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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference sign (119) as recited with respect to Fig. 5 on specification Pg. 25, line 33.
Reference signs (2B), (29B), (291B), (292B), (294B), (295B), as recited with respect to Figs. 9 and 10 multiple times at least between applicant specification ¶[0110] – ¶[0127].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because Fig. 9 includes the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the written description: (361b), (362b), (363b), (364b), (365b), (362b).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
¶[0002]: “When using such an OTC hearing aid, the patient themselves performs fitting adjustment on the patient performed by a doctor or a health care professional such as an audiologist, which has been performed in the conventional hearing aid, making it difficult to adjust hearing suitable for the patient.” It is unclear if the fitting adjustment is performed by a patient or a health care professional.
¶[0011]: “a hearing aid system the control device”
There are numerous discrepancies between the figures as described and the figures as submitted, further detailed in the objections to the drawings above.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 3 and 6 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.
Claim 3 recites the term "each frequency" in lines 3-5 and 6 and “each sound pressure level” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, “each frequency” and “each sound pressure level” will be read as “a frequency” and “a sound pressure level” respectively.
Claim 6 recites the term "every predetermined period" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, “every predetermined period” will be read as “over a predetermined period.”
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 19 recites a program which is not one of four patentable subject matters.
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 (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 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, 6, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamacher et al (hereinafter Hamacher), US-PG-PUB No. 2017/0128723.
Regarding claim 1, Hamacher discloses a control device (Shown in Fig. 5, a control unit (62) of an electro-acoustic system (31) for controlling output parameter adjustment of a hearing aid.....¶[0056], lines 1-8) comprising: an acquisition unit (Shown in Fig. 5, the control unit acquires time information from an internal clock (64), the means for acquiring said input being an acquisition unit.....¶[0056], lines 7-10) that acquires sound pressure information (An audio classifier (68) determines an acoustic environment to be noisy or not (sound pressure information), and provides an output used in audio parameter adjustment. As this adjustment is controlled by the control unit, the disclosure is clearly directed towards the control unit additionally receiving the classifier output as well as the time information by the acquisition unit.....¶[0070], lines 8-12, 16-19) and use time (The time information acquired is in reference to an initial fitting and first activation of the hearing aid, i.e. the time the wearer has used it.....¶[0058], lines 1-4),
the sound pressure information being information regarding a sound to be output (The result of the classifier is used to adjust a hearing aid (output) audio signal (sound) in response to the audio input.....¶[0070], lines 1-4) from a hearing aid (The output is that of a hearing aid, as previously established.....¶[0070], lines 1-4) to a predetermined user (Shown in Fig. 1, patient (17) is a predetermined user.....¶[0036], line 3),
the use time being a time during which the predetermined user has used the hearing aid (The timing information acquired is in reference to an initial fitting and first activation of the hearing aid, i.e. the time the wearer has used it.....¶[0058], lines 1-4); and
a setting unit (The control unit provides output to processing unit which sets parameters based on outputs from the control unit, the means for said outputs comprising a setting unit.....¶[0056], lines 1-2) that sets a parameter (A processing parameter.....¶[0056], lines 1-4) of the hearing aid (The audio signal processing unit is part of the hearing aid.....¶[0038], lines 12-14) in an auditory rehabilitation plan of the predetermined user (The parameter is set according to an adjustment/acclimatization period, the purpose of which is to allow a user to grow accustomed to their hearing device gradually, i.e. an auditory rehabilitation plan.....¶[0016], lines 6-7, ¶[0070], lines 15-18) based on the use time and the sound pressure information (The parameter controlled by the acclimatization function scales gradually with use time during the adjustment period, and that use time may be accelerated or decelerated based on a time constant that corresponds to the classifier recognizing a noisier or quieter environment.....¶[0057], lines 1-4, ¶[0070], lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 2, Hamacher discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the sound pressure information represents a magnitude (The classification (sound pressure information) determines relative noisiness (magnitude) of the audio.....¶[0070], lines 19-23) of an output sound (The classification (sound pressure information) is of audio received by the hearing aid, directly correlating to (thus representing) the magnitude of the output sound.....¶[0070], lines 1-3) corresponding to an output signal for adjusting an audio signal (The output signal of the classifier is used to select a signal processing program, which adjusts audio output by the hearing aid.....¶[0070], lines 7-9) generated by the hearing aid collecting an external sound (Standard hearing aid operation.....¶[0036], lines 12-17) to a hearing level of the predetermined user (The hearing aid is fitted to (the hearing level of) the predetermined user.....¶[0058], lines 1-3) according to the auditory rehabilitation plan (The audio adjustment plan..... ¶[0057], lines 1-4) and outputting the adjusted audio signal (¶[0036], lines 12-17).
Regarding claim 3, Hamacher discloses the control device according to claim 2, wherein the magnitude of the output sound corresponds to a time accumulated (Higher magnitude output sounds increase a time constant of the rehabilitation program timer, and thus correspond to time the sound is accumulated.....¶[0070], lines 7-10) for a frequency and a sound pressure level (All sound is inherently representative of a frequency and a sound pressure level).
Regarding claim 6, Hamacher discloses the control device according to claim 1, further comprising a determination unit (The control unit automatically adjusts the hearing parameter based on independent evaluation (determination) of time past and optionally, the sound pressure information, as performed by a logical determination unit.....¶[0056], lines 5-7, ¶[0070], lines 7-9) that determines the sound pressure information and the use time (The evaluation of these inputs in the automatic adjustment of parameters is a type of logical determination), wherein the auditory rehabilitation plan is a plan in which a hearing level is set over a predetermined period toward a target hearing level of the predetermined user (Shown in Figs. 9-10, the adjustment sets the gain or compression ratio over a predetermined 60 day period from an initial fitting, with target gain or compression ratio at the end of the period.....¶[0064], lines 1-7), the determination unit determines whether at least one of the sound pressure information and the use time is a predetermined value or more over the predetermined period (The control unit regularly evaluates the time and sound pressure information.....¶[0056], lines 5-7, ¶[0070], lines 7-9), and the setting unit, when the determination unit has determined that at least one of the sound pressure information and the use time is the predetermined value or more, sets the parameter to be changed to a parameter corresponding to a next hearing level (Shown in Fig. 9, the gain parameter is set by the control unit as a monotonous function of time, and is therefore responsive to values of time that are predetermined according to a linear function describing the relationship between time and gain.....¶[0065], lines 1-7) .
Claim 12 is rejected under the same grounds as claim 1, as, per applicant’s specification ¶[0132], use situation may be sound pressure information as recited in claim 1 and is disclosed by Hamacher in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Hamacher discloses a hearing aid (A hearing aid embodied as a hybrid EAS device.....¶[0022], lines 1-3) comprising: the control device according to claim 1 (Shown in Fig. 5, the EAS device (31) comprises control unit (62).....¶[0056], lines 1-2); a sound collection unit (Microphone (20).....¶[0038], lines 2-3) that collects an external sound and generates an audio signal (¶[0038], lines 2-3); a signal processing unit that amplifies the audio signal (Signal processing unit (27) directly coupled to amplifier (33).....¶[0056], lines 5-7); and an output unit that outputs a sound corresponding to the audio signal amplified by the signal processing unit (Loudspeaker (23).....¶[0038], lines 8-9), wherein the setting unit sets a gain applied by the signal processing unit for the audio signal, as the parameter (Shown in Fig. 9, the parameter controlled by the control unit according to the adjustment period/auditory rehabilitation plan is gain.....¶[0065], lines 1-3, ¶[0056], lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 19, the functional limitations are the same as claim 1, and are disclosed by Hamacher as explained above.
Hamacher additionally discloses a program to be executed by a control device (The gain parameter and auditory rehabilitation plan executed by the control device as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 is pre-programmed.....¶[0058], lines 9-18), the control device including a processor (The control unit implements a program according to inputs, outputs, and a memory accessed by the control unit, and thus, based on the circumstantial evidence of the prior art, is clearly directed towards a processor.....¶[0056], lines 7-10) and configured to control performance of a hearing aid (¶[0058], lines 1-4), the program causing the processor to execute processing (The programmed program controls operation of the hearing system, which is performed by the control unit (processor).....¶[0058], lines 1-4).
Claim 20 is rejected under the same grounds as claim 19.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamacher in view of Shinden et al (hereinafter Shinden) US-PG-PUB No. 2023/0156417.
Regarding claim 4, Hamacher teaches, as explained above, the control device according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the use time represents an accumulated time during which the user wears the hearing aid.
Shinden teaches a hearing aid with an acclimatization period based on a use time (analogous to the auditory rehabilitation plan of Hamacher), wherein the use time represents an accumulated time during which the user wears the hearing aid (Adjustments according to the adjustment period of the hearing aid are made according to a measured wearing time.....¶[0043], lines 1-3, ¶[0079], lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hamacher by Shinden to provide the benefit of a strong basis for measuring accustomedness of a user to a hearing aid (Shinden, ¶[0020], lines 1-3). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the use time represents an accumulated time during which the user wears the hearing aid.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamacher in view of Reed et al (hereinafter Reed) US-PG-PUB No. 2018/0125415.
Regarding claim 5, Hamacher teaches as explained above, the control device according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the acquisition unit acquires information regarding the predetermined user, or wherein parameters are set based on the user information, only setting the parameter based on the sound pressure information and the use time.
Reed teaches a hearing prosthesis with an adjustable rehabilitation regime (¶[0089], lines 18-20), analogous to the rehabilitation plan of Hamacher, wherein an acquisition unit of the hearing prosthesis (User data is acquired in the configuration of the rehabilitation plan by the prosthesis.....¶[0101], lines 3-5, ¶[0157], lines 8-13) acquires any one or more of an age of the predetermined user (Data includes user age.....¶[0101], line 7), presence or absence of use experience of the predetermined user using the hearing aid (¶[0101], lines 8-9), and a state (Sex information.....¶[0101], line 7) of the predetermined user, and a setting unit which sets the parameter (Parameters of the rehabilitation regime may be adjusted by the device in method 1200, which is called by method 1300, which is called by method 1400, wherein the user data is acquired…..Figs. 12-14, ¶[0101], lines 1-5) based on any one or more of the age of the predetermined user, the presence or absence of use experience of the predetermined user using the hearing aid (The non-speech data is used as described in ¶[0101], lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hamacher by Reed to provide the benefit of hearing rehabilitation regimes based off of statistical population data (Reed, ¶[0102], lines 5-11). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the acquisition unit acquires any one or more of an age of the predetermined user, presence or absence of use experience of the predetermined user using the hearing aid, and a state of the predetermined user, and the setting unit sets the parameter based on any one or more of the age of the predetermined user, the presence or absence of use experience of the predetermined user using the hearing aid, and the state of the predetermined user, and based on the sound pressure information and the use time.
Claim(s) 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamacher in view of Clad et al (hereinafter Clad) US-PG-PUB No. 2021/0092529.
Regarding claim 8, Hamacher teaches as explained above, the control device according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising determining whether the user currently wears the hearing aid, acquiring a wearing state of the hearing aid by the predetermined user, and the setting unit sets the parameter when the determination unit has determined that the predetermined user does not currently wear the hearing aid.
Clad teaches a charging station of a hearing aid comprising a control device (Computer unit.....¶[0064], lines 1-3) for adjusting operating parameters (analogous to the rehabilitation plan of Hamacher) of the hearing aid (¶[0064], lines 1-3), further comprising:
a determination unit that determines whether the predetermined user currently wears the hearing aid (The controller reacts to the hearing aid being placed in the charger, thus determining the state of not wearing (placed) and not wearing (removed).....¶[0023], lines 1-5), wherein the acquisition unit acquires a wearing state of the hearing aid by the predetermined user (When the hearing aid is not placed, no data is available for the antenna (acquisition unit) to acquire, thus the state is worn. When it is placed in the charger, operational data may be acquired via the antenna to a memory, thus reacting to a state of the hearing aid not being worn.....¶[0062], lines 1-5), the determination unit determines whether the predetermined user currently wears the hearing aid based on the wearing state (The controller reacts to the hearing aid being placed in the charger, thus determining the state of not wearing (placed) and not wearing (removed).....¶[0023], lines 1-5), and the setting unit sets the parameter (The computer unit additionally performs parameter (setting) adjustment.....¶[0064], lines 1-5) when the determination unit has determined that the predetermined user does not currently wear the hearing aid (This may only happen when the hearing aid is placed in the charger, thus providing a determination that it is not worn.....¶[0062], lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hamacher by Clad to provide the benefit of additional computer capacity for adjusting a hearing aid (Clad, ¶[0064], lines 9-11). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of comprising determining whether the user currently wears the hearing aid, acquiring a wearing state of the hearing aid by the predetermined user, and the setting unit sets the parameter when the determination unit has determined that the predetermined user does not currently wear the hearing aid.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hamacher and Clad teaches the control device according to claim 8.
Hamacher additionally teaches wherein the setting unit sets the parameter at a timing of wearing the hearing aid by the predetermined user (As the control unit of Hamacher is part of the hearing aid, it determines if it is being worn via the on/off condition of the hearing aid, and as it may only update settings while in operation, it by default updates the setting unit at a time of wearing).
Regarding claim 15, Hamacher discloses the control unit of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein it is provided to a charging unit.
Clad teaches a charging device comprising: a computer unit for adjusting hearing aid parameters (analogous to the control unit of Hamacher) (¶[0064], lines 1-5); and, shown in Fig. 1, a housing unit capable of housing the hearing aid and configured to charge the hearing aid (Charging chamber (18).....¶[0057], lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hamacher by Clad to provide the benefit of additional computer capacity for adjusting a hearing aid (Clad, ¶[0064], lines 9-11). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of wherein the control device is provided to a charging unit comprising a housing for charging the hearing aid.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hamacher and Clad, as explained above, teach the charging device according to claim 15.
Clad additionally teaches wherein the control device further includes: a determination unit that determines whether the hearing aid is housed in the housing (The controller reacts to the hearing aid being placed in the charger, thus determining the state of being housed.....¶[0023], lines 1-5); and a recording control unit that accumulates and records the sound pressure information and the use time in a recording unit (The controller records operating data of the hearing aid (analogous to the sound pressure info and use time of Hamacher) in a memory unit.....¶[0060], lines 3-6), the acquisition unit, when the determination unit has determined that the hearing aid is housed in the housing (When the hearing aid is not placed, no data is available for the transmission antenna (acquisition unit) to acquire. When it is placed in the charger, operational data may be acquired via the antenna to a memory, thus acquiring and reacting to a state of the hearing aid being housed.....¶[0062], lines 1-5), acquires the sound pressure information and the use time recorded in the hearing aid (The controller records operating data of the hearing aid (analogous to the sound pressure info and use time of Hamacher) in a memory unit.....¶[0060], lines 3-6), and the recording control unit accumulates and records the sound pressure information and the use time acquired by the acquisition unit from the hearing aid, in the recording unit (¶[0060], lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hamacher and Clad by Clad to provide the benefit of additional computer capacity for adjusting a hearing aid (Clad, ¶[0064], lines 9-11). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of wherein the control device is provided to a charging unit comprising a housing for charging the hearing aid.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamacher in view of Clad in further view of Norgaard et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2010/0086143.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hamacher and Clad teaches the control device according to claim 8, but fail to teach a control for disabling the parameter adjustment.
Norgaard teaches a hearing aid wherein a setting unit (Settings may be adjusted by a user operating a setting unit.....¶[0026], lines 12-13), when a change signal for changing a parameter of the hearing aid is input from an outside (A user may attempt to adjust a parameter above a predetermined maximum, providing an external change signal.....¶[0026], lines 12-13) while the predetermined user is executing the auditory rehabilitation plan using the hearing aid (A fitting session establishes an auditory rehabilitation plan.....¶[0026], lines 1-2) when a determination unit has determined that the predetermined user currently wears the hearing aid (The user attempts to adjust settings while the hearing aid is powered on, providing a determination to the controller that the wearer is wearing said hearing aid), prohibits a change of the parameter corresponding to the change signal (Limits established as part of the hearing plan prevent inputs from raising parameters over a maximum.....¶[0026], lines 12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hamacher and Clad by Norgaard to provide the benefit of preventing a user from further damaging their hearing (Norgaard, ¶[0026], lines 12-14). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of a control for disabling parameter adjustment from the outside.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamacher in view of Selig et al (hereinafter Selig), US-PG-PUB No. 2015/0078575.
Regarding claim 11, Hamacher discloses the control device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose an output control unit that outputs the parameter and the auditory rehabilitation plan to any one of a communication device associated with the hearing aid, and a charging device that charges the hearing aid.
Selig teaches a mobile computing device for adjusting parameters of a smart headphone (The mobile computing device sends parameters (embodied as a hearing profile) to an apparatus in communication with the headphone…..¶[0054], lines 9-10, ¶[0015], lines 3-6) (analogous to the control device of Hamacher) comprising an output control unit that outputs (The mobile computing device may output information via a standard audio jack (output control unit).....¶[0055], lines 5-8) an audio output profile (analogous to the parameter and the auditory rehabilitation plan of Hamacher) to any one of a communication device associated with the hearing aid (Shown in Fig. 7, the receiving apparatus is associated with headphones (240).....¶[0054], lines 14-17), and a charging device that charges the hearing aid (The apparatus is also capable of charging the smart headphones.....¶[0073], lines 32-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hamacher by Selig to provide the benefits of being able to use the re-use hearing aid after the battery is depleted, as well as synchronization of a hearing profile across multiple devices (Selig, ¶[0016], lines 26-29). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of a charging device capable of housing the hearing aid and capable of charging the hearing aid; and an output control unit that outputs the parameter and the auditory rehabilitation plan to any one of a communication device associated with the hearing aid, and a charging device that charges the hearing aid.
Regarding claim 18, the control device is the same as that recited in claim 1, and is similarly disclosed by Hamacher per the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the additional limitations, Hamacher additionally discloses wherein the control device is provided (Shown in Fig. 5, the EAS device (31) comprises control unit (62).....¶[0056], lines 1-2) within a hearing aid that can be worn by a predetermined user (A hearing aid embodied as a hybrid EAS device.....¶[0022], lines 1-3), and a communication device (Shown in Fig. 1, a programming device (13).....¶[0037], lines 1-3) that is communicable with the hearing aid (The programming device interfaces/communicates with the sound processing subsystem of the EAS device.....¶[0037], lines 3-5) and generates auditory rehabilitation plan data of the predetermined user (The programming device fits the hearing aid, fitting being a process of generating auditory rehabilitation plan for a user.....¶[0037], lines 6-8, ) and outputs the generated auditory rehabilitation plan data to the hearing aid (The fitting is applied to the hearing aid…..¶[0058], lines 1-5).
Hamacher fails to disclose a charging device capable of housing the hearing aid and capable of charging the hearing aid; or wherein the control device is provided in the charging device, and the communication device.
Selig teaches a charging device (Shown in Fig. 7, housing (210) may receive and charge portable listening device (240).....¶[0073], lines 25-29) capable of housing a listening device (analogous to the hearing aid of Hamacher) and capable of charging the listening device (The apparatus is also capable of charging the listening device.....¶[0073], lines 32-39); and wherein a control device for setting parameters of the listening device (Processor (230) applies different equalization parameters based on detected conditions.....¶[0066], lines 1-5), analogous to the control device of Hamacher, is provided in either of the charging device (The control device is provided to housing (210).....¶[0062], lines 1-2), and a communication device (The charging device may still communicate with the listening device when it is removed, and therefore also serves as a communication device.....¶[0073], lines 26-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hamacher by Selig to provide the benefits of being able to use the re-use hearing aid after the battery is depleted, as well as synchronization of a hearing profile across multiple devices (Selig, ¶[0016], lines 26-29). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of a charging device capable of housing the hearing aid and capable of charging the hearing aid as well as synchronization of a hearing profile across multiple devices (Selig, ¶[0016], lines 26-29); and wherein the control device is provided in any of the hearing aid, the charging device, and the communication device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamacher in view of Clad in further view of Parkins, US-PG-PUB No. 2017/0312135.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hamacher and Clad as explained above, teach the charging device according to claim 15, but fail to teach wherein the control device further determines whether the hearing aid has been removed from the housing, and the acquisition unit, when the determination unit has determined that the hearing aid has been removed from the housing, acquires a time ranging from a time point of removal of the hearing aid from the housing to a time point of storage of the hearing aid in the housing, as the use time.
Parkins teaches a charging dock (¶[0088], lines 6-9) (analogous to the charger of Clad) comprising a determination unit which determines whether an earplug (analogous to the hearing aid of Hamacher) has been removed from a housing (Switch (48) of the dock detects when an earplug is stored within…..¶[0082], lines 1-3), and an acquisition unit (An RFID chip comprising a data logging unit for storing data.....¶[0069], lines 14-15, ¶[0090], lines 12-13), when the determination unit has determined that the earplug has been removed from the housing (The dock determines if earplugs have been removed or not.....¶[0082], lines 1-3), acquires a time ranging from a time point of removal of the hearing aid from the housing to a time point of storage of the hearing aid in the housing (While the earplugs are worn, time-stamped data is collected by the dock, to later be compared to time-stamped data collected by the earplugs, thus comprising time ranging from the removal of the earplugs to the replacement of the earplugs.....¶[0062], lines 6-10), as the use time (These data sets reflect both when the earplugs are worn (in use), and when they are not.....¶[0082], lines 1-4)
Hamacher, Clad, and Parkins are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of audiology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Hamacher and Clad by Parkins to provide the benefit of addressing noise exposure in the workplace (Parkins, ¶[0012], lines 1-4). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of a determination unit that determines whether the hearing aid has been removed from the housing, and the acquisition unit, when the determination unit has determined that the hearing aid has been removed from the housing, acquires a time ranging from a time point of removal of the hearing aid from the housing to a time point of storage of the hearing aid in the housing, as the use time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Search was conducted in the field of hearing aids with a focus on acclimatization plans (reflective of the auditory rehabilitation plan of the present disclosure).
Regarding claim 7, while prior art was identified that teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2 (Hamacher, as explained in the rejections above), wherein the acclimatization plan is determined in response to the use time and acoustic environment of the hearing aid wearer, no art could be located which specifically teaches the algorithmic set of conditions and responses of the control device as recited in claim 7 (and shown in Figs. 5, 8, and 10), nor could art be located which renders said sets of conditions and responses obvious, alone or combined with art previously cited.
Regarding claim 14, while art could be located which taught adjustment of hearing aid parameters based on recorded information (e.g. sound pressure, gain settings) derived from sound sequentially output by an output unit of a hearing aid (Bramslow et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2006/0222194 and Kemmochi et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2013/0202131) no references were identified wherein the processed audio signal of a hearing aid is recorded to be used for adjustment of the hearing aid parameters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bachler et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2008/0107296 teaches a hearing aid acclimatization program wherein acclimatization speed is affected by a user’s control of the output sound.
Fichtl et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2013/0114836 teaches a hearing aid acclimatization program wherein the acclimatization process is responsive to how long the hearing aid is in use per a session.
Drader et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2011/0311084 teaches a communication device for a hearing aid, additionally capable of charging the hearing aid.
Choi et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2015/0162770 teaches methods of intercommunication between a charging dock, hearing aid, and communication device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN M RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights