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 1-18, 30-32, and 50-58) in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-29 and 33-49 are canceled.
Claims 50-58 are new.
Claims 1-18, 30-32, and 50-58 are examined.
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: 156. 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.
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 1-18, 30-32, and 50-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas under the mental processes grouping, without significantly more.
The framework for establishing a prima facie case of lack of subject matter eligibility requires that the Examiner determine: (1) Does the claim fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter; (2a) Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon and (2a) Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; and (2b) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step (1)
The claimed invention in claims 1-18, 30-32, and 50-58 are directed to a method, and thus, the claims all fall under one of the four patent eligible categories.
Step (2a) Prong 1 (Judicial Exception)
Regarding claims 1-18, 30-32, and 50-58, the recited steps are directed towards mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Independent claims 1 and 30 recite:
obtaining a synchronization event from the data link; and
using the synchronization event to align spectral analysis of audio signals at the first device with spectral analysis of audio signals at the second device.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations require getting a synchronization event and using it to align spectral analyses on two separate devices. These limitations are processes that, as drafted, cover that which can be wholly performed in a person’s mind via a series of mental observations and judgements. In particular, a person can examine audio data and determine when two devices synched, then further align the spectral analyses based on the determination. These are data gathering and processing steps (obtaining, using, aligning) that reflect mental processes.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 30 are directed to a judicial exception including one or more abstract ideas, specifically mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 30 recite the corresponding apparatus associated with the system/method, including two devices disposed on either side of the user’s head and a processor. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these claims also recite a judicial exception including one or more abstract ideas under the mental processes bucket.
The additional limitations in claims 2-18, 31-32, 50-58 comprise additional abstract ideas and/or further limit the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 30:
Claims 2 and 31: determine operational time difference between devices
Claims 3 and 32: determine timing of buffer capture at first device
Claims 4 and 50: determine time offset from synchronization event
Claims 5 and 51: apply FFT
Claims 6 and 52: generate stimulation signals
Claims 7 and 53: electrical stimulation generated on cochlear implant
Claims 8 and 54: timing of buffer capture at second device is aligned with buffer at first device
Claims 9 and 55: electrical stimulation generated on cochlear implant
Claims 10 and 56: external and internal components, synchronizing spectral analyses
Claims 11 and 57: align spectral analyses based on synchronization event
Claims 12 and 58: capture subset of audio samples
Claim 13: align capture of audio subsets
Claim 14: delay capture of audio subsets at first device
Claim 15: align to closest audio sample
Claim 16: use operational time difference to align spectral analyses
Claim 17: determine operational time difference based on data link
Claim 18: determine operational time difference based on synchronization event
Step (2a) Prong 2 (Integration into a Practical Application)
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
For claims 1-18, 30-32, and 50-58, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claims 1 and 30, the additional elements of two devices disposed on either side of the user’s head amounts to recitation of generic cochlear implants. Merely stating that the abstract idea will be for auditory systems is an instruction to apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment. As in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014), limiting an abstract idea to a field of use or adding generic hardware does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding claims 1 and 30, the additional elements of establishing a data link between devices amount to recitation of a generic wireless communications mechanism. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these elements are nothing more than the pre-solution activity of mere data gathering using generic components.
Regarding claim 30, the additional element of a processor amounts to recitation of a generic processor. This additional element merely defines the field of use of the current claim. This additional element does not practically integrate the judicial exception because this element does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a). Furthermore, when the claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind. Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the mental processes grouping.
The examiner notes that while claims 6-7, 52-53 discuss generating stimulation signals, there is no recitation of application of the stimulation signals. The examiner suggests amending the claims to include a step of providing stimulation based on the analysis.
Step (2b) (Inventive Concept)
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of two devices disposed on either side of the user’s head and a processor in the field of cochlear implants are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry as indicated in the following references:
Mishra et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0330344) teaches a conventional bilateral cochlear implant system (see [0001]).
Lineaweaver et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2010/0280307) teaches a sound processor for a conventional hearing aid (see [0056]).
Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-18, 30-32, and 50-58 are thus rejected under 35 USC 101 for reciting patent-ineligible subject matter- abstract ideas.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18, 30-32, and 50-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Baelen et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0232616), hereinafter ‘Van Baelen’, in view of Goorevich et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0105434), hereinafter ‘Goorevich’.
Regarding claim 1, Van Baelen teaches a method, comprising:
establishing a data link (wireless communications link (WCL) 225, Fig. 3) between a first device configured to be disposed at a first side of a head of a user (right cochlear prosthesis 102R, Fig. 1A) and a second device configured to be disposed at a second side of the head of the user (left cochlear prosthesis 102L, Fig. 1A);
obtaining a synchronization event from the data link (block 721, Fig. 7); and
using the synchronization event to align the first device with the second device ([0044], synchronize the implants, [0046], synchronize CCLs and delivery of electrical stimuli).
Van Baelen teaches that the wireless communication link (WCL) is between two sound processors (203L and 203R, see Fig. 3), and that the CCLs and delivery of electrical stimuli are synchronized (see above), but does not specifically teach that spectral analysis is used to analyze the audio/sound signals.
Goorevich teaches an audio processing pipeline for an auditory prosthesis (abstract), further comprising:
align spectral analysis of audio signals at the first device with spectral analysis of audio signals at the second device (common stage 350A, Fig. 2B, [0054], perform frequency analysis, [0103], spectral analysis).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the synchronization event-based signal aligning of Van Baelen to incorporate the teachings of Goorevich to include spectral analysis of the audio signals. Doing so would allow for the generation of a common set of processed signals based on an input audio signal, as recognized by Goorevich [0009].
Regarding claim 30, see above rejection of similarly worded claim 1. Van Baelen further teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first device configured to be located at a first side of the head of a user, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of claim 1 (see methods in Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claims 2 and 31, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 1/30. Van Baelen teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
determining a relative operational time difference (time difference 442, Fig. 4) between the first device and the second device from the synchronization event ([0029], time difference between transmission of data).
Regarding claims 3 and 32, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 1/31. Van Baelen teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
obtaining a first set of audio samples at the first device (data signals 436R, Fig. 4, [0021], signals received are sounds); and
capturing a buffer of the first set of audio samples at the first device (right CCL operation 470A, Fig. 4),
wherein a timing of the capture of the buffer of the first set of audio samples is determined based on the synchronization event ([0044], send signal indicating when CCL transmission should occur if prosthesis are not synchronized).
Regarding claims 4 and 50, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 3/32. Van Baelen teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
determining a time offset from the synchronization event to start capture of the buffer of the first set of audio samples (block 723, Fig. 7, [0044], delay/advance is such that transmissions begin at the same time).
Regarding claims 5 and 51, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 3/32. Goorevich teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
applying a fast Fourier transform (FFT) filter-bank to the buffer of the first set of audio samples at the first device ([0055], FFT device).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Baelen to incorporate the teachings of Goorevich to include an FFT filter bank. Doing so would allow for signals with sufficient resolution, as recognized by Goorevich [0054].
Regarding claims 6 and 52, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 3/32. Van Baelen teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
generating, at the first device, stimulation signals from the buffer of the first set of audio samples ([0028], stimulation signals generated based on data signals received via CCLs).
Regarding claims 7 and 53, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 6/52. Van Baelen teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
wherein the first device is a cochlear implant (Fig. 1A, [0011], bilateral cochlear implant system), and wherein generating the stimulation signals from the buffer of the first set of audio samples comprises:
generating electrical stimulation signals from the buffer of the first set of audio samples ([0046], delivery of electrical stimuli).
Regarding claims 8 and 54, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 3/32. Van Baelen teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
obtaining a second set of audio samples at the second device (data signals 436L, Fig. 4, [0021], signals received are sounds); and
capturing a buffer of the second set of audio samples at the second device (left CCL operation 460A, Fig. 4),
wherein a timing of the capture of the buffer of the second set of audio samples is determined based on the synchronization event and is aligned in time with the capture of the buffer of the first set of audio samples at the first device ([0046], synchronizing CCLs).
Regarding claims 9 and 55, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 8/54. Van Baelen teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
wherein the second device is a cochlear implant, wherein the second device is a cochlear implant (Fig. 1A, [0011], bilateral cochlear implant system), and wherein the method further comprises:
generating, at the second device, electrical stimulation signals from the buffer of the second set of audio samples ([0046], delivery of electrical stimuli).
Regarding claims 10 and 56, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 1/30. Van Baelen teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
wherein the first device comprises a first external component (Fig. 2, external component 252R) and a first implantable component (Fig. 2, implantable component 262LR); and
a second external component (Fig. 2, external component 252L) of the second device and a second implantable component of the second device (Fig. 2, implantable component 262LR).
Van Baelen teaches the synchronization of the devices (see [0046], sound processors 203L and 203R), but does not specifically teach that both the internal and external components can perform spectral analysis.
Goorevich teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
the external and implantable components are each configured to perform spectral analysis ([0103], frequency domain/spectral analysis module, [0050], external component 342A can be implantable, Fig. 2A), and
synchronizing spectral analysis performed at the first external component with spectral analysis performed at a second external component of the second device, or synchronizing spectral analysis performed at the first implantable component with spectral analysis performed at a second implantable component of the second device ([0026], generate common set of processed signals based on input audio signal, Fig. 2B, common stage 350A).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Baelen to incorporate the teachings of Goorevich to include internal and external components that can perform spectral analysis. Doing so would allow for the reduction of communication components and for the generation of a common set of processed signals based on an input audio signal, as recognized by Goorevich ([0009] and [0050]).
Regarding claims 11 and 57, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 1/30, further comprising:
receiving first audio data at the first device (Van Baelen, data signals 436R, Fig. 4, [0021], signals received are sounds);
performing spectral analysis of the first audio data at the first device (Goorevich, [0103], frequency domain/spectral analysis module);
using the synchronization event to align a timing of the spectral analysis of the first audio data at the first device with a timing of spectral analysis of second audio data at the second device (Van Baelen, [0046], synchronizing CCLs to better preserve timing and phase information) (Goorevich, [0103], frequency domain/spectral analysis module, Fig. 2B, common stage 350A); and
following the spectral analysis, generating, at the first device, a first sequence of stimulation signals representative of the first audio data (Van Baelen, [0028], stimulation signals generated based on data signals received via CCLs).
Regarding claims 12 and 58, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method/storage media of claims 11/57. Van Baelen teaches the method/storage media further comprising:
converting the first audio data into a first set of audio samples (data signals 436R, Fig. 4); and
capturing a subset of the first set of audio samples at the first device (right CCL operation 470A, Fig. 4, [0031], periods for data transmission).
Regarding claim 13, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method of claim 11. Van Baelen teaches the method further comprising:
aligning a start of the capturing of the subset of the first set of audio samples at the first device with a capturing of a subset of second set of audio samples at the second device such that the subset of the first set of audio samples and the subset of the second set of audio samples include contemporaneous audio content ([0046], synchronizing CCLs to better preserve timing and phase information).
Regarding claim 14, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method of claim 13. Van Baelen teaches the method further comprising:
delaying a start of the capturing of the subset of the first set of audio samples at the first device to correspond to a start of the capturing of the subset of the second set of audio samples at the second device ([0044], CCL transmission in implant 102R should occur a certain time after the planned transmission time so transmissions begin at the same time).
Regarding claim 15, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method of claim 13. Van Baelen teaches the method further comprising:
aligning the start of the capture of the subset of the first set of audio samples at the first device with a capture of the subset of the second set of audio samples at the second device to a closest audio sample ([0046], synchronizing CCLs to better preserve timing and phase information).
Regarding claim 16, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method of claim 11. Van Baelen teaches the method further comprising:
determining a relative operational time difference between the first device and the second device (time difference 442, Fig. 4, [0029], time difference between transmission of data); and
using the relative operational time difference to align the spectral analysis of the first audio data at the first device with the timing of the spectral analysis of the second audio data at the second device (Fig. 7, [0043], if time difference is substantially different, synchronize CCLs).
Regarding claim 17, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method of claim 16. Van Baelen teaches the method further comprising:
determining the relative operational time difference based on at least one characteristic of a wireless data link (wireless communications link (WCL) 225, Fig. 3) established between the first device and the second device ([0029], time difference between transmission of data).
Regarding claim 18, Van Baelen and Goorevich teach the method of claim 17. Van Baelen teaches the method further comprising:
determining the relative operational time difference from a synchronization event generated from the wireless data link (time difference 442, Fig. 4, delay in window 490).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kindred et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0143582) teaches a method/apparatus for synchronizing hearing instruments, sufficient to reject claims 1 and 30 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) (see Figs. 3 and 5-6).
Chen et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0193642) teaches a method of representing an interaural time difference between signals. See [0074], Figs. 7, 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L OKONAK whose telephone number is (571)272-1594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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.
/E.L.O./
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights