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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 12/23/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 4, 11, 17, 21, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 4, 11, 17, 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10, 13-15, 18-20, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Dijk et al (US 2016/0345107 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van Dijk et al disclose a method comprising: generating an external audio input based on sound signals captured by one or more external microphones (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; external microphone 427 generate external audio input; Para [0054]); generating, with a signal analysis module, an implantable audio input based on sound signals captured by one or more implantable microphones (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0160]; generate with sound analysis module 450’ an implantable audio input based on sound signals captured by implantable microphone 412); analyzing the implantable audio input relative to the external audio input (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0157]; analyzing unit 432 analyze implementable audio output at output of filter 450’ relative to external audio input from external microphone 427); and adjusting operation of the signal analysis module based on the analyzing of the implantable audio input relative to the external audio input (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0108]; adjust operation of signal analysis module 450’ based on the analyzing of the implantable audio input relative to the external audio input at output of analyzing unit 432).
Regarding claim 2, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, wherein adjusting operation of the signal analysis module includes: setting or updating weights associated with the signal analysis module (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0152]; adjusting operation of the signal analysis module 450’ by setting noise cancellation filter parameters of signal analysis module 450’).
Regarding claim 5, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the implantable audio input relative to the external audio input includes computing an error function (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0108]; comparison function 432 computes error function between implantable audio input and external audio input).
Regarding claim 7, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed at an implantable device of a hearing device (Van Dijk et al; Para [0156]).
Regarding claim 9, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, wherein generating the external audio input includes one or more of performing noise reduction, removing a noise floor, or adjusting a microphone directionality associated with the sound signals captured by one or more external microphones (Van Dijk et al; Para [0148]).
Regarding claim 10, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, wherein generating the implantable audio input includes removing noises from the sound signals captured by one or more implantable microphones that are not present in the external audio input (Van Dijk et al; Para [0157]).
Regarding claim 13, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising determining that a hearing device is in a training mode (Van Dijk et al; Para [0162]).
Regarding claim 14, Van Dijk et al disclose a medical device, comprising: one or more external sensors (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; external microphone 427); one or more implantable sensors (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0160]; implantable microphone 412); a signal analysis module (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0160]; generate with sound analysis module 450’); and one or more processors (Van Dijk et al; Para [0037]; processing unit interpreted as processor), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: generate an external signal input based on signals captured by the one or more external sensors (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; external microphone 427 generate external audio input; Para [0054]); generate, by the signal analysis module, an implantable signal input based on signals captured by the one or more implantable sensors (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0160]; generate with sound analysis module 450’ an implantable audio input based on sound signals captured by implantable microphone 412); analyze the implantable signal input relative to the external signal input (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0157]; analyzing unit 432 analyze implementable audio output at output of filter 450’ relative to external audio input from external microphone 427); and adjust operation of the signal analysis module based on the analyzing of the implantable signal input relative to the external signal input (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0108]; adjust operation of signal analysis module 450’ based on the analyzing of the implantable audio input relative to the external audio input at output of analyzing unit 432).
Regarding claim 15, Van Dijk et al disclose the medical device of claim 14, wherein, when adjusting operation of the signal analysis module, the one or more processors are further configured to: set or update weights associated with the signal analysis module (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0152]; adjusting operation of the signal analysis module 450’ by setting noise cancellation filter parameters of signal analysis module 450’).
Regarding claim 18, Van Dijk et al disclose the medical device of claim 14, wherein, when analyzing the implantable signal input relative to the external signal input, the one or more processors are further configured to compute an error function (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; Para [0108]; comparison function 432 computes error function between implantable audio input and external audio input).
Regarding claim 19, Van Dijk et al disclose the medical device of claim 14, wherein, when generating the external signal input, the one or more processors are further configured to: perform noise reduction, remove a noise floor, or adjust a microphone directionality associated with the signals captured by one or more external sensors (Van Dijk et al; Para [0148]).
Regarding claim 20, Van Dijk et al disclose the medical device of claim 14, wherein, when generating the implantable signal input, the one or more processors are further configured to remove noises from the signals captured by one or more implantable sensors that are not present in the external signal input (Van Dijk et al; Para [0157]).
Regarding claim 23, Van Dijk et al disclose the medical device of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that the medical device is in a training mode (Van Dijk et al; Para [0162]).
Regarding claim 24, Van Dijk et al disclose the medical device of claim 14, wherein the one or more implantable sensors (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; implantable microphone 412) and the one or more external sensors comprise sound sensors (Van Dijk et al; Fig 13; external microphone 427).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 8, 16-17, 25-26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al (US 2016/0345107 A1) in view of Pedersen et al (US 2022/0337960 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the signal analysis module is a deep neural network. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen et a disclose a method wherein the signal analysis module is a deep neural network (Pedersen et al; Para [0144]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Pedersen as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to provide hearing device with improved utilization of streamed sound from the environment (Pedersen et al; Para [0021]).
Regarding claim 4, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the signal analysis module is trained to process the sound signals captured by the one or more implantable microphones to substantially match the external audio input. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen et a disclose a method wherein the signal analysis module is trained to process the sound signals captured by the one or more implantable microphones to substantially match the external audio input (Pedersen et al; Para [0145] DNN interpreted as signal analysis module by comparing-interpreted as matching- wireless received samples with local microphone samples). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Pedersen as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to provide hearing device with improved utilization of streamed sound from the environment (Pedersen et al; Para [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the method is performed at an external device of a hearing device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen et al disclose a device wherein the method is performed at an external device of a hearing device (Pedersen et al; Para [0031]; processor of audio signals on external device). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Pedersen as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to provide hearing device with improved utilization of streamed sound from the environment (Pedersen et al; Para [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the method is performed at a remote device in communication with a hearing device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen et al disclose a device wherein the method is performed at a remote device in communication with a hearing device (Pedersen et al; Para [0031]; processor of audio signals on external device). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Pedersen as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to provide hearing device with improved utilization of streamed sound from the environment (Pedersen et al; Para [0021]).
Regarding claim 16, Van Dijk et al disclose the medical device of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein the signal analysis module is a deep neural network. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen et a disclose a device wherein the signal analysis module is a deep neural network (Pedersen et al; Para [0144]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Pedersen as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to provide hearing device with improved utilization of streamed sound from the environment (Pedersen et al; Para [0021]).
Regarding claim 17, Van Dijk et al disclose the medical device of claim 14, do not expressly disclose wherein the signal analysis module is trained to process the signals captured by the one or more implantable sensors to substantially match the external signal input. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen et a disclose a device wherein the signal analysis module is trained to process the sound signals captured by the one or more implantable microphones to substantially match the external audio input (Pedersen et al; Para [0145] DNN interpreted as signal analysis module by comparing-interpreted as matching- wireless received samples with local microphone samples). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Pedersen as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to provide hearing device with improved utilization of streamed sound from the environment (Pedersen et al; Para [0021]).
Regarding claim 25, Van Dijk et al disclose one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (Van Dijk et al; Para [0146]); and output the implantable audio input to a recipient of the hearing device; but do not expressly disclose receive, at a machine-learning device, implantable sound signals captured by one or more implantable microphones of a hearing device, the machine-learning device being trained to transform the implantable sound signals to substantially match an external audio input generated based on external sound signals captured by one or more external microphones; process, by the machine-learning device, the implantable sound signals to generate implantable audio input. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen et a disclose a device comprising receive, at a machine-learning device, implantable sound signals captured by one or more implantable microphones of a hearing device (Pedersen et al; Para [0100]; [0032][0040][0063][0144]) the machine-learning device being trained to transform the implantable sound signals to substantially match an external audio input generated based on external sound signals captured by one or more external microphones (Pedersen et al; Para [0100]; [0032][0040][0063][0144]) process, by the machine-learning device, the implantable sound signals to generate implantable audio input (Pedersen et al; Para [0100]; [0032][0040][0063][0144]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Pedersen as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to provide hearing device with improved utilization of streamed sound from the environment (Pedersen et al; Para [0021]).
Regarding claim 26, Van Dijk et al in view of Pedersen disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 25, but do not expressly disclose wherein the machine-learning device is a deep neural network. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen et a disclose a method wherein the machine-learning device is a deep neural network (Pedersen et al; Para [0144]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Pedersen as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to provide hearing device with improved utilization of streamed sound from the environment (Pedersen et al; Para [0021]).
Regarding claim 27, Van Dijk et al in view of Pedersen disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 25, wherein, when processing the implantable sound signals, the processor is further configured to remove noises from the implantable sound signals that are not present in the external audio input (Van Dijk et al; Para [0157]).
Claim(s) 11, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al (US 2016/0345107 A1) in view of Chung et al (US 2005/0209657 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein generating the implantable audio input includes substantially matching a frequency response associated with the external audio input. However, in the same field of endeavor, Chung et al disclose a device wherein generating the implantable audio input includes substantially matching a frequency response associated with the external audio input (Chung et al; Fig 2e; Para [0053]; [0010]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Chung et al as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to compensate for microphone drift (Chung et al; Para [0010]).
Regarding claim 21, Van Dijk et al disclose the medical device of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein, when generating the implantable signal input, the one or more processors are further configured to substantially match a frequency response associated with the external signal input. However, in the same field of endeavor, Chung et al disclose a device wherein generating the implantable audio input includes substantially matching a frequency response associated with the external audio input (Chung et al; Fig 2e; Para [0053]; [0010]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Chung et al as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to compensate for microphone drift (Chung et al; Para [0010]).
Claim(s) 12, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al (US 2016/0345107 A1) in view of Mishra (US 2014/0200630 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Van Dijk et al disclose the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein generating the implantable audio input includes filling in missing frequency content in the sound signals captured by one or more implantable microphones. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mishra disclose a method wherein generating the implantable audio input includes filling in missing frequency content in the sound signals captured by one or more implantable microphones (Mishra; Para [0024]; [0084]-[0087]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Mishra as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to enhance the quality of sounds detected by an implanted microphone (Mishra; Para [0099]).
Regarding claim 22, Van Dijk et al disclose the medical device of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein, when generating the implantable signal input, the one or more processors are further configured to fill in missing frequency content in the signals captured by one or more implantable sensors. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mishra disclose a device wherein generating the implantable audio input includes filling in missing frequency content in the sound signals captured by one or more implantable microphones (Mishra; Para [0024]; [0084]-[0087]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Mishra as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to enhance the quality of sounds detected by an implanted microphone (Mishra; Para [0099]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al (US 2016/0345107 A1) in view of Pedersen et al (US 2022/0337960 A1) and further in view of Chung et al (US 2005/0209657 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Van Dijk et al in view of Pedersen disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 25, but do not expressly disclose wherein, when processing the implantable sound signals, the processor is further configured to substantially match a frequency response associated with the external audio input. However, in the same field of endeavor, Chung et al disclose a device wherein, when processing the implantable sound signals, the processor is further configured to substantially match a frequency response associated with the external audio input (Chung et al; Fig 2e; Para [0053]; [0010]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Chung et al as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to compensate for microphone drift (Chung et al; Para [0010]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al (US 2016/0345107 A1) in view of Pedersen et al (US 2022/0337960 A1) and further in view of Mishra (US 2014/0200630 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Van Dijk et al in view of Pedersen disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 25, but do not expressly disclose wherein, when processing the implantable sound signals, the processor is further configured to fill in missing frequency content in the implantable sound signals. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mishra disclose a device wherein, when processing the implantable sound signals, the processor is further configured to fill in missing frequency content in the implantable sound signals (Mishra; Para [0024]; [0084]-[0087]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the filter taught by Mishra as filter in the device taught by Van Dijk et al. The motivation to do so would have been to enhance the quality of sounds detected by an implanted microphone (Mishra; Para [0099]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights