since dependent claims are not rendered patent-eligible by recitation of additional steps, even though additional limitations may narrow scope of claims. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-8, 16-18, and 19-41 are ineligible.
Double Patenting
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 16-18 and 20-41are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,008. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed language of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 16-18, and 20-41 merely broadens the claimed subject matter of claims 1-20 of the patent, by omitting some claim limitations.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 16-18, and 20-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banna et al. (US 2014/0336448).
As per 1, Banna discloses, a method comprising:
capturing voice using a machine (Paragraph 0029, hearing prosthesis);
determining, based on the captured voice, linguistic characteristics associated with the hearing impaired person (Paragraph 0029, linguistic characteristic); and
at least one of: modifying a hearing habilitation and/or rehabilitation regime that was previously implemented based on the determination (Paragraph 0008, rehabilitate); or
replacing a hearing habilitation and/or rehabilitation regime that was previously implemented with a new regime based on the determination.
As per claim 2, Banna discloses, wherein: the linguistic characteristics comprise at least one of: (i) a measure of quantity of voice by the recipient or (ii) a measure of quantity of voice by one or more people other than the recipient (Paragraph 0034).
As per claim 4, Banna discloses, wherein: the action of modifying and/or replacing a hearing habilitation and/or rehabilitation regime based on the determination includes eliminating one or more features of an audio environments which were previously part of the regime or otherwise exposed to the recipient (Paragraph 0008).
As per claim 5, Banna discloses, wherein: the action of modifying and/or replacing a hearing habilitation and/or rehabilitation regime based on the determination includes adding one or more features of an audio environments which were previously not part of the regime or otherwise not present in the recipient's auditory diet (Paragraph 0008).
As per claim 6, Banna discloses, wherein: the actions of determining linguistic characteristics and modifying and/or replacing a hearing habilitation and/or rehabilitation regime based on the determination are executed in an automated method (Paragraph 0034).
As per claim 7, Banna discloses, wherein: the linguistic characteristics comprise higher level auditory skill development characteristics (Paragraph 0054).
As per claim 8, Banna discloses, further comprising, prior to the modifying and/or replacing action: capturing second voice using a machine; determining based on the second captured voice, linguistic characteristics of the hearing impaired person; and developing a rehabilitation regime based on the determination based on the second captured voice (Paragraph 0054).
As per claim 16, a method, comprising: capturing sound with a machine (Paragraph 0029, hearing prosthesis); and at least one of: (i) evaluating data, wherein the data is based on the captured sound, wherein the captured sound is voice sound; and determining a hearing habilitation and/or rehabilitation related feature based on the evaluation (Paragraphs 008 and 0029, linguistic characteristic); or
(ii) logging data corresponding to events and/or actions of an individual's real world auditory environment, wherein the captured sound is sound of the individual's voice, wherein the individual is speaking while using a hearing assistance device, and the hearing assistance device at least one of corresponds to the machine or is a device used to execute the action of logging data.
As per claim 17, Banna discloses, wherein the method includes evaluating the data based on captured sound, wherein action of evaluating the data based on captured sound includes evaluating at least one characteristic of a language development
environment associated with the sound (Paragraph 0029, linguistic characteristic).
As per claim 18, Banna discloses, wherein the method includes logging data corresponding to events and/or actions of the individual's real world auditory environment, wherein the captured sound is sound of the individual's voice, wherein the individual is speaking while using a hearing assistance device, and the hearing assistance device at least one of corresponds to the machine or is a device used to execute the action of logging data (Paragraph 0029) and wherein the method further comprising at least one of:
(i)analyzing the captured sound and the logged data to identify a real-world scenario identified by using the captured sound and/or the data as latent variables (Paragraph 0034); or
(ii) obtaining functional listening behavior data about the individual; and analyzing the captured sound, the logged data and the functional data to identify a real-world scenario identified by using the captured voice and/or the logged data and/or the functional listening behavior data as latent variables.
As per claim 20, Banna discloses, wherein the method includes evaluating the data, wherein the data is based on the captured sound, wherein the captured sound is voice sound and determining the hearing habilitation and/or rehabilitation related feature based on the evaluation wherein the action of capturing sound is executed during a normal conversation outside of a testing environment (Paragraphs 0008 and 0034).
As per claim 21, Banna discloses, wherein the method includes logging data corresponding to events and/or actions of the individual's real world auditory environment, wherein the captured sound is sound of the individual's voice, wherein the individual is speaking while using a hearing assistance device, and the hearing assistance device at least one of corresponds to the machine or is a device used to execute the action of logging data (Paragraphs 0029-0030).
As per claims 22 and 38, Banna discloses, wherein: the logged data is time of use of the hearing assistance device (Paragraph 0034).
As per claim 23, Banna discloses, wherein: the logged data is participation of the individual in a communication environment (Paragraph 0029).
As per claim 24, Banna discloses, wherein: the logged data that is participation of the individual in a communication environment is based on own voice detection by the machine or a device used to execute the action of logging data (Paragraph 0029).
As per claim 25, Banna discloses, wherein: the hearing assistance device is a conventional hearing aid (Paragraphs 0043-0044).
As per claim 26, Banna discloses, wherein the method includes: measuring a quantity of conversational turns by the individual (Paragraph 0062). As per claim 27, Banna discloses, wherein the method includes: measuring a quantity associated with conversational engagement of the individual (Paragraph 0062).
As per claim 28, Banna discloses, further comprising: evaluating the logged data to determine a level of conversational engagement of the individual (Paragraph 0064).
As per claim 29, Banna discloses, a system, comprising: at least one of: an input suite and an output suite (Fig. 1, elements 14 and 20); or an input/output suite; and a processing suite, wherein the processing suite is configured to: provide, based on the input, output via the output suite and/or the input/output suite indicative of a level of conversation of a user of a hearing assistance device and/or a level of use of the hearing assistance device (Fig. 1, element 32).
As per claim 30, Banna discloses, wherein: the processing suite is configured to automatically determine a recommended change in a hearing impaired person's sound environment based on the input (Paragraphs 0046 and 0054).
As per claim 31, Banna discloses, wherein the input is a linguistic environment metric (Paragraphs 0046 and 0054).
As per claim 32, Banna discloses, wherein the input is a non-linguistic environment metric (Paragraphs 0046 and 0054).
As per claim 33, Banna discloses, wherein the input is a linguistic environment metric and a non-linguistic environment metric (Paragraphs 0046 and 0054).
As per claim 34, Banna discloses, wherein the processing suite is configured to analyze the input inputted into the input suite and/or the input/output suite, and provide, based on the input, output via the output suite and/or the input/output suite indicative of a level of conversation of a user of a hearing assistance device and a level of use of the hearing assistance device (Paragraphs 0062-0064).
As per claim 35, Banna discloses, wherein the system includes the hearing assistance device (Paragraph 0022).
As per claim 36, Banna discloses, wherein: the system includes a smart handheld computer the processor suite and the respective input suite, output suite and input/output suite are part of the smart handheld computer; and the smart handheld computer and the hearing assistance device are configured to be in wireless signal communication with each other (Fig. 2).
As per claim 37, Banna discloses, wherein the method further includes automatically presenting data indicative of the logged data to the individual and/or automatically evaluating the logged data to develop data indicative of the logged data (Paragraph 0034).
As per claim 38, Banna discloses, wherein: the logged data is time of use of the hearing assistance device (Paragraph 0034).
As per claim 39, Banna discloses, wherein: the logged data is temporal data (Paragraph 0034).
As per claim 40, Banna discloses, wherein: the temporal data is a percentage of a baseline amount (Paragraph 0034).
As per claim 41, Banna discloses, wherein: the logged data includes the amount of time that the hearing assistance device is used; and the hearing assistance device is a conventional hearing aid (Paragraph 0034).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 are rejected under section 101 of 35 USC as being bad. We traverse. … (Claim 1.) In this context, we have the additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition: … (2019 Rules, pages 19-20.) We have improvement, effect treatment. We traverse and point to the rules for section 101 issued in January of 2019, well before the current Office Action was mailed to Applicant's representative. . . . Our claim 1 squarely fits the above. Our claims meet section 101.
Examiner’s response:
The examiner stated in the rejection that the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of modify/replace a hearing habilitation regime. Additionally, the examiner stated that This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims broadly recite the result (capturing voice data, evaluating data, modifying/replacing habilitation), rather than sufficiently claiming a technical means of achieving the result. See Two-Way Media Ltd. V. Comcast Cable Commons, LLC, 874F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("The claim requires the functional results but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way."). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under Obviousness-type double patenting rejection, as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 are rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. We traverse. The USPTO has rejected all of these claims in view of prior art that was considered when the claims of the parent were examined. Thus, these claims cannot be patentably indistinct from those claims.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s argument regarding obvious-ness type double patenting rejection is not persuasive, there are no particular reason is point out as to why applicant has traversed the rejection.
The applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102, as follows:
The Office Action has rejected every single claim - claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 - every one, under 35 U.S.C. §102 for allegedly being anticipated by Banna (US 2014 0336448). Applicant traverses the rejections of all these claims for at least the reasons that follow. …. Claim 29 requires that what is provided be "indicative of a level of conversation of a user of a hearing assistance device and/or a level of use of the hearing assistance device." There is nothing like that disclosed in FIG. 1.
Examiner’s response:
The applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102, are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
June 24, 2026
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights