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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9 and 16, in the reply filed on 24 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 21-31, withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/group, have now been cancelled. Claims 32-42 are newly added in applicant’s response and linked with Group I to form a single general inventive concept to be examined.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 16, 32-33, 35, and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung (US 2022/0369054).
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a method comprising: administering one or more loudness-scaling tests to a user of a hearing device (e.g. ¶¶ 56); determining, based on the one or more loudness-scaling tests, a plurality of balanced loudness curves for the user (e.g. ¶¶ 68 – different curves based on environmental sounds); and programming the hearing device with the plurality of balanced loudness curves (e.g. ¶¶ 42, 70 – where individual frequencies are adjusted to balance out the curve based on the patient/user’s needs), wherein the plurality of balanced loudness curves are selectable by the user to control a loudness of stimulation signals delivered to the user (e.g. ¶¶ 54 – “The hearing profile app(s) allows the user to change or adjust the information based on user preferences (for example, characteristics of the stored information) and listening environments (for example, speech in a restaurant, or music in a concert hall).”).
Regarding claim 32, Chung discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: obtain results of one or more loudness-scaling tests administered to a user of a hearing device (e.g. ¶¶ 56); determine, based on the results of the one or more loudness-scaling tests, a plurality of balanced loudness curves for the user (e.g. ¶¶ 68 – different curves based on environmental sounds); and program a hearing device with the plurality of balanced loudness curves (e.g. ¶¶ 42, 70 – where individual frequencies are adjusted to balance out the curve based on the patient/user’s needs), wherein the plurality of balanced loudness curves are selectable by the user to control a loudness of stimulation signals delivered to the user (e.g. ¶¶ 54 – “The hearing profile app(s) allows the user to change or adjust the information based on user preferences (for example, characteristics of the stored information) and listening environments (for example, speech in a restaurant, or music in a concert hall).”).
Regarding claim 40, Chung discloses a system, comprising: at least one processor configured to: administer one or more loudness-scaling tests to a user of a hearing device (e.g. ¶¶ 56); determine, based on the one or more loudness-scaling tests, a plurality of balanced loudness curves for the user (e.g. ¶¶ 68 – different curves based on environmental sounds); and program the hearing device with the plurality of balanced loudness curves (e.g. ¶¶ 42, 70 – where individual frequencies are adjusted to balance out the curve based on the patient/user’s needs), wherein the plurality of balanced loudness curves are selectable by the user to control a loudness of stimulation signals delivered to the user (e.g. ¶¶ 54 – “The hearing profile app(s) allows the user to change or adjust the information based on user preferences (for example, characteristics of the stored information) and listening environments (for example, speech in a restaurant, or music in a concert hall).”).
Regarding claims 2, 33, and 41, Chung discloses wherein administering the one or more loudness- scaling tests to the user of the hearing device comprises: for each of a plurality of stimulation channels of the hearing device, obtaining one or more indications of perceived auditory intensity levels of a plurality of stimulation signals delivered to the user via a corresponding stimulation channel (e.g. ¶¶ 57).
Regarding claims 4 and 35, Chung discloses wherein programming the hearing device with the plurality of balanced loudness curves comprises: adjusting one or more settings of the hearing device so that the hearing device uses at least one of the plurality of balanced loudness curves to convert audio signals into stimulation signals for delivery to the user (e.g. ¶¶ 44, 70-72, etc.).
Regarding claims 5, Chung discloses obtaining a selection of the at least one of the plurality of balanced loudness curves (e.g. ¶¶ 54).
Regarding claims 6, Chung discloses obtaining an indication to switch to another one of the plurality of balanced loudness curves (e.g. ¶¶ 54 – where the user may select between the different curves).
Regarding claims 9 and 38, Chung discloses for each of a plurality of stimulation channels of the hearing device, obtaining perceived auditory intensity levels of a plurality of stimulation signals delivered to the user via the corresponding stimulation channel; and constructing the plurality of balanced loudness curves so as to identify, for each of the plurality of stimulation channels, respective stimulation levels corresponding to a given perceived auditory intensity level that is balanced across the plurality of stimulation channels (e.g. ¶¶ 42, 57, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, Chung discloses wherein each of the plurality of balanced loudness curves identifies, for each of a plurality of stimulation channels of the hearing device, respective stimulation levels corresponding to a given perceived auditory intensity level that is balanced across the plurality of stimulation channels, and wherein the method comprises: obtaining a selection of one of the plurality of balanced auditory intensity curves; and using the one of the plurality of balanced auditory intensity curves, converting audio signals to stimulation signals for delivery to a user of the hearing device (e.g. ¶¶ 42, 44, 57, etc.).
Regarding claim 39, Chung discloses wherein each of the plurality of balanced loudness curves identifies, for each of a plurality of stimulation channels of the hearing device, respective stimulation levels corresponding to a given perceived auditory intensity level that is balanced across the plurality of stimulation channels (e.g. ¶¶ 42, 44, 57, etc.).
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 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.
In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 of this title, 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 3, 34, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Kwasiborski et al. (US 2020/0294508; hereinafter “Kwasiborski”). Chung fails to expressly disclose generating one or more probability density functions that indicate probabilities that one or more stimulation levels correspond to one or more perceived auditory intensity levels; and constructing the plurality of balanced loudness curves based on the one or more probability density functions. In the same field of endeavor, Kwasiborski discloses generating one or more probability density functions that indicate probabilities that one or more stimulation levels correspond to one or more perceived auditory intensity levels; and constructing the plurality of balanced loudness curves based on the one or more probability density functions, in order to more effectively target and modulate neurons (e.g. ¶¶ 226-228, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to apply the known technique of generating probability density functions and constructing the curves corresponding to them, as taught by Kwasiborski, to the known device of Chung, ready for improvement, to improve the device in a similar manner by improving the stimulation curve and activation of the targeted cochlear neurons.
Claims 7 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Kinsbergen et al. (US 2013/0243227; hereinafter “Kinsbergen”). Chung fails to expressly disclose constructing the plurality of balanced loudness curves using an artificial intelligence process. In the same field of endeavor, Kinsbergen discloses constructing the plurality of balanced loudness curves using an artificial intelligence process, in order to aide in curve fitting (e.g. ¶¶ 96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to apply the known technique of constructing the plurality of balanced loudness curves using an artificial intelligence process, as taught by Kinsbergen, to the known device of Chung, ready for improvement, to improve the device in a similar manner by aiding in the testing/fitting of the curves for the patient.
Claims 8 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2018/0339152). Chung discloses the ability to synchronize the hearing device with another hearing device (e.g. ¶¶ 10, 39, 43, etc.) but fails to expressly disclose administering a broadband loudness-scaling test to the user of the hearing device. In the same field of endeavor, Pedersen discloses administering a broadband loudness-scaling test to the user of the hearing device in order to aid in fitting based on voice and sound levels at the patient (e.g. ¶¶ 89). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to apply the known technique of administering a broadband loudness-scaling test to the user, as taught by Pedersen, to the known device of Chung, ready for improvement, by improving the cochlear stimulation effectiveness for the patient based on the levels at the patient in conjunction with any paired hearing device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D’Abreu whose telephone number is (571) 270-3816. The examiner can normally be reached on 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/MICHAEL J D'ABREU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights