DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings submitted on 10/24/2024 are low-resolution, fuzzy in appearance, and difficult to distinguish. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17, 19, and 29-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 16, “A method for performing a hearing assessment procedure comprising: performing a computational prediction of a hearing loss at at least one frequency different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement, selecting a configuration for performing the hearing assessment procedure using at least said predicted hearing loss at said at least one frequency” should read “A method for performing a hearing assessment procedure comprising: performing a computational prediction of a hearing loss at at least one frequency different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement, and selecting a configuration for performing the hearing assessment procedure using at least said predicted hearing loss at said at least one frequency”.
In Claim 17, “wherein said computational prediction is based on at least one of noise analysis, keyword detection in speech, dynamics of hearing loss changes over time” should read “wherein said computational prediction is based on at least one of noise analysis, keyword detection in speech, and dynamics of hearing loss changes over time”.
In Claim 19, “wherein said computational prediction is further based on at least one of demographic information, situation analysis, hearing loss indications determined in the past, information on a configuration used in the past, hearing loss observed at non-tested frequencies” should read “wherein said computational prediction is further based on at least one of demographic information, situation analysis, hearing loss indications determined in the past, information on a configuration used in the past, and hearing loss observed at non-tested frequencies”.
In Claim 29, “wherein said selected module and/or said processing means and/or said tone generation means are integrated” should read “wherein said selection module and/or said processing means and/or said tone generation means are integrated” to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
In Claim 30, “wherein said selected module and/or said processing means are distributed over at least two physically separated devices” should read “wherein said selection module and/or said processing means are distributed over at least two physically separated devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “selection module” in Claim 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 28 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “module” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“module” is linked with the transitional phrase “arranged for” and modified by the functional language “receiving parameter values and for selecting a configuration for performing said hearing assessment”
“module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0066]-[0069] as hardware or computer-implemented software (e.g. in a consumer electronic device or electronic ear-worn device) capable of selecting configurations used in a hearing test and equivalents thereof.
Claim 28 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “means” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“means” is linked with the transitional word “for” and modified by the functional language “performing a computational prediction of a hearing loss at at least one frequency different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement”
“means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0089] as a CPU or digital signal processor, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 28 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “means” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“means” is linked with the transitional word “for” and modified by the functional language “generating tones according to said selected configuration”
“means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on [0069] and [0089] as a speaker of a consumer electronic device or ear-worn electronic device and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites “wherein said selected module and/or said processing means and/or said tone generation means are integrated”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim encompasses the limitation “wherein said selected module or said processing means or said tone generation means are integrated”, and it is unclear what it means for a single element to be integrated. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as “wherein [[at]] any two of said selected module , said processing means, and said tone generation means are integrated”.
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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites a method for performing a hearing assessment procedure. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
performing a computational prediction of a hearing loss at least one frequency different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement
selecting a configuration for performing the hearing assessment procedure using at least said predicted hearing loss at said at least one frequency
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
For example:
The plain meaning of the limitation “performing a computational prediction of a hearing loss at least one frequency different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “selecting a configuration for performing the hearing assessment procedure using at least said predicted hearing loss at said at least one frequency” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
There are no additional limitations, and therefore the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B):
There are no additional limitations, and therefore the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially similar reasons applied in Step 2A, Prong Two.
There are no additional limitations to consider to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC).
Dependent Claim 17 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 18 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea (“wherein said computational prediction is based on a volume setting and/or gain setting...”), recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application (“a device used to provide test stimuli during the hearing assessment procedure”), and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea (“a device used to provide test stimuli during the hearing assessment procedure”).
Dependent Claim 19 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 20 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 21 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 22 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 23 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 24 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 25 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 26 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Claim 27 the claim recites “A program, executable on a programmable device containing instructions which, when executed, perform the method as in claim 16”. Thus, the claim is directed to software per se, which is not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). See MPEP 2106.03(I).
Regarding Claim 28, the claim recites a system for performing a hearing assessment. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
receiving parameter values
selecting a configuration for performing said hearing assessment
performing a computational prediction of a hearing loss at at least one frequency different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
For example:
A human is capable of manually/ receiving parameter values, e.g. visually and mentally receiving data via pen and paper.
The plain meaning of the limitation “selecting a configuration for performing said hearing assessment” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “performing a computational prediction of a hearing loss at at least one frequency different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The following limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
tone generation means for generating tones according to said selected configuration (see the interpretation of this clause under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) above)
The following limitations amount to a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and/or nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
a selection module arranged for...(see the interpretation of this clause under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) above)
processing means for...(see the interpretation of this clause under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) above)
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B):
The following limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially similar reasons applied in Step 2A, Prong Two.
tone generation means for generating tones according to said selected configuration (see the interpretation of this clause under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) above)
a selection module arranged for...(see the interpretation of this clause under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) above)
processing means for...(see the interpretation of this clause under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) above)
The following limitations is/are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC).
The selection module is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 10/24/2024 (“The selection module is in preferred embodiments part of a consumer electronics device, like e.g. a personal computer, laptop, tablet, smartphone, smartwatch, an ear-level processing device or another portable computing device”, [0069]).
The processing means is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 10/24/2024 (“The consumer hardware device is provided with conventional components like processing means (e.g. a digital signal processor (DSP) and/or a central processing unit (CPU), possibly a multi-core CPU)”, 0070]).
The tone generation means is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 10/24/2024 ([0003], [0056], [0089]).
Dependent Claim 29 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 30 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 16-30 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Claims 16-20, 22-24, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zukic (US 20210160626 A1, hereinafter Zukic).
Regarding Claim 16, Zukic discloses a method for performing a hearing assessment procedure (See Figs. 2-3) comprising:
performing a computational prediction of a hearing loss (Step b1, b2, Fig. 2; “b) using the user preference description data to derive...b1) an assumed set of preferred configuration parameters (preferably a reduced set of configuration parameters), and...b2) an assumed set of preferred values for the assumed set of preferred configuration parameters”, [0100]- [0102]; predicting hearing aid configuration settings is also predicting the specific hearing loss a user has that needs hearing aid assistance) at at least one frequency different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement (“From this initial user preference data, two audiograms are sampled in order to be used in preference comparison. (Step b1) and b2) in FIG. 2). Using sampling method such as Box-Muller [Bis 2009] and accepting only those sampled values that fall under the operating range of the given hearing aid, two sample audiograms are obtained”, [0115]; audiograms show hearing thresholds across multiple frequencies; See [0081]—as this step happens before the presentation of stimuli, each frequency is different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement),
selecting a configuration (“c) preparing at least two different sound samples based on a pre-defined set of samples and the parameters and its values derived in step b)”, [0104]) for performing the hearing assessment procedure (“and presenting the at least two prepared different sound samples to the user”, [0104]; “the present invention can be referred to as method and system for in-situ fitting of a hearing aid by paired comparison of pre-processed sounds”, [0023]) using at least said predicted hearing loss at said at least one frequency (See Fig. 2; step c) is based on steps b1) and b2)).
Regarding Claim 17, Zukic discloses the method for performing a hearing assessment procedure as in claim 16, wherein said computational prediction is based on at least one of noise analysis (As this limitation is claimed in the alternative, it does not have to be taught in order for the claim to be anticipated), keyword detection in speech (As this limitation is claimed in the alternative, it does not have to be taught in order for the claim to be anticipated), dynamics of hearing loss changes over time (“Using Hearing Loss Diagnosis from a Personal Health Record as a Prior”, [0078]; [0079]-[0081] teach that previous hearing test data can be used to set the initial parameter settings of the hearing aid in the fitting procedure).
Regarding Claim 18, Zukic discloses the method for performing a hearing assessment procedure as in claim 16, wherein said computational prediction is based on a volume setting and/or gain setting (“the initial set of configuration parameters comprises at least one, preferably at least two or more of the following parameters: {gain; compression ratio; compression threshold, attack-time constant, release-time constant, noise reduction level} for at least one frequency band”, [0032]) in a device used to provide test stimuli during the hearing assessment procedure (Element 2, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Zukic discloses the method for performing a hearing assessment procedure as in claim 16, wherein said computational prediction (“ a1) matching the user description data with the database of previously known user records in order to derive (initial) user preference description data”, [0099]; “b) using the user preference description data to derive...b1) an assumed set of preferred configuration parameters (preferably a reduced set of configuration parameters), and...b2) an assumed set of preferred values for the assumed set of preferred configuration parameters”, [0100]- [0102]) is further based on at least one of demographic information (“a) receiving user description data, said description data comprising previously known data (for instance age, gender, prior settings (history), diagnostic application, health record) about the user”, [0098]), situation analysis (As this limitation is claimed in the alternative, it does not have to be taught in order for the claim to be anticipated), hearing loss indications determined in the past (As this limitation is claimed in the alternative, it does not have to be taught in order for the claim to be anticipated), information on a configuration used in the past (“a) receiving user description data, said description data comprising previously known data (for instance age, gender, prior settings (history), diagnostic application, health record) about the user”, [0098]), hearing loss observed at non-tested frequencies (As this limitation is claimed in the alternative, it does not have to be taught in order for the claim to be anticipated).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Zukic discloses the method for performing a hearing assessment procedure as in claim 16, wherein a weighting is applied of two or more pieces of input information when performing said computational prediction (““b) using the user preference description data to derive...b1) an assumed set of preferred configuration parameters (preferably a reduced set of configuration parameters), and...b2) an assumed set of preferred values for the assumed set of preferred configuration parameters, optional b3) setting the remaining parameters to a default value”, [0100]- [0102]; under broadest reasonable interpretation, this means the remaining set of configuration parameters was assigned a default weight and the reduced set of configuration parameters was assigned a modified weight).
Regarding Claim 22, Zukic discloses the method for performing a hearing assessment procedure as in claim 16, wherein said computational prediction of said hearing loss is expressed as a range (“From this initial user preference data, two audiograms are sampled in order to be used in preference comparison. (Step b1) and b2) in FIG. 2). Using sampling method such as Box-Muller [Bis 2009] and accepting only those sampled values that fall under the operating range of the given hearing aid, two sample audiograms are obtained”, [0115]; audiograms show hearing thresholds across a range of frequencies) .
Regarding Claim 23, modified Zukic disclose the method for performing a hearing assessment procedure as in claim 16, wherein during said hearing assessment procedure additional information for said prediction is supplied and an update of the configuration is determined based on an updated hearing loss prediction (“e) combining the result of the selection into a new user preference description data, said new user preference data being merged with the user preference description data of step b) and iteratively repeating steps b) to e) until a pre-definable success condition is reached”, [0106]).
Regarding Claim 24, Zukic discloses the method for performing a hearing assessment procedure as in claim 16, wherein said hearing assessment procedure is performed both at at least one frequency for which a prediction is computed (“From this initial user preference data, two audiograms are sampled in order to be used in preference comparison. (Step b1) and b2) in FIG. 2). Using sampling method such as Box-Muller [Bis 2009] and accepting only those sampled values that fall under the operating range of the given hearing aid, two sample audiograms are obtained”, [0115]; audiograms show hearing thresholds across multiple frequencies; See [0081]—as this step happens before the presentation of stimuli, each frequency is different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement) and at at least one frequency of said one or more given frequencies (“Using Hearing Loss Diagnosis from a Personal Health Record as a Prior”, [0078]; [0079]-[0081] teach that previous data which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement can be used to set the initial parameter settings of the hearing aid in the fitting procedure).
Regarding Claim 26, Zukic discloses the method for performing a hearing assessment procedure as in claim 16, comprising a step of determining a correlation between inputs (“a1) matching the user description data with the database of previously known user records in order to derive (initial) user preference description data”, [0085]).
Regarding Claim 27, Zukic discloses a program, executable on a programmable device containing instructions which, when executed, perform the method as in claim 16 (“at least one computer-readable storage medium comprising a program logic for carrying out the method according to claim 1”, Claim 16; Claim 1 of Zukic corresponds to the disclosed methods thereof).
Regarding Claim 28, Zukic discloses the system for performing a hearing assessment, comprising a selection module (Element 4, Fig. 1) arranged for receiving parameter values (“a) receiving user description data, said description data comprising previously known data about the user”, [0012]) and for selecting a configuration (“c) preparing at least two different sound samples based on a pre-defined set of samples and the parameters and its values derived in step b)”, [0104]) for performing said hearing assessment (“and presenting the at least two prepared different sound samples to the user”, [0104]; “the present invention can be referred to as method and system for in-situ fitting of a hearing aid by paired comparison of pre-processed sounds”, [0023]), processing means (Element 4, Fig. 1) for performing a computational prediction of a hearing loss (Step b1, b2, Fig. 2; “b) using the user preference description data to derive...b1) an assumed set of preferred configuration parameters (preferably a reduced set of configuration parameters), and...b2) an assumed set of preferred values for the assumed set of preferred configuration parameters”, [0100]- [0102]; predicting hearing aid configuration settings is also predicting the specific hearing loss a user has that needs hearing aid assistance) at at least one frequency different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement (“From this initial user preference data, two audiograms are sampled in order to be used in preference comparison. (Step b1) and b2) in FIG. 2). Using sampling method such as Box-Muller [Bis 2009] and accepting only those sampled values that fall under the operating range of the given hearing aid, two sample audiograms are obtained”, [0115]; audiograms show hearing thresholds across multiple frequencies; See [0081]—as this step happens before the presentation of stimuli, each frequency is different from one or more given frequencies for which a hearing loss indication is obtained by measurement), and tone generation means (Element 2, Fig. 1; hearing aid devices comprise speakers) for generating tones according to said selected configuration (“Using Bluetooth connection, samples are streamed to the hearing aid device 2 and presented to the user avoiding any additional signal processing in the device”, [0119]).
Regarding Claim 29, Zukic discloses the system as in claim 28, wherein said selected module and/or said processing means and/or said tone generation means are integrated (See Fig. 1; Element 4 comprises both the selection module and the processing means).
Regarding Claim 30, Zukic discloses the system as in claim 28, wherein said selected module and/or said processing means are distributed over at least two physically separated devices (“at least one computer-readable storage medium (either locally stored on the external configuration unit or on a server) comprising a program logic for carrying out the method according to the invention, wherein said external configuration being configured to access the computer-readable storage medium”, [0037]; this demonstrates that at least part of the processing means can be on remote server 5 in Fig. 1).
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 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukic in view of Conix (US 20140236043 A1, cited in applicant’s IDS, hereinafter Conix).
Regarding Claim 21, Zukic discloses the method for performing a hearing assessment procedure as in claim 16, wherein each stimulus used in said hearing assessment procedure (“c) preparing at least two different sound samples based on a pre-defined set of samples and the parameters and its values derived in step b) and presenting the at least two prepared different sound samples to the user”, [0104]) is randomly selected (“4. From this initial user preference data, two audiograms are sampled in order to be used in preference comparison. (Step b1) and b2) in FIG. 2). Using sampling method such as Box-Muller [Bis 2009] and accepting only those sampled values that fall under the operating range of the given hearing aid, two sample audiograms are obtained”, [0115]; the Box-Mueller method is a random number sampling method).
Zukic discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein each stimulus used in said hearing assessment procedure is randomly selected from a set of at least three different testing signals comprising no tone at all, one tone with a first frequency or a plurality of tones with a second frequency different from said first frequency.
However, Conix, which is also directed towards a method for performing a hearing assessment procedure (Abstract), teaches wherein each stimulus used in said hearing assessment procedure is randomly selected (“ Preferably, the test stimulus, following an answer, is randomly selected from the group of available test stimuli”, [0008]) from a set of at least three different testing signals comprising no tone at all, one tone with a first frequency or a plurality of tones with a second frequency different from said first frequency (“Tone signals with at least two different frequencies are independently changed by delivering to a test person a set of at least three different test stimuli selected from a group of no tone at all, one long tone with a first frequency, and a multitude of short tones of a second frequency.”, Abstract).
It would have obvious to modify Zukic with Conix such that each stimulus used in said hearing assessment procedure is randomly selected from a set of at least three different testing signals comprising no tone at all, one tone with a first frequency or a plurality of tones with a second frequency different from said first frequency, because this improves the speed and ease of the hearing assessment procedure, as explained by Conix ([0004]-[0006]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukic in view of Pedersen et al (WO 2006136174 A2, cited in applicant’s IDS, hereinafter Pedersen).
Regarding Claim 25, Zukic discloses the method for performing a hearing assessment procedure as in claim 16, wherein said configuration comprises a starting point for the procedure (“a1) matching the user description data with the database of previously known user records in order to derive (initial) user preference description data”, [0099]; “b) using the user preference description data to derive [0101] b1) an assumed set of preferred configuration parameters (preferably a reduced set of configuration parameters), and [0102] b2) an assumed set of preferred values for the assumed set of preferred configuration parameters”, [0100]). Zukic discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein said configuration comprises a step size to adapt the intensity of stimulus between successive stimuli used in the procedure. However, Pedersen, which also discloses method for performing a hearing assessment procedure (See Abstract), teaches wherein said configuration comprises a step size to adapt the intensity of stimulus between successive stimuli used in the procedure (“In a preferred embodiment such a comprehensive test is initiated with a few quick tests at two or three frequencies with large volume level steps”, 15:6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zukic with Pedersen such that said configuration comprises a step size to adapt the intensity of stimulus between successive stimuli used in the procedure, because this can provide a rough assessment of the hearing ability of the subject (See Pedersen, 15:8-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Selig et al (US 20140309549 A1 ).
See Abokela et al (US 11575999 B2) (Figs. 7-9).
See Mauger et al (US 20180160984 A1), which discloses wherein said computational prediction is based on at least one of noise analysis and keyword detection in speech (Step 430, Fig. 4/Step 820, Fig. 8/Step 930, Fig. 9A).
See Tian et al (CN 111223564 A).
See Oh et al (KR 20120091698 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/JONATHAN E. COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights