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 .
Amended claims 1-15 as submitted on 3/19/26 were considered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims were considered, but are moot in view of new rejections made below in response to the amendments.
Priority
It is noted that the foreign priority document for this application was successfully retrieved on 3/12/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign reference listed in the IDS submitted on 8/7/26 was previously not considered due to the reference being illegible. Applicant has submitted a new copy of the reference on 3/19/26 which is legible and it has been considered. Accordingly, all the references listed in the IDS filed on 8/7/24 are now considered and a signed copy of the IDS is submitted with this Office action. Note, however, that some of the references listed are crossed out as “not considered” to avoid redundancy because they were already previously considered.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehring et al (EP 3236674) in view of El Guindi et al (US 2022/0114246).
Note that citations to the Gehring reference will be made to the English translation of the document submitted the IDS received on 7/26/24.
Claim 1:
Gehring discloses:
registering the binaural hearing system with a relying party as a single authenticator for authenticating the user, thereby generating authentication data (paragraphs 15, 42-43; Hearing aids are used as replacements for security devices to authenticate the user, which implies registering them as such at some point. Further, they can also be registered with the manufacturer);
synchronizing the two hearing devices regarding the authentication data (paragraphs 18, 22, 35-36, and 45; The hearing aids synchronized by sharing the public key of the partner device or a shared secret key. Each hearing aid can also detect when its partner device is no longer in connection range, which is a type of synchronization also);
and using the two hearing devices as the single authenticator by utilizing the authentication data to authenticate the user to the relying party in response to a request by the relying party, wherein the two hearing devices are configured to be capable to using the authentication data to authenticate the user to the relying party (paragraphs 15, 19, and 36; The hearing aids are used as authentication devices to authenticate a user/wearer using authentication data).
Gehring does not explicitly disclose using either one of the two hearing devices as the single authenticator … wherein the two hearing devices are both configured to be independently capable of using the authentication data to authenticate the user to the relying party.
However, El Guindi discloses a binaural hearing system (paragraphs 20 and 53) where one or both of the hearing devices may be worn on and/or in one or both ears (paragraph 20) and wherein the hearing devices exchange data with an external device, including for authentication (paragraph 38).
In light of El Guindi’s teachings where a person can just wear one of the biaural hearing aid and still retain the same functionality as if both hearing aids were worn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to modify Gehring’s invention in accordance with the limitations recited in claim 1 such that either one of the two hearing devices is utilized as the single authenticator, wherein the two hearing devices are both configured to be independently capable of using the authentication data to authenticate the user to the relying party.
The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. binaural hearing aid system that requires both hearing aid for full functionality) for another (i.e. binaural hearing aid system where full functionality is replicated in each hearing aid) to obtain predictable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to do so because having both hearing aid be able to independently be used for authentication would allow the user to still be able to authenticate in case one hearing aid is lost or broken.
Claim 8:
Gehring discloses:
registering the binaural hearing system with a relying party as a single authenticator for authenticating the user, thereby generating authentication data (paragraphs 15, 42-43; Hearing aids are used as replacements for security devices to authenticate the user, which implies registering them as such at some point. Further, they can also be registered with the manufacturer); and
using both hearing devices as the single authenticator by utilizing the
authentication data to authenticate the user to the relying party in response to a request by the relying party (paragraphs 15, 19, and 36; The hearing aids are used as authentication devices to authenticate a user/wearer using authentication data),
wherein the using both hearing devices as the single authenticator includes detecting a physical proximity of the two hearing devices (paragraphs 19, 23-24 and 36; The hearing aids can detect if the other one is not in communication range).
Gehring does not explicitly disclose wherein the two hearing devices are both configured to be independently capable of using the authentication data to authenticate the user to the relying party.
However, El Guindi discloses a binaural hearing system (paragraphs 20 and 53) where one or both of the hearing devices may be worn on and/or in one or both ears (paragraph 20) and wherein the hearing devices exchange data with an external device, including for authentication (paragraph 38).
In light of El Guindi’s teachings where a person can just wear one of the biaural hearing aid and still retain the same functionality as if both hearing aids were worn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to modify Gehring’s invention in accordance with the limitations recited in claim 8 such that the two hearing devices are both configured to be independently capable of using the authentication data to authenticate the user to the relying party.
The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. binaural hearing aid system that requires both hearing aid for full functionality) for another (i.e. binaural hearing aid system where full functionality is replicated in each hearing aid) to obtain predictable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to do so because having both hearing aid be able to independently be used for authentication would allow the user to still be able to authenticate in case one hearing aid is lost or broken.
Claims 2 and 9:
As per claim 2, Gehring further discloses wherein only one or both of the hearing devices is/are involved in the registering of the binaural hearing system and, wherein the registering of the binaural hearing system includes a verification that the user presently has physical access to the hearing devices involved in the registering (paragraphs 23-24; The hearing aids are the biometric measuring devices, so in measuring, it ensures the user is physically present. As discussed in paragraph 24, the measurement is done to avoid replay attacks, which also ensures the physical presence of the user).
The rejection of claim 2 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 9.
Claims 3 and 10:
As per claim 3, Gehring further discloses wherein the using either one of the hearing devices as the single authenticator includes a verification that the user presently has physical access to the hearing device that is used as the single authenticator (paragraphs 23-24 and 36).
The rejection of claim 3 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 10.
Claims 4 and 11:
As per claim 4, Gehring further discloses wherein the verification that the user presently has physical access to the hearing devices includes at least one of: a detection that the respective hearing device is worn in an ear or a biometric detection that the respective hearing device is worn in a predetermined ear, and an action from the user on the respective hearing device, such as a button press, in response to a notification to the user (paragraphs 23-24; Detects that the hearing devices are worn in the ear and biometric recognition is also performed).
The rejection of claim 4 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 11.
Claim 5:
Gehring further discloses wherein the synchronizing of the two hearing devices regarding the authentication data occurs via direct communication between the two
hearing devices, or wherein the synchronizing of the two hearing devices regarding the
authentication data occurs via a client communicating with each of the two hearing devices and with the relying party, or wherein the synchronizing of the two hearing devices regarding the authentication data occurs via a cloud service (paragraphs 19 and 45; Each hearing device authenticate by monitoring the connection to the other hearing aid and during synching, they exchange keys. Either the detection of the presence of the other hearing aid or the keys exchanged can be considered authentication data that are synchronized via direct connection between the two hearing devices).
Claims 6 and 13:
As per claim 6, Gehring further discloses wherein the authentication data includes an authentication key which is used to sign data transmitted from the hearing devices to the relying party, and wherein the authentication key is stored on both hearing devices or wherein the authentication key is encrypted by one of the hearing devices and then stored on a client or in a cloud (paragraphs 28, 41, 45-49; Different types of keys are discussed which can be used for authentication and signing of data).
The rejection of claim 6 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 13.
Claim 7:
Gehring further discloses wherein the authentication key is a private key of a
public-private key pair generated by one of the hearing devices during the registering (paragraphs 26, 28, 31-32, 35, and 45-49).
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, Gehring further discloses wherein the detecting a physical proximity of the two hearing devices includes at least one of:
detecting wireless connectivity between the hearing devices (paragraph 19; Each device detects if the other device is outside of communication range),
measuring a distance between the two hearing devices, such as via GPS or via a
distance bounding protocol of a wireless connection between the hearing devices, and
detecting that the measured distance is below a distance threshold,
detecting that the two hearing devices are connected to a same charging device,
or detecting that the two hearing devices listen to a same ambient sound.
Claim 14:
Gehring further discloses wherein the authentication key is a private key of a public-private key pair generated by one of the hearing devices during the registering, and wherein the authentication key is stored on that one of the hearing devices which
generates the key or wherein the authentication key is encrypted by that one of the hearing devices which generates the key and then is transmitted to the other one of the hearing devices where it is stored (paragraphs 31-35, 41, 45, 49-51, and 67).
Claim 15:
Gehring further discloses wherein communication between the hearing devices and the relying party occurs via a client implemented as an app on a smartphone or on a personal computer (paragraphs 36, 38, 69, and 73-75).
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 PONNOREAY PICH whose telephone number is (571)272-7962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST, 10am-6pm during Daylight Savings Time.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/PONNOREAY PICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights