DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 12/15/2025. Claims 2-5, 10, 12-15, 18, 22, 25, & 27 have been amended. Claims 7, 16-17, 19, 23, & 28-32 are canceled. Claim 33 is newly added. Presently, Claims 1-6, 8-15, 18, 20-22, 24, 25-27, & 33 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes that examination is conducted on the written record of the claims as presented. Portions of the Applicant’s responses extend beyond substantive disagreement and instead characterize the examination as “I have a lengthy specification. Every single claim is rejected. Every single one. This means I have only arguments, and arguments I have.” (pg. 7 of the Applicant’s remarks), “Art Unit 3798 is acting arbitrarily and capriciously and in many instances, in total violation of your management’s directives.” (pg. 7 of the Applicant’s remarks), and likened to “The Office Action evidences a modius operandi where Art Unit 3798 will promulgate a rejection using every bit of internal training that TC 3700 has provided. Alas, this is not the first time I have been a cornered animal.” (pg. 7 of the Applicant’s remarks). These statements are noted for the record.
Assertations regarding the perceived examination practices of a Technology Center, Art Unit, or the motives or training of the Examiner are conclusory and not relevant to the requirements under the rejections set for in the Office Action and in accordance with the MPEP. In other words, these above statements are non-substantive and does not address the merits of the rejection. Hence, allegations of arbitrariness, caprice, or violations of the Administrative Procedure Act are conclusory and unsupported by specific facts tied to the claim language at issue, and therefore do no overcome the rejections set forth in the Office Action. Accordingly, prosecution will therefore continue to focus on the substantive arguments and evidence of record in accordance to the MPEP.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 101 have been fully, considered, but are not persuasive.
The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments traversing the rejection under 35 USC § 101, but is not persuaded that withdrawal of the rejection is warranted.
The Applicant asserts:
“We traverse on the grounds that the level of skill in the art has not been applied when examining this application, thus voiding every rejection” (pg. 10 of the Applicant’s remarks).
The 35 USC § 101 analysis does not turn on the level of skill in the art in the same manner as §§ 102, 103, or 112. Subject matter eligibility is a threshold legal directive to whether the claims are drawn to statutory subject matter, and if so, whether they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The Office Action applied the analytical framework set for in MPEP 2106. Accordingly, this argument does not demonstrate error in the rejection.
The Applicant asserts:
“We traverse and point to the rules for section 101 issued in January of 2019 [...]” (pg. 10 of the Applicant’s remarks).
The Examiner acknowledges and applied the January 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance as reflected by MPEP 2106. The claims were analyzed under Step 2A, Prong One and Prong Two, and Step 2B, consistent with that guidance. Mere reference to the existence of the 2019 Guidance, without identifying a misapplication of that guidance, does not establish an error.
The Applicant asserts:
“You can read your update to your MPEP. And with respect to rules that have been around for pushing seven (7) years now [...]. there are now only three areas specifically identified by the person of the title Commissioner that constitute abstract ideas, and if the claim is not in those areas, the claim should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas)” (pg. 10 of the Applicant’s remarks).
The Office Action expressly identified the claim subject matter as falling within one of the enumerated categories, namely mental process, which is listed in the 2019 Guidance as a recognized category of abstract ideas. The claims recite analyzing data, identifying features, determining actions, and developing responded based on observed information. As expressly defined in the Office Action, these limitations correspond to evaluation, judgment, and decision-making steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. The Applicant’s argument premised on that provision of “rare circumstance” is not applicable because the Examiner did not rely on such an instance.
The Applicant asserts:
“Yet nowhere does the Office Action indicated that the procedure described in Section III.C was followed. To the contrary. No analysis is provided whatsoever.” (pg. 13 of the Applicant’s remarks).
As noted above, Section III.C applies when a claim limitation does not fall within an enumerated category of abstract ideas. Here, the Office Action found that the claims recite mental processes, which are an enumerated category. Consequently, the Examiner properly proceeded to Step 2A, Prong Two, where integration into a practical application was analyses in detail. The Office Action explains why the recited sensors, processor, computer readable medium/media, and data acquisition steps constitute mere data gathering and generic computer implementation that do not meaningfully limit or apply the abstract idea into a practical application. Data gathering and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (f and g)).
The Applicant asserts:
“A system to develop data for a sensory device - as in something that alleviates an ailment - meets the new rules.” (pg. 14 of the Applicant’s remarks).
While the Examiner acknowledges that the claims reference prostheses, sensory devices, and rehabilitation concepts, eligibility does not turn on the intended use or field of application. The claims do not recite a specific treatment, therapeutic technique, or technological mechanism by which an alignment is alleviated. Instead, the claims broadly recite analyzing data and identifying actions or tools based on that analysis. As stated in the Office Action, such result oriented functional language does not amount to a particular treatment or technological improvement and therefore does no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP 2106.05.
The Applicant asserts:
“A computer readable medium for identifying a device performance impacting feature of an environment in which a light sensor, etc., is located meets the new rules.” (pg. 14 of the Applicant’s remarks).
However, the claims do not recite any specific manner of identifying such features beyond generic analysis and identification steps performed by software on conventional hardware. As stated in the Office Action, instruction to analyze data and identify features, without a specific technological implementation or improvement, amount to a mental process implemented on a generic computer, which does not confer eligibility.
The Applicant asserts:
“A method that includes identifying an action to improve efficacy of a prosthesis based on the obtained first data or developing a sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation tool and/or engaging in a sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation program based on the obtained first data meets the new rules.” (pg. 14 of the Applicant’s remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Identifying an action to improve efficacy, without recitation how that action is implemented or how it effects a technological change, is an abstract mental process. The claims do no recite any concreate adjustment, transformation, or control of the prosthesis itself. As previously demonstrated, the claims stop at the level of determining or planning, which is insufficient to confer eligibility.
Finally, the Applicant asserts:
“Our claims meet section 101” (pg. 14 of the Applicant’s remarks).
For the reasons set forth in the Office Action and stated above, the Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to the abstract idea and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The cited references of evidence further support that the recited sensors, processor, and data analysis techniques are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore do not supply an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) have been fully, considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the written description rejection is improper because the claims were originally filed and therefore benefit form a “strong presumption” of written description support. Applicant further asserts that the rejection is “incomplete” and “violates the APA” because the Office Action did not explicitly address that presumption.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While In re Wertheim recognizes that originally filed claims may give rise to an initial presumption of written description support, that presumption is rebuttable and does not preclude the Office from identifying deficiencies where the specification fails to reasonably convey procession of the claim invention. The Office Action identifies environmental features, namely, functional “code” for limitation directed to analyzing data, identifying environmental features, controlling a device, and determining a three-dimensional field for which the specification lacks corresponding disclosure of structure or implementation sufficient to demonstrate possession. This constitutes an articulated evidentiary basis rebutting an initial presumption. The rejection therefore satisfies the burned under In re Wertheim by explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the claimed subject matter as having been possessed by the inventor at filing.
Applicant further assets “No software is not “a computing device”” (pg. 15 of the Applicant’s remarks). The Examiner notes that the Office Action does not equate software with a computing device. Rather, the rejection addresses claims that require functional “code” for performing specific analytical and control operations where the specifical falls short of. Where a claim is directed to software implemented functionality, written description requires disclosure of how that functionality is achieved, whether in prose, flowcharts, formulas, or other descriptive means (i.e., the code). The rejection does not turn on a definitional issue regarding software versus computing device, but on the absence of disclosed steps, procedures, or algorithms that explain how the claimed functions are performed (i.e., where is the code in the specification/drawings?)
The Applicant asserts:
“We do disclose the computer, lots of them in fact. And the "i.e., code" is what we are claiming. And Art Unit 3798 asserts we do not disclose an algorithm for a claim that is an algorithm.” (pg. 16 of the Applicant’s remarks).
The Applicant further contends that the Examiner improperly requires an algorithm for “a claim that is an algorithm” (pg. 15 of the Applicant’s remarks). Merely discloses the presence of a generic computing hardware; however, does not satisfy the written description requirement for software based functional claims. Nor does labeling the claim as an “algorithm” obviate the need for disclosure of the algorithm itself. It is insufficient that one ordinary skill could theoretically write code to perform the claim functions; the specification must convey how the inventor intended those functions to be carried out. In addition, an assertion that could be derived using simulations or test (i.e., prophetic examples) does not demonstrate that the inventor’s actual did so or had possession of the specific functional relationships and constraints to obviate the lack of written description requirement
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) is maintained.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn for claim 2, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 27 in view of the amendments filed on 12/15/2025., however arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26 are not persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections for claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26 are maintained.
The Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s remarks traversing the rejections under 35 USC § 112(b). While the Applicant’s response contains commentary regarding the Examiner’s understanding, motivation, or application of examination standards, the Examiner addresses below the portions that raise substantive issues concerning the claim clarity, scope, and definiteness, as required by the MPEP.
Applicant asserts at a general level that the rejections:
“At the highest level, this indicates that the knowledge in the art has not been ascertained when examining our claim, and otherwise that there is a defect with respect to applying proper claim examination” (pg. 7 of the Applicant’s remarks).
The Examiner respectively disagrees. The standard for indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112(b) is not whether a person of ordinary skill in the art can hypothesize a possible meaning of the claim term in view of the specification, but whether the claim language itself, read in light of the specification informs those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention with reasonably certainty,
see MPEP 2111: “The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004”.
The rejections are based on the claim language as presented.
With respect to Claim 1 and the recitation of “the respective sensor”. The Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would inherently understand the reference to the previously recited sensors and that the rejection amounts to improper,
the Applicant asserts:
“phonetic character string matching akin to hieroglyphics. But indefiniteness requires that the understanding of the English Language be applied”, (pg. 9 of the Applicant’s remarks), and likened to. “The rejection of claim 1 is based on the failure to apply common English language syntax and a per se belief that phonetic characters must be arranged exactly the way such is arranged after the word, “the” This is wrong.”, (pg. 16 of the Applicant’s remarks).
However, the rejection is grounded in the requirement for clear antecedent basis as set for in MPEP 2173.05(e). Claim 1 recites “a light sensor and/or a sonic sensor and/or a radio wave sensor” followed by “the respective sensor”. The claim does not establish which of the alternative recited sensor is being referred to, not does it introduce, “respective sensor” as a defined term. The issue is not a grammatical comprehension, but unclear referential structure. As written, the claim does not particularly point out which sensor performs the subsequently recited functions, render the scope indefinite.
With respect to Claim 4, the Applicant asserts:
“There is no correction that is required” (pg. 16 of the Applicant’s remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes claim 1 recites, line 3, “based on light” and claim 4 also recites, “based on light”. It is unclear if the phrase in claim 4 clearly refers back to the language of claim 1. As written, the relationship between the two recitations are indeed unclear, and clarification is required to ensure definite claim scope. The Examiner suggest, to recite, “based on the light”.
With respect to Claim 6, Applicant asserts:
“The rejection of claim 6 is based on the per se rule of aligning phonetic characters when you see a “the” [...] Nope. Area and volume are inherent features. MPEP 2100. Check it out.” (pg. 17 of the Applicant’s remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes, based on the Applicant’s own admission in the remarks filed on 12/15/2025. “Area and volume are inherent features”, this statement by the Applicant is noted for the record. The phase “the area and/or volume” introduce a limitation without prior introduction of proper antecedence in the claims. The requirement for antecedent basis is not negated by the alleged inherent nature of a feature; rather, it ensures that the metes and bounds of the claim are clear. The Applicant further asserts that the phrase “two-dimensional and/or three-dimensional digital model of the area and/or volume, respectively, proximate the respective sensor”. The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper. As written, the claim is unclear whether the “two-dimensional” modifies the “digital model” whether “respectively” properly maps dimensions to area and volume, and whether “proximate the respective sensor” modifies the digital model, the area, the volume, or some combination thereof. The Applicant argues that it is “implicit” what is proximate to the sensor. However, 35 USC § 112(b) requires the claims be explicit with reasonable certainty; reliance on implication or inference is insufficient where multiple reasonable interpretations exist.
With respect to claim 8, Applicant characterizes the rejection as “conclusory” (pg 18 of the Applicant’s remarks), and asserts the claim is complete and definite. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The repetition of “base on” without clear structural or functional relationships results in a claim whose scope cannot be reasonably ascertained. The rejection is therefore not conclusory, but based on the inability to determine the metes and bounds of the claim from the language provided.
With respect to Claim 18, the Applicant asserts:
“The rejection of claim 18 is another example of an error on the USPTO’s part by not taking into account common English language phrase usage” (pg. 18 of the Applicant’s remarks).
For the reasons, discussed above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner maintains that the claim lacks sufficient antecedent basis due to the presence of multiple alternative sensors without a clear referent. The same ambiguity arises in claim 18 and renders it indefinite.
With respect to claims, 22, 24, and 25, the Applicant asserts:
“There are fiat assertions that “relative terminology” is indefinite. This is wrong. Please read your MPEP. Withdraw the rejection or support them in a new non-final OA.” (pg. 18 of the Applicant’s remarks), “Again we see a conclusory finding with no support at all for this rejection [...] Also breadth is no indefiniteness. [...] Again, this is phonetic character matching, [...]” (pg. 18 of the Applicant’s remarks).
Relative terms are not per se indefinite; however, where, as here, neither, the claims nor the specification provide an objective standard for determining the degree of improvement or closeness, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, these rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are maintained.
Previous claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 12/15/2025.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 102/103 have been fully, considered, but are not persuasive.
The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s remarks traversing the rejection of the claims. Upon review, the Examiner finds that the Applicant’s response does not substantively address the anticipation findings set forth in the Office Action and therefore does not overcome the rejections.
The Applicant’s do not meaningfully dispute that Guo discloses each limitation of the independent claims as mapped in the rejection. Instead, Applicant relies exclusively on generalized legal statements regarding anticipation standards, citation to the MPEP, and allegations of procedural impropriety. These statements, standing along, do not constitute arguments directed to the specific claim limitations.
The Examiner further notes that Applicant asserts the Office fails to apply the proper level of ordinary skill in the art, yet does not explain how application of a different skill level would alter the anticipation analysis. Specifically, the Applicant’s assert that the references do not teach the limitations, without providing any explanation, analysis or factual support as to why the cited disclosures are allegedly deficient. Applicant invocation of the Administrative Procedure Act, Zurko, New York v. United States Department of Commerce does not subsequently identify or attempt to distinguish between Guo for allegedly failing to teach limitations.
For the forgoing reasons, the Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC § 103.
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 1-6, 8-15, 18, 20-22, 24, 25-27, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 33 is directed to an “system” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine.
Claims 11-15, 18, and 20 are drawn to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” which describes one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a manufacture.
Claim 21-22, and 24-27 is directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 1 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“analyze the received input to: develop a data usable to control a sensory device based on the received input.”
Claim 11 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“ …analyzing first data based on data captured by a light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor; and …
….quantitatively and/or qualitatively identifying a device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located based on the analysis of the first data…”
Claim 21 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“at least one of:
identifying an action to improve efficacy of a prosthesis based on the obtained first data; or
developing a sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation tool and/or engaging in a sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation program based on the obtained first data.”
For each claim (1, 11, 21), the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind. For claim 1, a human, upon observing the input can receive information and that input can be mentally analyzed by analyzing timing for instance. The human can then determine though thought alone, how to adjust or control a device in response to that conclusion. Note, the abstract claim recites, “develop a data usable to control a sensory device based on the received input.” The claim’s abstract only suggest that the device is “to control” a sensory device, the recitation doesn’t amount to any step of carrying out control of the device. For claim 11, the identified steps amount to be practically performed in the human mind, analyze first data based on data by merely looking at the data. Analyzing first data corresponds to a mental act of considering sensory information and forming a judgment about what it indicates. Similar, the act of quantifying and qualifying identifying a device performance feature of an environment based on the analysis also amounts to step that can be practically performed in the human mind. These steps merely correspond to a mental conclusion or inference based on that previous judgement, (i.e., recognizing a issue) that could hinder the performance of the device’s operation. For claim 21, the identified steps amount to nothing more than a mental process. Identifying an action to improve efficacy of a prothesis based on obtained first data can performed entirely in the human mind. A person could recite or observe information and then mentally assess whether an adjustment is needed to improve functionality of a prothesis. Similar, developing a sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation tool and/or engaging in a sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation program based on the obtained first data can also be conceptualized as human mental activity. A person could observe sensory input on a tablet and mentally design or plan exercises or rehabilitative strategies accordingly. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how any of the steps are conducted. Therefore, a person would be able to perform these aforementioned steps mentally.
Prong Two: Claims (1, 11, 21) do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps of “a light sensor and/or a sonic sensor and/or a radio wave sensor; and
a processor configured to receive input based on light and/or sonic frequency reflection and/or radio wave reflection captured by the respective sensor and analyze the received input to:” (claim 1); and (2) an additional step of a non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon, a computer program for executing at least a portion of a method, the computer program including: code (claim 11); and (3) further an additional step of obtaining first data based on captured light and/or sonic energy and/or radio frequency energy captured during a first temporal period utilizing an electronic device during the first temporal period; (claim 21).
The steps in (1-3) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details). Data gathering and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (f and g)). Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Furthermore, theses steps (1-3) amount to nothing more that pre-solution activity of data gathering is recited at a high level of generality.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated bio-information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or technological solution to a technological problem. Ultimately, the Applicant’s describe improvement in the process of using captured light data, but this is not an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(ii); “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”; See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a); and 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to the abstract idea. Also, there does not appear to be any particular structure or machine, treatment or prophylaxis, transformation, or any other meaningful application that would render the claim eligible at step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims (1, 11, 21) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps receiving input based on light/sonic frequency/radio wave, code for analyzing, and obtaining first data based on captured light/sonic energy/radio frequency during a first temporal period. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, as discussed above, limitations with respect to the processor languages/terms, respectively, amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. The data gathering steps that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As an evidence, Tzvieli et al (US 2018/0094982 A1) discloses:
¶0293: ‘It is to be noted that there are various approaches known in the art for identifying facial expressions from images. While many of these approaches were originally designed for full-face frontal images, those skilled in the art will recognize that algorithms designed for full-face frontal images may be easily adapted to be used with images obtained using the inward-facing head-mounted visible-light cameras disclosed herein. For example, the various machine learning techniques described in prior art references may be applied to feature values extracted from images that include portions of the face from orientations that are not directly in front of the user. Furthermore, due to the closeness of the visible-light cameras to the face, facial features are typically larger in images obtained by the systems described herein.’
As an evidence, Fischell et al (US 6,061,593) discloses:
[Col 24 l.4-19], ‘wireless signals 72 can sent to and from the RF transmitter/receiver pair 610 and 620 of the data communication sub-system 60 and the RF transmitter/receiver pair 710 and 720 of the external data interface 70. The wireless signals 72 are used to command software updates via the link 612 through the serial-to-parallel data converter 614 and the link 56 to the central processor 51. The wireless signals 72 are also used to send stored data back through the link 57 through the parallel-to-serial data converter 624 through the link 622 to the RF transmitter 620. RF transceiver circuitry and antennas similar to this are used in data communication with heart pacemakers and defibrillators, and therefore, this technology is well known in the art of implantable programmable device’
As an evidence, Fenton et al (US 9,161,113 discloses:
[Col 8 l.17-24], ‘It is understood that interconnection, amplification, processing and retransmission of the electrical analog signal(s) 20 from the transparent lens microphone 10 (or lenses) can use methods and devices known to those skilled in the art. Retransmission of the electrical analog signal(s) 20 can utilize WiFi, Bluetooth, magnetic loop, infra red, ultra sonic, and the like to deliver to various receiving devices including, but not limited to, earpieces, hearing aids and smart phones.’
As an evidence, Robinson (US 2024/0156833 A1) discloses:
¶0090, ‘any form of device known that is capable of generating sonic energy in response to signals generated by audio processor and can also include any other audio communications and other support components known to those skilled in the audio communications arts. Audio processor can be adapted to receive signals from the computer and to convert these signals, if necessary, into signals that can cause audio emission device to generate sound and/or other forms of sonic energy such as ultrasonic carrier waves for directional sonic energy. It will be appreciated that any or all of audio capture device, audio emission device, audio processor or computer can be used alone or in combination to provide enhancements of captured audio signals or emitted audio signals, including amplification, filtering, modulation or any other known enhancements.’
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, recite an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Describing developing the habilitation and/or rehabilitation tool based on the obtained first data. (claim 26)
Describing developing the sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation tool based on the obtained first data, wherein the sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation tool includes a virtual reality component using images developed from the obtained first data. (claim 27)
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
describing wherein: the system includes the sensory device, and the developed data controls an aspect of the sensory device. (claims 2); The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing that the sensor device is a hearing prothesis. (claim 3) The data gathering steps and pre-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing wherein: the light sensor is part of a light imaging detection and ranging (LiDAR) sub- system that is part of the system; the processor is configured to develop beamforming data based on the received input; and the processor is configured to develop the data to control the sensory device based on the beamforming data to implement a beamforming algorithm. (Claim 5). The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing the processor is configured to develop second data indicative of a two-dimensional and/or a three-dimensional digital model of the area and/or volume, respectively, proximate the respective sensor; and the processor is configured to develop the data usable to control the prosthesis device based on the second data. (claim 6) & Describing the processor is configured to develop second data indicative of distance of objects proximate the respective sensor; and the processor is configured to develop the data to control the prosthesis based on the second data.- (Claim 33). The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing :the system is configured to perform an alarm function to warn a recipient of the sensory device based on object detection based on the received input. (Claim 8). The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing wherein: the developed data is a control signal; and the system includes the sensory device, circuitry of the sensory device being in signal communication with a component of the system that generates the control signal. (claim 9) The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing wherein: the sensory device is a vestibular balance prosthesis, wherein the vestibular balance prosthesis includes light imaging detection and ranging (LiDAR) capable light capture devices (claim 10) The data gathering steps and pre-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing the device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located is a distance to an object in the environment from the light sensor and/or the sonic sensor and/or the radio wave sensor and/or a sensor of a device or another sensor of a system of which the device is a part. (claim 12) The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing wherein: the device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located is an angle to an object in the environment from the light sensor and/or the sonic sensor and/or the radio wave sensor and/or a sensor of the device the performance of which is impacted or another sensor of a system of which the device the performance of which is impacted is a part. (claim 13). The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing wherein: the device the performance of which is impacted is a sensory prothesis, and the device the performance of which is impacted includes code to accommodate the device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located by way of a real-time adjustment to the sensory prosthesis during use of the sensory prosthesis. (claim 14) The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing further comprising: code for automatically controlling the device based on the identified device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located. (claim 15). The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing code for determining a three-dimensional (3D) field in which the respective sensor is located, wherein the code for identifying the feature uses the determined 3D field to identify the feature. (claim 18) The data gathering steps and pre-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing the computer program is a dual purpose hearing habilitation and/or rehabilitation program and a real time hearing perception improvement program, wherein the device is a sensory prosthesis. (claim 20) The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing wherein the method includes identifying an action to improve efficacy of a prosthesis based on the obtained first data, wherein the action improves perception of captured sound and/or light by a recipient of the prosthesis based on the obtained first data. (claim 22) The data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing capturing sound and/or light during the first temporal period and/or during a second temporal period subsequent the first temporal period but where the first temporal period and the second temporal period are sufficiently close that the first and second temporal periods can be considered real time or near real time, utilizing at least one hearing prosthesis, wherein the captured sound and/or light is captured in a manner at least partially based on the identified action. (claim 24) The data gathering steps and pre & post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Describing further comprising: capturing sound and/or light during the first temporal period and/or during a second temporal period subsequent the first temporal period utilizing only one hearing prosthesis that is the prosthesis the efficacy of which is improved based on the obtained first data; and evoking a sensory percept based on the captured sound and/or light at least partially based on the identified action. (claim 25) The data gathering steps and pre & post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-15, 18, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites:
“code for analyzing first data based on data captured by a light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor; and
code for quantitatively and/or qualitatively identifying a device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located based on the analysis of the first data.”
Claim 14 recites:
“the device the performance of which is impacted includes code to accommodate the device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located by way of a real-time adjustment to the sensory prosthesis during use of the sensory prosthesis.”
Claim 15 recites:
“code for automatically controlling the device based on the identified device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located.”
Claim 18 recites:
“code for determining a three-dimensional (3D) field in which the respective sensor is located, wherein the code for identifying the feature uses the determined 3D field to identify the feature.”
Claim 25 recites:
“only one hearing prosthesis”
The claims (1, 14-15, 18) are rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for a lack of written description. Proper written description cannot be identified in the specification, claims, and drawings directed the full scope of of any code for the above identified recited steps in the claims. Specifically, the specification lacks a step-by-step description or any algorithmic or flowchart-based disclosure of how these steps are implemented using a computing device (i.e., the code).
An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). This can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015), see MPEP § 2161(I).
These limitations are computer/processor-implemented functional claim limitation as it is directed to a processor-controlled algorithm configured to determine measurements based on codes. Yet the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions, i.e., “code”, in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough to disclose that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, these claims are rejected for lack of written description. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §§ 2161, 2162-2163.07(b).
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended to achieve the aforementioned steps. Since the instant specification fails to provide a finite sequence of steps of the code(s) the aforementioned claim fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding claim 25, the specification and/or diagrams do not disclose only one hearing prosthesis. This element “only” is considered a negative limitation and has to be positively recited in the specification with respect to the one hearing prosthesis for it to be recited in the claims. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(i). “Any negative limitation or exclusionary provision must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977)”.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency to abovementioned claims.
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 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, 18, 22, 24, 25-26, & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1:
line 4, ‘the respective sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required. The same recitation is recited in claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4:
line 2, “based on light”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from the “based on light” as recited in line 3 of claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes -based on the light. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6:
line 4: “the area and/or volume”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
lines 3-5: the phrase, “the processor is configured to develop second data indicative of a two-dimensional and/or a three-dimensional digital model of the area and/or volume, respectively, proximate the respective sensor;” renders the claim indefinite. The phrase, “two-dimensional” appears as a stand-alone recitation rather than being tied to a digital model. The phrase is interpreted as a two-dimensional digital model. The phrase, “proximate the respective sensor”, it is unclear whether the digital model, the area, or the volume is proximate to the sensor. Accordingly, its implicit that the area, volume, and/or digital model being scanned is proximate to the sensor because the model/area/volume serve as an environmental representation of this proximate space defined by the respective sensor. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the sensor operates within, and this is proximate to, the physical area or volume it scans. The data collected from this scanning process is used to create a digital model which would be proximate to the respective sensor. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8:
line 1-2, “the system is configured to perform an alarm function to warn a recipient of the sensory device based on object detection based on the received input. The claim is incomplete. Its not clear what the intended scope of the claim is attempting to convey. The metes and bounds are therefore indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted as being warned of anything with respect to a system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12:
line 2: “an environment”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “an environment” (i.e., the same environment) as recited in claim 11, line 6. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the environment. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13:
line 2: “an environment”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “an environment” (i.e., the same environment) as recited in claim 11, line 6. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the environment. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
line 5 and 6, “the device the performance”. First, the phrase is not grammatically correct. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the device performance impacting feature. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 14:
line 2 and lines 3-4, “the device the performance”. First, the phrase is not grammatically correct. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the device performance impacting feature. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
line 4: “an environment”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “an environment” (i.e., the same environment) as recited in claim 11, line 6. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the environment. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15:
line 3: “an environment”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “an environment” (i.e., the same environment) as recited in claim 11, line 6. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the environment. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18:
line 3, ‘the respective sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required. The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 22:
line 2, “identifying an action to improve efficacy of a prosthesis” line 2. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from the identified action to improve the efficacy of the prosthesis. Recited in line 6 of claim 21. For examination purposes, the examiner assumes the identified action to improve the efficacy of the prosthesis. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same terms. Appropriate correction is required.
line 3, “the action improves perception”. The term “improves” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24:
line 4, “sufficiently close”. The term “sufficiently close” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
line 5, “at least one hearing prothesis”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a prothesis” as recited in line 6 of claim 21. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the prothesis. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25:
line 4, “hearing prothesis”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a prothesis” as recited in line 6 of claim 21. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they are the same prothesis. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
line 4: “the prothesis the efficacy” is grammatically incorrect and lacks clarity. The phrase is not proper and does not clearly convey the intended relationship. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the same hearing prosthesis is the device whose efficacy is improved based on the obtained first data. Appropriate correction is required.
line 4, “improved”. The term “improved” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26:
line 3, “the habilitation and or rehabilitation tool”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33:
line 3, “the respective sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
line 4, “the prothesis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 6, line 5, “the sensory device”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-15, 18, 20-22, 24-27, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al (US 2016/0183014 A1).
Claim 1: Gou discloses, A system (¶Abstract, FIG. 1-8), comprising:
a light sensor (¶Abstract, ‘The present disclosure relates to hearing devices including an image capture device. Features of sound processing may be based on analysis of images from the image capture device.’; ¶0008, ‘The image capture device may be sensitive to visual light, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, or any other suitable radiation’; ¶0025, ‘A 3D camera receives electromagnetic waves, both visible light and IR light, which then could be processed and turned into positioning information about the surroundings.’;¶0065, ‘the hearing device 10 further comprises an image capture device 14 in communication with the processor 22. The processor 22 is configured to adapt the processing of the sound signal based on input from the image capture device 14. Different kind of processing adaptions are possible.’; ¶0066, ‘The image capture device 14 is capable of capturing single images, sequences of images or continuously capture images or video. The capturing is configurable to be performed according to a predefined schedule, e.g. periodically with fixed or variable time interval. The image capture may be performed continuously, e.g. when started by the user via user interface or simply from the time the hearing device is turn on. The choice of scheduling may be left to the user, e.g. to be defined via a user interface.’) and/or a sonic sensor and/or a radio wave sensor; and
a processor (processor 22) configured to receive input based on light and/or sonic frequency reflection and/or radio wave reflection captured by the respective sensor and analyze the received input to: (¶0008, ‘The hearing device may further comprise an image capture device in communication with the processor.’; ¶0032, ‘The processor may analyse images from the image capture device to detect vertical and/or horizontal movement of the head of the user, i.e. inclination and/or yaw. This may be used for adapting e.g. directionality of a directional microphone system, and/or for detecting changes in head orientation of the user, e.g. tilt and/or turn. The adaptation of the directionality may be performed to maintain the directionality towards a desired target.’; ¶0065, ‘the hearing device 10 further comprises an image capture device 14 in communication with the processor 22. The processor 22 is configured to adapt the processing of the sound signal based on input from the image capture device 14. Different kind of processing adaptions are possible.’; see also ¶0022-0023, ¶0062-0063)
develop a data usable to control a sensory device based on the received input.
-The data used to operate and adapt the hearing device’s functionalities, includes its sound processing algorithms, including operating the sound ¶0007-0009, ¶0027-0028, Claim 1, 4, 7, 17-18, selectively adding sound information, ¶0006, enhancing sound overall, ¶0008, noise suppression, ¶0008, spatial cues, ¶0014-0016, hearing-loss compensation, ¶0018-0019, directional adapting, ¶0029-0030, ¶0089-0090, and including providing real-time 3D imaging information about the environment, ¶0025.
Claim 2: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Guo discloses, wherein: the system includes the sensory device, and the developed data controls an aspect of the sensory device.
-The data used to operate and adapt the hearing device’s functionalities, includes its sound processing algorithms, including operating the sound ¶0007-0009, ¶0027-0028, Claim 1, 4, 7, 17-18, selectively adding sound information, ¶0006, enhancing sound overall, ¶0008, noise suppression, ¶0008, spatial cues, ¶0014-0016, hearing-loss compensation, ¶0018-0019, directional adapting, ¶0029-0030, ¶0089-0090, and including providing real-time 3D imaging information about the environment, ¶0025.
Claim 3: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 2, Guo discloses, wherein: the sensory device is a hearing prosthesis. (¶0053, ‘A hearing device may be a hearing aid that is adapted to improve or augment the hearing capability of a user by receiving an acoustic signal from a user's surroundings, generating a corresponding audio signal, possibly modifying the audio signal and providing the possibly modified audio signal as an audible signal to at least one of the user's ears’)
Claim 4: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Guo discloses, wherein: the system includes the light sensor and the input is based on received light captured by the light sensor. (¶Abstract, ‘The present disclosure relates to hearing devices including an image capture device. Features of sound processing may be based on analysis of images from the image capture device.’; ¶0008, ‘The image capture device may be sensitive to visual light, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, or any other suitable radiation’; ¶0025, ‘A 3D camera receives electromagnetic waves, both visible light and IR light, which then could be processed and turned into positioning information about the surroundings.’;¶0065, ‘the hearing device 10 further comprises an image capture device 14 in communication with the processor 22. The processor 22 is configured to adapt the processing of the sound signal based on input from the image capture device 14. Different kind of processing adaptions are possible.’; ¶0066, ‘The image capture device 14 is capable of capturing single images, sequences of images or continuously capture images or video. The capturing is configurable to be performed according to a predefined schedule, e.g. periodically with fixed or variable time interval. The image capture may be performed continuously, e.g. when started by the user via user interface or simply from the time the hearing device is turn on. The choice of scheduling may be left to the user, e.g. to be defined via a user interface.’; ¶0032, ‘The processor may analyse images from the image capture device to detect vertical and/or horizontal movement of the head of the user, i.e. inclination and/or yaw. This may be used for adapting e.g. directionality of a directional microphone system, and/or for detecting changes in head orientation of the user, e.g. tilt and/or turn. The adaptation of the directionality may be performed to maintain the directionality towards a desired target.’; ¶0065, ‘the hearing device 10 further comprises an image capture device 14 in communication with the processor 22. The processor 22 is configured to adapt the processing of the sound signal based on input from the image capture device 14. Different kind of processing adaptions are possible.’; see also ¶0022-0023, ¶0062-0063)
Claim 6: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Guo discloses, wherein:
the processor is configured to develop second data indicative of a two-dimensional and/or a three-dimensional digital model of the area and/or volume, respectively, proximate the respective sensor; and
-Gou explicitly describes how the image capture device can provide forms of real-time 3D models of the environment, ¶0025, Claim 9. The hearing system using the processor can determine the angle to an object and estimate the distance to the objects by correlating the images, ¶0025-0027, ¶0031, ¶0100
the processor is configured to develop the data usable to control the device based on the second data.
-The 3D imaging information and positional information from the image capture devices are combined with acoustic information to improve the directionality and beamforming algorithms of the hearing device, ¶0025-0027. Specifically, measuring the distance to detect and allow for adaption of th transducer to enhance speech from a specific area, ¶0026-0027.
-The image capture device further is used for detecting objects other than people, such as stationary objects or moveable objects. This information is used for a warning system for the user if the user has visual impairment. The hearing device includes a vibrational device to provide vibrational feedback as a warning signal. The amplitude and/or frequency of this signal provides information on the distance to an object, ¶0035
Claim 8: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Guo discloses, wherein: the system is configured to perform an alarm function to warn a recipient of the sensory device based on object detection based on the received input.
-The 3D imaging information and positional information from the image capture devices are combined with acoustic information to improve the directionality and beamforming algorithms of the hearing device, ¶0025-0027. Specifically, measuring the distance to detect and allow for adaption of the transducer to enhance speech from a specific area, ¶0026-0027.
-The image capture device further is used for detecting objects other than people, such as stationary objects or moveable objects. This information is used for a warning system for the user if the user has visual impairment. The hearing device includes a vibrational device to provide vibrational feedback as a warning signal. The amplitude and/or frequency of this signal provides information on the distance to an object, ¶0035
Claim 9: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Guo discloses, wherein: the developed data is a control signal; and the system includes the sensory device, circuitry of the sensory device being in signal communication with a component of the system that generates the control signal.
--The developed data used to operate and adapt the hearing device’s functionalities, includes its sound processing algorithms, including operating the sound ¶0007-0009, ¶0027-0028, Claim 1, 4, 7, 17-18, selectively adding sound information, ¶0006, enhancing sound overall, ¶0008, noise suppression, ¶0008, spatial cues, ¶0014-0016, hearing-loss compensation, ¶0018-0019, directional adapting, ¶0029-0030, ¶0089-0090, and including providing real-time 3D imaging information about the environment, ¶0025.
-The developed data as described above controls or adapts the hearing device’s processing and output thus constitutes as an input to its control mechanisms (i.e., the developed data is a control signal). The image capture device is Claim 3-‘the image capture device is in wired or wireless communication with the processor.’. The processor receives input from the image capture device and is configured to analyze this input to perform the aforementioned control actions.
Claim 11: Guo discloses, A non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon, a computer program for executing at least a portion of a method, the computer program including: (¶0052, ‘The electronic hardware may include microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), gated logic, discrete hardware circuits, and other suitable hardware configured to perform the various functionality described throughout this disclosure. Computer program shall be construed broadly to mean instructions, instruction sets, code, code segments, program code, programs, subprograms, software modules, applications, software applications, software packages, routines, subroutines, objects, executables, threads of execution, procedures, functions, etc., whether referred to as software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description language, or otherwise.’, see also ¶0106-0107)
-The processor comprises code for the following identified recitations:
code for analyzing first data based on data captured by a light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor; and
-The processor comprises, “image analysis software for detecting lip movement in image sequences captured by the image capture device”, ¶0075. Software is considered “code”. The image capture device acts as a light sensor, being “sensitive to visual light, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, or any other suitable radiation.”, ¶0008. The processor is configured to, ‘analyse images from the image capture device’, ¶0032, ¶0101. The apparatus and/or method steps are implemented by means of hardware, software, firmware or any combination of these, ¶0106-0107.
code for quantitatively and/or qualitatively identifying a device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located based on the analysis of the first data.
-The processor uses analysis of image data (i.e., first data) to identify multiple features that impact a hearing device performance to an environment including: its sound processing algorithms, including operating the sound ¶0007-0009, ¶0027-0028, Claim 1, 4, 7, 17-18, selectively adding sound information, ¶0006, enhancing sound overall, ¶0008, noise suppression, ¶0008, spatial cues, ¶0014-0016, hearing-loss compensation, ¶0018-0019, directional adapting, ¶0029-0030, ¶0089-0090, and including providing real-time 3D imaging information about the environment, ¶0025.
Claim 12: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Guo discloses, wherein: the device performing impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located is a distance to an object in the environment from the light sensor (¶0027, ‘detecting distance to objects in the image.’; ¶0031, ‘to determine distance to an object present in both the images or image sequences. The object may be an obstacle, such as wall, person, kerb, lamppost, etc. Two hearing devices, or at least the image capture device parts thereof, may be positioned at a distance between them, e.g. one at each ear, but, as mentioned, other positions are possible e.g. body-worn or the frame of a set of glasses. This allows for enhanced detection possibilities based on image analysis, e.g. determining distance to an object in the images, as the distance to the object will be reflected by the relation of the position of the object in each image and the distance between the two image capture devices.’; ¶0035, ‘This vibration signal may then be used as a warning signal to the user, e.g. the amplitude and/or frequency of the signal could provide the user with information on the distance to an object. This could be a weak signal indicating that the distance is above a certain threshold and a stronger signal indicating that the distance is shorter than the threshold. The vibration intensity and/or frequency may follow a scale, possible including one or more thresholds or a scale directly proportional to the distance.’; ¶0100, ‘the method may be expanded with a step of correlating images or image sequences from the two image capture devices to determine distance and/or angular direction to an object present in both images or image sequences from the two image capture devices. Two hearing devices, or at least the image capture device parts thereof, may be positioned at a distance between them, e.g. one at each ear, but as mentioned other positions are possible e.g. body-worn or the frame of a set of glasses. This allows for further enhanced detection possibilities based on image analysis, e.g. determining distance and/or angle to an object in the images, as the distance to the object will be reflected by the relation of the position of the object in each image and the distance between the two image capture devices.’) and/or the sonic sensor and/or the radio wave sensor and/or a sensor of a device or another sensor of a system of which the device is a part.
Claim 13: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Guo discloses, wherein: the device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located is an angle to an object in the environment from the light sensor (¶0027, ‘wherein the processor is configured to determine angle to an object recorded by both image capture devices and the processor is further configured to adapt directionality of the directional microphone system accordingly.’; ¶0079, ‘an image capture device, and at least one of the processors is configured to determine the angle to the object,’; ¶0085, ‘The image capture device of each instrument is arranged so they capture images within the angle β. The field of view of the image capture devices overlaps so that an object in the combined field of view is visible in both images. This allows distance to the object to be estimated, e.g. via triangulation or the like method, along with an estimate of the distance between the two hearing devices.’; ¶0100, ‘This allows for further enhanced detection possibilities based on image analysis, e.g. determining distance and/or angle to an object in the images, as the distance to the object will be reflected by the relation of the position of the object in each image and the distance between the two image capture devices.’) and/or the sonic sensor and/or the radio wave sensor and/or a sensor of the device the performance of which is impacted or another sensor of a system of which the device the performance of which is impacted is a part.
Claim 14: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Guo discloses, wherein: the device the performance of which is impacted is a sensory prothesis, and the device the performance of which is impacted includes code to accommodate the device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located by way of a real-time adjustment to the sensory prosthesis during use of the sensory prosthesis.
-The processor comprises, “image analysis software for detecting lip movement in image sequences captured by the image capture device”, ¶0075. Software is considered “code”. The image capture device acts as a light sensor, being “sensitive to visual light, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, or any other suitable radiation.”, ¶0008. The processor is configured to, ‘analyse images from the image capture device’, ¶0032, ¶0101. The apparatus and/or method steps are implemented by means of hardware, software, firmware or any combination of these, ¶0106-0107.
-The processor uses analysis of image data (i.e., first data) to identify multiple features that impact a hearing device performance to an environment including: its sound processing algorithms, including operating the sound ¶0007-0009, ¶0027-0028, Claim 1, 4, 7, 17-18, selectively adding sound information, ¶0006, enhancing sound overall, ¶0008, noise suppression, ¶0008, spatial cues, ¶0014-0016, hearing-loss compensation, ¶0018-0019, directional adapting, ¶0029-0030, ¶0089-0090, and including providing real-time 3D imaging information about the environment, ¶0025.
-The hearing device is “a hearing aid that is adapted to improve or augment the hearing capability of a user by receiving an acoustic signal from a user's surroundings, generating a corresponding audio signal, possibly modifying the audio signal and providing the possibly modified audio signal as an audible signal to at least one of the user's ears.”, ¶0053. The system of Guo aims to provide “real-time 3D imaging information about the environment.”, ¶0025. The identified features (e.g., location of sound source, lip movements, head movements, distance to objects) trigger a plurality of functions of the hearing device’s processing and output while the user is wearing and using the device, which specifically includes: sound processing algorithms, including operating the sound ¶0007-0009, ¶0027-0028, Claim 1, 4, 7, 17-18, selectively adding sound information, ¶0006, enhancing sound overall, ¶0008, noise suppression, ¶0008, spatial cues, ¶0014-0016, hearing-loss compensation, ¶0018-0019, directional adapting, ¶0029-0030, ¶0089-0090, and including providing real-time 3D imaging information about the environment, ¶0025, optimization, ¶0075
Claim 15: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Guo discloses, further comprising: code for automatically controlling the device based on the identified device performance impacting feature of an environment in which the light sensor and/or sonic sensor and/or radio wave sensor is located. (¶0052, ‘The electronic hardware may include microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), gated logic, discrete hardware circuits, and other suitable hardware configured to perform the various functionality described throughout this disclosure. Computer program shall be construed broadly to mean instructions, instruction sets, code, code segments, program code, programs, subprograms, software modules, applications, software applications, software packages, routines, subroutines, objects, executables, threads of execution, procedures, functions, etc., whether referred to as software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description language, or otherwise.’, see also ¶0106-0107)
-The hearing device adapts autonomously its imaging capture schedule when environmental changes are detected, ¶0067.
Claim 18: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Guo discloses, further comprising: code for determining a three-dimensional (3D) field in which the respective sensor is located, wherein the code for identifying the feature uses the determined 3D field to identify the feature.
-Gou explicitly describes how the image capture device can provide forms of real-time 3D models of the environment, ¶0025, Claim 9. The hearing system using the processor can determine the angle to an object and estimate the distance to the objects by correlating the images, ¶0025-0027, ¶0031, ¶0100
-The 3D imaging information and positional information from the image capture devices are combined with acoustic information to improve the directionality and beamforming algorithms of the hearing device, ¶0025-0027. Specifically, measuring the distance to detect and allow for adaption of th transducer to enhance speech from a specific area, ¶0026-0027.
-The image capture device further is used for detecting objects other than people, such as stationary objects or moveable objects. This information is used for a warning system for the user if the user has visual impairment. The hearing device includes a vibrational device to provide vibrational feedback as a warning signal. The amplitude and/or frequency of this signal provides information on the distance to an object, ¶0035
Claim 20: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Guo discloses, wherein: the computer program is a dual purpose hearing habilitation and/or rehabilitation program and a real time hearing perception improvement program, wherein the device is a sensory prosthesis.
-The hearing device is “a hearing aid that is adapted to improve or augment the hearing capability of a user by receiving an acoustic signal from a user's surroundings, generating a corresponding audio signal, possibly modifying the audio signal and providing the possibly modified audio signal as an audible signal to at least one of the user's ears.”, ¶0053.
-The computer program (i.e., code) running on the processor enables the device to “compensate for a user's specific hearing loss, which may include gain correction, frequency transposition, compression, expansion, or the like.”, ¶0006, ¶0063. This constitutes to a hearing habilitation/rehabilitation.
-The program allows for “real-time” adaptations of sound processing to improve the hearing perception during use. These include: adapting directionality of the microphone system, ¶0024, ¶0077, ¶0089-0090, optimizing noise suppression, gain, and speech enhancement, ¶0022-0023, ¶0074-0075, ¶0082, and also adjusting processing based on recognized talkers, ¶0033-0034, ¶0102-0103. Accordingly, the described functions of the computer program collectively surface a dual purpose covering both habilitation and rehabilitation, and adaptive improvements in hearing perception.
Claim 21: Guo discloses, A method, comprising:
obtaining first data based on captured light and/or sonic energy and/or radio frequency energy captured during a first temporal period utilizing an electronic device during the first temporal period; and
-The hearing device includes an “image capture device’ which captures image, ¶Abstract, ¶0028, ¶0032, ¶0065-0066, ¶0075, ¶0101. The image capture device acts as a light sensor, being “sensitive to visual light, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, or any other suitable radiation.”, ¶0008. These captured images constitute the “first data”. The image capture device “is capable of capturing single images, sequences of images or continuously capture images or video.”, ¶0066. Capturing be continuous or “may be performed according to a predefined schedule, e.g. periodically with fixed or variable time interval.”, ¶0020. Each of which can constitute a first temporal period. The system of Guo is integrated into or with the hearing device, ¶Abstract,. The hearing device includes (i.e., a microphone)-input transducer) for receiving sound signals, ¶0056-0057, ¶0068. The microphone operates during the same temporal period as the image capture device. Information from the microphone can be used in combination with image data, ¶0026, ¶0056-0057, ¶0068. The microphone detection of a specific sound even can initiate the capture of images by the image capture device, ¶0020, ¶0067-0068.
at least one of:
identifying an action to improve efficacy of a prosthesis based on the obtained first data; or
-The hearing device includes an “image capture device’ which captures image, ¶Abstract, ¶0028, ¶0032, ¶0065-0066, ¶0075, ¶0101. The image capture device acts as a light sensor, being “sensitive to visual light, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, or any other suitable radiation.”, ¶0008. The hearing device constitutes a prosthesis. The image capture device is “positioned in a housing of the hearing device, and the hearing device is configured to be positioned at an ear of the user.”, ¶0021.
-The system of Guo allows for “real-time” adaptations of sound processing to improve the hearing perception during use of the obtained first data, which directly improves efficacy. These include: adapting directionality of the microphone system, ¶0024, ¶0077, ¶0089-0090, optimizing noise suppression, gain, and speech enhancement, ¶0022-0023, ¶0074-0075, ¶0082, and also adjusting processing based on recognized talkers, ¶0033-0034, ¶0102-0103. Accordingly, the described functions of the computer program collectively surface a dual purpose covering both habilitation and rehabilitation, and adaptive improvements in hearing perception, and the adaptation and optimization improve its efficacy.
developing a sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation tool and/or engaging in a sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation program based on the obtained first data.
-The system of Guo allows for “real-time” adaptations of sound processing to improve the hearing perception during use of the obtained first data/ These include: adapting directionality of the microphone system, ¶0024, ¶0077, ¶0089-0090, optimizing noise suppression, gain, and speech enhancement, ¶0022-0023, ¶0074-0075, ¶0082, and also adjusting processing based on recognized talkers, ¶0033-0034, ¶0102-0103. Accordingly, the described functions of the computer program collectively surface a dual purpose covering both habilitation and rehabilitation tools or engaging in a sensory habilitation and rehabilitation program, and adaptive improvements in hearing perception, and the adaptation and optimization improve its efficacy.
Claim 22: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 21, Guo discloses, wherein the method includes identifying an action to improve efficacy of a prosthesis based on the obtained first data, wherein the action improves perception of captured sound and/or light by a recipient of the prosthesis based on the obtained first data.
-The hearing device is “a hearing aid that is adapted to improve or augment the hearing capability of a user by receiving an acoustic signal from a user's surroundings, generating a corresponding audio signal, possibly modifying the audio signal and providing the possibly modified audio signal as an audible signal to at least one of the user's ears.”, ¶0053. It is designed to “compensate for a user's specific hearing loss, which may include gain correction, frequency transposition, compression, expansion, or the like.”, ¶0063. The action directly improves the perception of both sound and light, including operating the sound ¶0007-0009, ¶0027-0028, Claim 1, 4, 7, 17-18, selectively adding sound information, ¶0006, enhancing sound overall, ¶0008, noise suppression, ¶0008, spatial cues, ¶0014-0016, hearing-loss compensation, ¶0018-0019, directional adapting, ¶0029-0030, ¶0089-0090, and including providing real-time 3D imaging information about the environment, ¶0025.
-The system of Guo allows for “real-time” adaptations of sound processing to improve the hearing perception during use of the obtained first data/ These include: adapting directionality of the microphone system, ¶0024, ¶0077, ¶0089-0090, optimizing noise suppression, gain, and speech enhancement, ¶0022-0023, ¶0074-0075, ¶0082, and also adjusting processing based on recognized talkers, ¶0033-0034, ¶0102-0103. Accordingly, the described functions of the computer program collectively surface a dual purpose covering both habilitation and rehabilitation tools or engaging in a sensory habilitation and rehabilitation program, and adaptive improvements in hearing perception, and the adaptation and optimization improve its efficacy.
Claim 24: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 22, Guo discloses, further comprising: capturing sound and/or light during the first temporal period and/or during a second temporal period subsequent the first temporal period but where the first temporal period and the second temporal period are sufficiently close that the first and second temporal periods can be considered real time or near real time, utilizing at least one hearing prosthesis, wherein the captured sound and/or light is captured in a manner at least partially based on the identified action.
Claim 25: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 22, Guo discloses, further comprising: capturing sound and/or light during the first temporal period and/or during a second temporal period subsequent the first temporal period utilizing only hearing prosthesis that is the prosthesis the efficacy of which is improved based on the obtained first data; and evoking a sensory percept based on the captured sound and/or light at least partially based on the identified action.
-The input transducer is for receiving sound signals, ¶0058, Claim 1, ¶0056-0057, ¶0062-0063. ¶0008, ‘The image capture device may be sensitive to visual light, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, or any other suitable radiation’. These captured images constitute the “first data”. The image capture device “is capable of capturing single images, sequences of images or continuously capture images or video.”, ¶0066. Capturing be continuous or “may be performed according to a predefined schedule, e.g. periodically with fixed or variable time interval.”, ¶0020. Each of which can constitute a first temporal period. The subsequent processing that is the adaptation steps happen in real-time to improve the user perception is considered to “sufficiently close” [emphasis added]. The term, “sufficiently close” is considered to be a highly generic recitation that provides zero reasonably certainty or metes and bounds. The system further allows for the aforementioned adaptations in “real-time” of sound processing to improve the hearing perception during use of the obtained first data. These include: adapting directionality of the microphone system, ¶0024, ¶0077, ¶0089-0090, optimizing noise suppression, gain, and speech enhancement, ¶0022-0023, ¶0074-0075, ¶0082, and also adjusting processing based on recognized talkers, ¶0033-0034, ¶0102-0103. Accordingly, the described functions of the computer program collectively surface a dual purpose covering both habilitation and rehabilitation tools or engaging in a sensory habilitation and rehabilitation program, and adaptive improvements in hearing perception, and the adaptation and optimization improve its efficacy.
Claim 26: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 21, Guo discloses, further comprising: developing the habilitation and/or rehabilitation tool based on the obtained first data.
-The system of Guo allows for “real-time” adaptations of sound processing to improve the hearing perception during use of the obtained first data/ These include: adapting directionality of the microphone system, ¶0024, ¶0077, ¶0089-0090, optimizing noise suppression, gain, and speech enhancement, ¶0022-0023, ¶0074-0075, ¶0082, and also adjusting processing based on recognized talkers, ¶0033-0034, ¶0102-0103. Accordingly, the described functions of the computer program collectively surface a dual purpose covering both habilitation and rehabilitation tools or engaging in a sensory habilitation and rehabilitation program, and adaptive improvements in hearing perception, and the adaptation and optimization improve its efficacy.
Claim 27: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 21, Guo discloses, further comprising: developing the sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation tool based on the obtained first data, wherein the sensory habilitation and/or rehabilitation tool includes a virtual reality component using images developed from the obtained first data.
-The system of Guo allows for “real-time” adaptations of sound processing to improve the hearing perception during use of the obtained first data/ These include: adapting directionality of the microphone system, ¶0024, ¶0077, ¶0089-0090, optimizing noise suppression, gain, and speech enhancement, ¶0022-0023, ¶0074-0075, ¶0082, and also adjusting processing based on recognized talkers, ¶0033-0034, ¶0102-0103. Accordingly, the described functions of the computer program collectively surface a dual purpose covering both habilitation and rehabilitation tools or engaging in a sensory habilitation and rehabilitation program, and adaptive improvements in hearing perception, and the adaptation and optimization improve its efficacy which further includes providing real-time 3D imaging information about the environment, ¶0025.
Claim 33: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 21, Guo discloses, wherein: the processor is configured to develop second data indicative of distance of objects proximate the respective sensor; and
-Gou explicitly describes how the image capture device can provide forms of real-time 3D models of the environment, ¶0025, Claim 9. The hearing system using the processor can determine the angle to an object and estimate the distance to the objects by correlating the images, ¶0025-0027, ¶0031, ¶0100
the processor is configured to develop the data to control the prosthesis based on the second data.
-The 3D imaging information and positional information from the image capture devices are combined with acoustic information to improve the directionality and beamforming algorithms of the hearing device, ¶0025-0027. Specifically, measuring the distance to detect and allow for adaption of th transducer to enhance speech from a specific area, ¶0026-0027.
-The image capture device further is used for detecting objects other than people, such as stationary objects or moveable objects. This information is used for a warning system for the user if the user has visual impairment. The hearing device includes a vibrational device to provide vibrational feedback as a warning signal. The amplitude and/or frequency of this signal provides information on the distance to an object, ¶0035
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (US 2016/0183014 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Boesen (US 2018/0014113 A1).
Claim 5: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Guo discloses,
the processor is configured to develop beamforming data based on the received input; and the processor is configured to develop the data to control the device based on beamforming data to implement a beamforming algorithm. (¶0011, ‘if location information on target and/or noise sources is available, several signal processing steps in a hearing device may be improved over a hearing device not having this information. For example, a1) the spatial response (beam pattern) of any beam forming algorithm may be steered in the direction of the identified target source, a2) spatial nulls of the beam pattern may be steered in the direction of identified noise sources. a3) knowing the, relative, direction to the target source allows emphasizing spatial cues of the target source.’; ¶0026, ‘The combination of the information arising from the acoustical waves and the electromagnetic waves may be used by the beamformer of the directionality system. The electromagnetic waves could act as a supplement to the acoustical waves when detecting a position of an object. Furthermore, the directionality system, with the beamforming, would adapt more precisely in unpredictable, fluctuating acoustical environments.’)
Guo fails to disclose: wherein: the light sensor is part of a LiDAR sub-system that is part of the system;
However, Boesen in the context of radar/lidar earpieces, discloses, wherein: the light sensor is part of a LiDAR sub-system that is part of the system; (¶0057, ‘The sensors 217 may include photodetectors, ultrasonic mapping devices, lidar, or radar that scan the ear of the user when positioned for utilization. The sensors 217 may generate a two or three dimensional scan or topography map of the user's ear and surrounding areas when the wireless earpieces 202 are properly positioned.’; ¶0059, ‘Where the sensors 17 include lidar sensors 217B, the lidar sensors 217B may be single chip lidar sensors or may be integrated with other integrated circuits on the device. The lidar sensor 217B may be used to provide for biometric monitoring. For example, the lidar sensor 217B may be positioned to scan an inner portion of an ear of the user. Thus, the inner ear portion of a user may be mapped. This may be used in order to identify a user or to observe changes in ear structure over time including differences in cerumen amount or location. It may also aid a user by determining whether the earpiece is positioned correctly within the ear.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light sensor of Guo to be part of a LiDAR sub-system “that is part of the system” in view of the teachings of Boesen for the advantage of generating two or three-dimensional scans or mapping of surrounding areas as suggested by Boesen, ¶0057.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (US 2016/0183014 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Boesen (US 2018/0014113 A1) in view of Ramos Macias et al (US 2021/0023366 A1).
Claim 10: Guo discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Guo fails to disclose, wherein: the sensory device is a vestibular balance prosthesis, wherein the prosthesis includes LiDAR capable light capture devices.
However, Boesen in the context of radar/lidar earpieces, discloses, wherein the prosthesis includes LiDAR capable light capture devices. (¶0057, ‘The sensors 217 may include photodetectors, ultrasonic mapping devices, lidar, or radar that scan the ear of the user when positioned for utilization. The sensors 217 may generate a two or three dimensional scan or topography map of the user's ear and surrounding areas when the wireless earpieces 202 are properly positioned.’; ¶0059, ‘Where the sensors 17 include lidar sensors 217B, the lidar sensors 217B may be single chip lidar sensors or may be integrated with other integrated circuits on the device. The lidar sensor 217B may be used to provide for biometric monitoring. For example, the lidar sensor 217B may be positioned to scan an inner portion of an ear of the user. Thus, the inner ear portion of a user may be mapped. This may be used in order to identify a user or to observe changes in ear structure over time including differences in cerumen amount or location. It may also aid a user by determining whether the earpiece is positioned correctly within the ear.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prosthesis of Guo to include LiDAR capable light capture devices. in view of the teachings of Boesen for the advantage of generating two or three-dimensional scans or mapping of surrounding areas as suggested by Boesen, ¶0057.
Guo fails to disclose: wherein: the sensory device is a vestibular balance prosthesis,
However, Ramos Mascias to discloses, wherein: the sensory device is a vestibular balance prosthesis, (¶Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensory device of modified Gou such that it is a vestibular balance prosthesis as taught by Ramos Macias. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as restoring vestibular function in recipients having vestibular deficiency, ¶Abstract of Ramos Macias.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights