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
This is in response to Applicants Request for Reconsideration filed 6/4/26 which has been entered. Claims 2-20 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with Claims 1 and 8 being independent.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input for receiving an input sound signal”, “an output unit for providing at least one set of stimuli”, and “a processing unit …to provide processed versions” in claims 8-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Page 8 states that the input unit may be a microphone, the output unit may be a transducer or loudspeaker, and the processing unit may be a deep neural network. Page 14 also adds that the processing unit can be a processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 8-11 are 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.
Referring to claims 8-11, claim 8 recites the limitations “said at least one electric input signal” and “the provided at least one electric input signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims. Examiner interprets the line “providing at least one electric input signal” as providing the at least one electric input signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramslow US Publication No. 20210185465 in view of Yuzuriha et al. US Publication No. 20200077214.
Referring to claim 1, Bramslow teaches method of defining and setting a signal processing of a hearing aid, the hearing aid being configured to be worn by a user at or in an ear of the user (claim 1: “A method of defining and setting a nonlinear signal processing of a hearing device, e.g. a hearing aid, by machine learning, the hearing device being configured to be worn by a user at or in an ear or to be fully or partially implanted in the head at an ear of the user”), where the method comprises:
- providing at least one electric input signal representing at least one input sound signal from a sound environment of a hearing aid user (claim 1: “providing at least one electric input signal representing at least one input sound signal from an environment of a hearing device user”),
- determining a normal-hearing representation of said at least one electric input signal based on a selected normal-hearing auditory model fj (claim 1: “determining a normal-hearing representation of said at least one electric input signal based on a normal-hearing auditory model”),
- determining optimised training parameters of a neural network (claim 1: “determining optimized training parameters by machine learning”; para 0083: “The optimized training parameters may be of a neural network”), where the neural network represents a hearing-impaired representation of said at least one electric input signal based on a hearing-impaired auditory model (claim 1: “determining a hearing-impaired representation of said at least one electric input signal based on a hearing-impaired auditory model),
- wherein determining the optimised training parameters comprises
- training the hearing-impaired auditory model on the provided at least one electric input signal (para 0092: “The hearing device may be configured to be further trained based on audio representing sound in an environment of the user”), and minimizing a difference between the normal-hearing representation and the hearing-impaired representation (para 0030: “minimize the difference between the normal-hearing representation and the hearing-impaired representation, to be below a predetermined value”), comprising determining a frequency distribution, βj (para 0043: “providing a time-frequency representation of the at least one electric input signal. The time-frequency representation may comprise an array or map of corresponding complex or real values of the signal in question in a particular time and frequency range.”), and a level and frequency distribution, αji, of said at least one electric input signal (para 0074: “The error measure may e.g. comprise a Root-Mean-Square (RMS) error across frequency channels or may be perceptually based on weighing different errors in the models differently. A simple example of perceptual weighting can be the frequency band weighting used in the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) (ANSI S3.5, 2007), by which the relative importance of each frequency band for speech intelligibility is multiplied by the speech level in the same band and then summed across bands.”; para 0133: “a level (L) detector for estimating a current level of a signal of the forward path. The detector may be configured to decide whether the current level of a signal of the forward path is above or below a given (L-)threshold value. The level detector operates on the full band signal (time domain). The level detector operates on band split signals ((time-) frequency domain)”),
- wherein the method further comprises determining signal processing parameters based on said optimized training parameters (claim 1: “determining corresponding signal processing parameters of the hearing device based on the optimized training parameters”).
However, Bramslow does not teach acting on equalized levels, but Yuzuriha et al. teaches processing based on an equalization of sound pressure levels of said at least one electric input signal (para 0006: “A signal processing method and the related technologies according to an aspect of the present disclosure include: multiplying at least one of M signals output from M microphones by a gain so as to equalize sound pressure levels of the M signals, the M signals representing sounds that arrive at the M microphones from a sound source”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to initially equalize sound pressure levels, as taught by Yuzuriha et al. in the method of Bramslow because it helps to maintain a balanced signal for further processing.
Referring to claim 2, Bramslow teaches said frequency distribution, βj, is dependent on said normal-hearing auditory model fj, used for determining said normal-hearing representation of said at least one electric input signal (paras 0029, 0074).
Referring to claim 5, Bramslow teaches said hearing-impaired auditory model, is selected in dependence of a pre- determined audiogram, or an electroencephalography (EEG), or a distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) response of said user (para 0073).
Referring to claim 6, Bramslow teaches the step of determining a normal-hearing representation of said at least one electric input signal based on a selected normal-hearing auditory model, comprises selecting said normal-hearing auditory model fj from a plurality of normal-hearing auditory models (paras 0189, 0195).
Referring to claim 8, Bramslow teaches hearing aid adapted to be worn in or at an ear of a user (para 0075: “The hearing device may be adapted to be worn in or at an ear of a user”) comprising
– an input unit for receiving an input sound signal from an environment of the user and providing at least one electric input signal representing said input sound signal (para 0120: “The hearing device may comprise an input unit for providing an electric input signal representing sound. The input unit may comprise an input transducer, e.g. a microphone, for converting an input sound to an electric input signal.”), and
- an output unit for providing at least one set of stimuli perceivable as sound to the user based on processed versions of said at least one electric input signal (para 0119: “The hearing device may comprise an output unit for providing a stimulus perceived by the user as an acoustic signal based on a processed electric signal. The output unit may comprise a number of electrodes of a cochlear implant (for a CI type hearing device) or a vibrator of a bone conducting hearing device. The output unit may comprise an output transducer.”),
- a processing unit connected to said input unit and to said output unit and comprising signal processing parameters of the hearing aid to provide processed versions of said at least one electric input signal (para 0118: “The hearing device may comprise a signal processor for enhancing the input signals and providing a processed output signal.”; para 0091: “The processing unit may comprise a deep neural network”), where said signal processing parameters are determined according to
- providing at least one electric input signal (claim 1: “providing at least one electric input signal representing at least one input sound signal from an environment of a hearing device user”),
- determining a normal-hearing representation of said at least one electric input signal based on a selected normal-hearing auditory model (claim 1: “determining a normal-hearing representation of said at least one electric input signal based on a normal-hearing auditory model”),
- determining optimised training parameters of a neural network (claim 1: “determining optimized training parameters by machine learning”; para 0083: “The optimized training parameters may be of a neural network”), where the neural network represents a hearing-impaired representation of said at least one electric input signal based on a hearing-impaired auditory model (claim 1: “determining a hearing-impaired representation of said at least one electric input signal based on a hearing-impaired auditory model),
- wherein determining the optimised training parameters comprises
- training the hearing-impaired auditory model on the provided at least one electric input signal (para 0092: “The hearing device may be configured to be further trained based on audio representing sound in an environment of the user”), and minimizing a difference between the normal-hearing representation and the hearing-impaired representation (para 0030: “minimize the difference between the normal-hearing representation and the hearing-impaired representation, to be below a predetermined value”), comprising determining a frequency distribution (para 0043: “providing a time-frequency representation of the at least one electric input signal. The time-frequency representation may comprise an array or map of corresponding complex or real values of the signal in question in a particular time and frequency range.”), and a level and frequency distribution of said at least one electric input signal (para 0074: “The error measure may e.g. comprise a Root-Mean-Square (RMS) error across frequency channels or may be perceptually based on weighing different errors in the models differently. A simple example of perceptual weighting can be the frequency band weighting used in the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) (ANSI S3.5, 2007), by which the relative importance of each frequency band for speech intelligibility is multiplied by the speech level in the same band and then summed across bands.”; para 0133: “a level (L) detector for estimating a current level of a signal of the forward path. The detector may be configured to decide whether the current level of a signal of the forward path is above or below a given (L-)threshold value. The level detector operates on the full band signal (time domain). The level detector operates on band split signals ((time-) frequency domain)”),
- determining signal processing parameters based on said optimized training parameters (claim 1: “determining corresponding signal processing parameters of the hearing device based on the optimized training parameters”).
However, Bramslow does not teach acting on equalized levels, but Yuzuriha et al. teaches processing based on an equalization of sound pressure levels of said at least one electric input signal (para 0006: “A signal processing method and the related technologies according to an aspect of the present disclosure include: multiplying at least one of M signals output from M microphones by a gain so as to equalize sound pressure levels of the M signals, the M signals representing sounds that arrive at the M microphones from a sound source”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to initially equalize sound pressure levels, as taught by Yuzuriha et al. in the method of Bramslow because it helps to maintain a balanced signal for further processing.
Referring to claim 10, Bramslow teaches the processing unit comprises the neural network, and the neural network comprises a deep neural network (para 0050: “The neural network may be a deep neural network “).
Referring to claim 11, Bramslow teaches hearing system comprising left and right hearing aids according to claim 8, where the left and right hearing aids are configured to be worn in or at left and right ears, respectively, of said user, and being configured to establish a wired or wireless connection between them allowing data to be exchanged directly or indirectly between them (para 0162).
Referring to claim 12, Bramslow teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (para 0149; claim 21).
Referring to claim 16, Bramslow teaches said hearing-impaired auditory model, is selected in dependence of a pre-determined audiogram, or an electroencephalography (EEG), or a distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) response of said user (para 0073).
Referring to claim 19, Bramslow teaches the step of determining a normal-hearing representation of said at least one electric input signal based on a selected normal-hearing auditory model, comprises selecting said normal-hearing auditory model fj from a plurality of normal- hearing auditory models (paras 0189, 0195).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramslow and Yuzuriha et al., as shown in claims 1, 6, and 8 above, and further in view of Marquadt et al. International Publication No. WO2021242570 (from IDS).
Referring to claim 7, Bramslow teaches each normal-hearing auditory model fj selected from said plurality of normal-hearing auditory models (paras 0189, 0195) a specific type of sound environment or hearing mode of the hearing aid user (para 0137). However, Bramslow does not specify that a model is chosen based on the specific sound environment, but Marquadt et al. teaches each model selected from said plurality of models depends on a specific type of sound environment or hearing mode of the hearing aid user, and where optimised training parameters of said neural network are determined based on said at least one electric input signal representing said specific sound environment (para 0022). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a model based on the sound environment, as taught in Marquadt et al., in the method of Bramslow and Yuzuriha et al. because using the most relevant model to the current situation will provide the most effecting hearing aid parameters for the user.
Referring to claim 9, Bramslow does not specify that a model is chosen based on the specific sound environment, but Marquadt et al. teaches the hearing aid further is configured to select one mode of a plurality of sound environment modes, where each mode represents optimised training parameters of a neural network of the hearing aid determined in dependence of a selected specific type of sound environment or hearing mode of the user (para 0022). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a model based on the sound environment, as taught in Marquadt et al., in the method of Bramslow and Yuzuriha et al. because using the most relevant model to the current situation will provide the most effecting hearing aid parameters for the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in para 3 of page 12 to para 1 of page 13 of the remarks:
“Accordingly, Yuzuriha does not relate to the field of determining optimised training parameters during a training of a hearing-impaired auditory model, where the equalization of sound pressure levels is taken into account during the determining of a frequency distribution and a level and frequency distribution of the at least one electric input signal as claimed.
According to aspects of the present invention, the equalization of the sound pressure levels has the effect that the relatively lower sound levels will count more and the relatively higher sound levels will count less in the determination of the optimised training parameters. Thereby, the sound levels will be taken more equally into account during the determination, instead of the relatively higher sound levels counting the most (see page 3 of the Specification).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ultimately the inventor’s field of endeavor relates to signal processing of audio signals, of which Yuzuriha also relates. Further, both Applicant’s equalization and Yuzuriha’s equalization solve problems of imbalance in signals. Therefore, Yuzuriha is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably relates to the problem being solved.
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.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Wednesday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571)272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights