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 .
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite a program per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 lacks antecedent basis having the terms “the non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium” and “the computer”. It appears that claim 14 should be dependent on claim 13 and its merits are examined based upon that presumption.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lezzoum et al, US Patent 11,615,801.
Regarding claim 1, a method for assessing speech intelligibility of a test participant, which comprises the steps of: performing a plurality of speech intelligibility tests in normal life situations of the test participant (figure 2, step 202, column 4 lines 59-64, audiology test application), using a mobile device carried by the test participant (figure 1, device 102); performing each of the speech intelligibility tests by presenting acoustically a plurality of phonemes or phoneme combinations to the test participant (column 5 lines 4-14), wherein the test participant is invited to indicate a presented phoneme or phoneme combination (column 5 lines 15-27); and storing results of each of the speech intelligibility tests (figure 1, device 102, column 5 lines 64-66, speech intelligibility metric).
Regarding claim 2, the method according to claim 1, wherein information characterizing an acoustic environment, in which each of the speech intelligibility tests is performed, is stored together with the results of each of the speech intelligibility tests (figure 4 and column 5 line 58 – column 6 line 19 teach that the speech intelligibility tests include the noise level during the test, said noise level characterizing the acoustic environment).
Regarding claim 3, the method according to claim 2, wherein the information characterizing the acoustic environment includes an indication of a mean or maximum sound level, a fluctuation of a sound level and/or a sound spectrum of a signal recorded in an environment of the test participant at a time a respective one of the speech intelligibility tests is performed (figure 4; the SNR represents a indication of a maximum sound level).
Regarding claim 7, the method according to claim 1, wherein the test participant wears a hearing instrument while each of the speech intelligibility tests is performed, and wherein at least one information item indicating a configuration or setting of the hearing instrument at a time a respective speech intelligibility test is performed is stored together with the results of the respective speech intelligibility test (figure 1, subject wears hearing instrument 104).
Regarding claim 8, the method according to claim 1, wherein the test participant is a wearer of a hearing instrument (figure 1, subject wears hearing instrument 104).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the hearing system according to claim 9, further comprising a software application installed on said mobile device (column 4 line 64, audio test application).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected using the same rationale as that for claim 1.
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lezzoum in view of Lunner et al, US PG Pub 2022/0007116.
Regarding claim 4, Lezzoum does not disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein the information characterizing the acoustic environment includes an indication of a sound class determined by a sound classifier at a time each of the speech intelligibility tests is performed. However, Lunner et al teach wherein the information characterizing the acoustic environment includes an indication of a sound class determined by a sound classifier at a time each of the speech intelligibility tests is performed in figures 6 and 7 and paragraphs 204-221. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the testing routine in Lezzoum per the teachings in Lunner et al for the purpose of creating a more personalized, quality hearing aid that would be flexible under different listening conditions.
Regarding claim 5, the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one question relating to a subjective speech intelligibility or a subjective context of a speech intelligibility test is presented to the test participant immediately before or after performing each one of the speech intelligibility tests, and wherein an answer of the test participant to each question is stored together with the results of a respective speech intelligibility test is taught by Lunner et al in figure 7 and paragraphs 202-207 (questions about the intent of listening; e.g. conversation, socializing).
Regarding claim 6, the method according to claim 5, wherein the at least one question relates to at least one of: a listening intention; a mood of the test participant; a stress level of the test participant; and a listening effort of the test participant (see Lunner et al, figure 7, extracting parameters of the user’s state; listening in a conversation or socializing mode).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gavish et al, US PG Pub 2023/0179934, Vanpoucke, WO 2021/099834, Anderson et al, US Patent 10,966,034.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian T Pendleton whose telephone number is (571)272-7527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at (571) 272-1667. 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.
Brian T. Pendleton
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425