Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Obviousness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–4, 7–10, 12, 13 and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0266682 (effectively filed 26 February 2020) (“Fischer”) and US Patent Application Publication 2015/0163602 (published 11 June 2015) (“Pedersen”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fischer, Pedersen and Shammur A. Chowdhury et al., Predicting User Satisfaction from Turn-Taking in Spoken Conversations, 2016 Interspeech 2910 (12 September 2016) (“Chowdhury”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fischer, Pedersen and US Patent 4,630,305 (patented 16 December 1986) (“Borth”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a hearing aid adapted for being located at or in an ear of a hearing aid user, or for being fully or partially implanted in the head of a hearing aid user.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed hearing aid and the Fischer reference.
Claim 1
The Fischer Reference
“1. A hearing aid adapted for being located at or in an ear of a hearing aid user, or for being fully or partially implanted in the head of a hearing aid user, the hearing aid comprising:
The Fischer reference similarly describes a hearing instrument, such as a hearing aid. Fischer at Abs., ¶ 2–12, FIG.1. Fischer’s hearing aids include those worn at the ear, in the ear or implanted in the head. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 5, 12 (describing BTE, ITE and cochlear implant hearing aids).
“an input unit for providing at least one electric input signal representing sound in an environment of the hearing aid user, said electric input signal comprising no speech signal, or one or more speech signals from one or more speech sound sources and additional signal components, termed noise signal, from one or more other sound sources;
Fischer’s hearing aid includes input units, such as microphones 6. Id. at ¶¶ 60, 63, FIG.1. Microphones 6 generate electrical signals representing sound in the user’s environment. Id. The signals will either include no speech, speech from other people, own speech from the user and noise (e.g., ambient sound and speech from others not conversing with the user). See id. at ¶¶ 7, 14, 67, 89,
“an own voice detector (OVD) for repeatedly estimating whether or not, or with what probability, said at least one electric input signal, or a signal derived therefrom, comprises a speech signal originating from the voice of the hearing aid user, and
“providing an own voice control signal indicative thereof; and
Fischer’s hearing aid includes a speech analysis unit 16 that similarly estimates when the signal from microphone 6 contains the user’s own voice. Id. at ¶¶ 68–72, FIG.1.
Unit 16 generates a corresponding control signal that is used by unit 16 to determine conversational features, such as turn taking. See id. at ¶¶ 77–79.
“a talker extraction unit configured to determine and/or receive the one or more speech signals as separated one or more speech signals from speech sound sources other than the hearing aid user and to detect the speech signal originating from the voice of the hearing aid user, and where the talker extraction unit is further configured to provide separate signals, each comprising, or indicating the presence of, one of said one or more speech signals,
Speech analysis unit 16 determines and separates, or extracts, detected voices into own voice and foreign speech based on spatial analysis. Id. at ¶ 76.
“wherein the one or more speech signals are grouped into one or more conversation groups depending at least on the amount of a speech overlap between the speech signal of the hearing aid user and the separated one or more speech signals, and
Fischer describes classifying whether foreign speech belongs to a main speaker group or a secondary speaker group. Id. at ¶¶ 80–82. One feature for classifying speakers is the degree of overlap between a foreign speech interval and an own voice interval. Id.
“where the one or more conversation groups are categorized with a varying degree of interest to the hearing aid user,
Speech categorized in the main speaker group has a higher degree of interest than speech categorized in the secondary speaker group. See id. at ¶ 106 (step 54: describing amplification to improve audibility of main speakers).
“wherein the hearing aid comprises one or more beamformers, and wherein the input unit is configured to provide at least two electric input signals connected to the one or more beamformers, and wherein the one or more beamformers are configured to provide at least one beamformed signal, and
Fischer describes a beamformer that receives signals from at least two microphones 6 and provides a beamformed signal that emphasizes a sound in the direction (i.e., lobe) of a main foreign-speech interval speaker while dampening sounds from other directions. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 14, 23, 34, 47.
“wherein, when the OVD estimates that the own voice of the hearing aid user is inactive, the one or more beamformers of the hearing aid is configured to estimate the direction to and/or location of one or more of the sound sources providing speech signals, and to use the estimated direction and/or location to update the one or more beamformers of the hearing aid to not attenuate said one or more speech signals.”
While Fischer describes estimating the direction of a main speaker and updating a beamformer to steer a lobe towards a main speaker to emphasize the main speaker over other speakers (i.e., not attenuate said one or more speech signals), Fischer does not expressly tie that estimating and updating to the condition of an OVD estimate.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Fischer reference describes a hearing instrument that corresponds closely to the claimed hearing aid. The Fischer reference does not anticipate the claimed invention because it does not teach beamformers that are conditioned on when an OVD estimates that the own voice of the hearing aid user is inactive and then having the beamformers estimate the direction to and/or location of one or more of the sound sources providing speech signals and using the estimated direction and/or location to update the beamformers to not attenuate one or more speech signals.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Fischer reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Pedersen reference teaches a hearing aid that operates in different modes tailored to different acoustic situations. Pedersen at ¶¶ 16–21, 32. For example, when the hearing aid’s OVD determines that the hearing aid user is speaking, the hearing aid operates in an own voice mode. Id. at ¶¶ 32–33, 35, 68. The own voice mode features a beamformer that focuses a beam on the user’s own voice. Id. On the other hand, when the OVD determines that the hearing aid user is not speaking (i.e., the own voice of the hearing aid user is inactive), the hearing aid operates in a normal listening mode that includes a beamformer that tracks speech from another person. Id. at ¶¶ 32–33, 35, 72. The beamforming performed in the normal listening mode is separate from beamforming performed in the own voice mode. See id. Pedersen further teaches estimating the location of a target voice and updating its beamformer’s steering direction when a target voice is present. See id. at ¶ 77 (updating own voice beamformer when own voice present). Based on the above findings, Pedersen teaches operating its normal beamformer to estimate the location of speech from other people and update the beamformer’s steering to match the estimated location. Further, based on the foregoing findings, Pedersen reasonably teaches only performing the estimation and updating when the OVD indicates that the user’s own voice is inactive, which will trigger the normal listening mode in which the normal beamformer is actively used by Pedersen’s hearing aid.
Read together, the Fischer and Pedersen references reasonably teach and suggest modifying Fischer’s hearing aid to include multiple listening modes that are selected based on the status of an OVD. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results: applying Pedersen’s hearing aid modes to Fischer’s hearing instrument, which already includes an OVD and beamformers, to predictably produce a hearing aid capable of switching between different beamformer listening modes based on OVD status to suit different acoustic environments (communication, wireless sound receiving, telephony, silence, noisy, normal, user speaking)). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more conversation groups are defined by comparing the speech overlaps between each of the one or more speech signals and all of the other one or more speech signals, including the speech signal from the hearing aid user.”
Fischer describes classifying whether foreign speech belongs to a main speaker group or a secondary speaker group. Fischer at ¶¶ 80–82. One feature for classifying speakers is the degree of overlap between a foreign speech interval and an own voice interval. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hearing aid further comprises a noise reduction system configured to determine a speech overlap and/or gap between said speech signal originating from the voice of the hearing aid user and each of said separated one or more speech signals.”
Fischer’s noise reduction (active noise cancellation, or ANC) applies less reduction to foreign speech intervals that are classified as main speakers compared to foreign speech intervals that are classified as secondary speakers. Fischer at ¶¶ 33, 47. Part of the classification of foreign speech as belonging to a main speaker or secondary speaker is based on the gaps and overlaps in speech the foreign speech intervals and own speech intervals. Id. at ¶¶ 77–85. Fischer measures the frequency and length of overlaps and gaps in order to determine interest. Id. at ¶¶ 77, 78, 98. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the noise reduction system is configured to determine the speech overlap and/or gap based at least on estimating whether or not, or with what probability, said at least one electric input signal, or signal derived therefrom, comprises speech signal originating from the voice of the hearing aid user and/or speech signals from each of said separated one or more speech signals.”
Similarly, Fischer’s speech analysis unit 16 determines overlaps and gaps/lapses in speech determined to contain the user’s own speech and speech determined to contain other people’s speech. Fischer at ¶¶ 77–81. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the noise reduction system is further configured to determine said speech overlap and/or gap based on an XOR-gate estimator for estimating the speech overlap and/or gap between said speech signal originating from the own voice of the hearing aid user and each of said separated one or more speech signals.”
Fischer does not describe precisely how to detect overlaps/gaps. The Chowdhury reference cited by Fischer at ¶ 77, however, teaches and suggests detecting overlaps through a simple logical scheme. Chowdhury at FIG.3 (depicting turns
T
A
when only one interlocutor is talking; overlaps
O
v
when both interlocutors are actively talking (logic 1); lapses
L
B
when both interlocutors are silent (logic 0)). This would have reasonably suggested using any logical circuit to emulate these outputs, including the use of an XOR-gate estimator. For example, an XOR gate can go high when a single user is talking and go low to indicate overlaps or lapses. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer, the Pedersen and the Chowdhury references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hearing aid further comprises a timer configured to determine one or more time segments of said speech overlap between the speech signal originating from the own voice of the hearing aid user and each of said separated one or more speech signals.”
Fischer’s speech analysis unit 16 likewise includes a timer to time the overlap and lapses between the user’s own speech intervals and foreign speech intervals. Fischer at ¶¶ 77–81. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hearing aid is configured to rank said separated one or more speech signals depending on the time segments of each of the speech overlaps between the speech signal originating from the own voice of the hearing aid user and each of said separated one or more speech signals, where the speech signals are ranked with an increasing degree of interest as a function of a decreasing time segment of speech overlap.”
Fischer ranks foreign speech intervals in terms of interest to the user (i.e., as a main speaker or as a secondary speaker/noise). Fischer at ¶¶ 82–85. Interest is determined based on the degree of overlap, with a higher degree of overlap being associated with a lower degree of interest. Id. at ¶ 27, 78, 98. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hearing aid is configured to determine whether said one or more of the time segments exceeds a time limit, and if so to label the respective speech signal as being part of the noise signal or to rank the respective speech signal with a lower degree of interest to the hearing aid user compared to speech signals that do not exceed said time limit.”
Fischer describes evaluating overlap length (or frequency) against a threshold limit. Fischer at ¶ 78. For example, foreign speech is evaluated as belonging to a main speaker when the overlaps are short in length while foreign speech is evaluated as belonging to a secondary speaker when the overlaps are long in length. See id. at ¶ 27. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the noise reduction system is configured to group the one or more separated speech signals into said one or more conversation groups depending at least on the determined direction and/or location of said one or more speech signals.”
In addition to evaluating overlaps, Fischer’s speech analysis unit 16 also classifies foreign speech as belonging to a main speaker or secondary speaker based on the direction/location of the speech relative to the user. Fischer at ¶ 26, 31, 82. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more beamformers comprises one or more own voice cancelling beamformers configured to attenuate the speech signal originating from the own voice of the hearing aid user as determined by the OVD.”
Fischer describes, while analyzing speech signals to identify foreign speech, steering a beamformer towards each sound source, which will inherently attenuate speech from other directions. Fischer at ¶¶ 68, 76, 89. This will naturally attenuate won speech from the user. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hearing aid further comprises a voice activity detector (VAD) for repeatedly estimating whether or not, or with what probability, said at least one electric input signal, or a signal derived therefrom, comprises the no speech signal, or the one or more speech signals from speech sound sources other than the hearing aid user, and providing a voice activity control signal indicative thereof.”
Fischer’s hearing aid includes a voice recognition unit 14 that likewise estimates when the signal from microphone 6 contains any type of voice. Fischer at ¶ 67. Unit 14 outputs a signal indicating the presence of recognized speech intervals. See id. at ¶¶ 67–68. Speech analysis unit 16 operates on the recognized speech intervals. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 13, and further requires the following:
“wherein the noise reduction system is configured to additionally detect said noise signal during time segments wherein said VAD and OVD both indicate an absence of a speech signal in the at least one electric input signal, or a signal derived therefrom, or a presence of speech signal with a probability below a speech presence probability (SPP) threshold value.”
Fischer’s voice recognition unit 14 identifies intervals that do not contain any voice. Fischer at ¶ 67. Fischer, also describes performing ANC using known techniques (e.g., Wiener filtering) that require a noise estimate. Id. at ¶ 14. Fischer also develops a noise estimate for SNR evaluation. Id. at ¶ 29, 82. However, Fischer does not describe updating its noise estimate during silence intervals that do not contain speech from the user or another speaker.
The Borth reference teaches and suggests implementing noise estimation during silence intervals that do not contain voice in order to generate an accurate estimate of the background noise level. Borth at col. 8 ll. 9–36. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Fischer’s system to update its noise estimates during periods when voice recognition unit 14 detects that there is no voice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected doing so to produce accurate noise estimates that would be useful for ANC and SNR evaluation. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer, the Pedersen and the Borth references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hearing aid further comprises a movement sensor, and wherein the noise reduction system is configured to group one or more estimated speech signals in a conversation group categorized with a high degree of interest to the hearing aid user, when movement is detected by the movement sensor.”
In addition to evaluating overlaps, Fischer’s speech analysis unit 16 also detects movement of the user relative to a foreign speaker and uses movement towards a speaker to influence whether the speech is classified as belonging to a main speaker or secondary speaker. Fischer at ¶ 26, 31, 82. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“A binaural hearing system comprising a hearing aid and a contralateral hearing aid according to claim 1, the binaural hearing system being configured to allow an exchange of data between the hearing aid and the contralateral hearing aid.”
Fischer describes implementing a hearing aid as a binaural system with an intermediate auxiliary device. Fischer at ¶¶ 6, 12. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 is drawn to “a method of operating a hearing aid adapted for being located at or in an ear of a hearing aid user, or for being fully or partially implanted in the head of a hearing aid user.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method aid and the Fischer reference.
Claim 18
The Fischer Reference
“18. A method of operating a hearing aid adapted for being located at or in an ear of a hearing aid user, or for being fully or partially implanted in the head of a hearing aid user, the method comprising:
The Fischer reference similarly describes a hearing instrument, such as a hearing aid. Fischer at Abs., ¶ 2–12, FIG.1. Fischer’s hearing aids include those worn at the ear, in the ear or implanted in the head. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 5, 12 (describing BTE, ITE and cochlear implant hearing aids).
“providing at least one electric input signal representing sound in an environment of the hearing aid user, by an input unit, said electric input signal comprising no speech signal, or one or more speech signals from one or more speech sound sources and additional signal components, termed noise signal, from one or more other sound sources,
Fischer’s hearing aid includes input units, such as microphones 6. Id. at ¶¶ 60, 63, FIG.1. Microphones 6 generate electrical signals representing sound in the user’s environment. Id. The signals will either include no speech, speech from other people, own speech from the user and noise (e.g., ambient sound and speech from others not conversing with the user). See id. at ¶¶ 7, 14, 67, 89,
“repeatedly estimating whether or not, or with what probability, said at least one electric input signal, or a signal derived therefrom, comprises a speech signal originating from the voice of the hearing aid user, and
“providing an own voice control signal indicative thereof, by an own voice detector (OVD),
Fischer’s hearing aid includes a speech analysis unit 16 that similarly estimates when the signal from microphone 6 contains the user’s own voice. Id. at ¶¶ 68–72, FIG.1.
Unit 16 generates a corresponding control signal that is used by unit 16 to determine conversational features, such as turn taking. See id. at ¶¶ 77–79.
“determining and/or receiving the one or more speech signals as separated one or more speech signals from speech sound sources other than the hearing aid user and detecting the speech signal originating from the voice of the hearing aid user, by a talker extraction unit,
“providing separate signals, each comprising, or indicating the presence of, one of said one or more speech signals, by the talker extraction unit,
Speech analysis unit 16 determines and separates, or extracts, detected voices into own voice and foreign speech based on spatial analysis. Id. at ¶ 76.
“grouping the one or more speech signals into one or more conversation groups depending at least on the amount of a speech overlap between the speech signal of the hearing aid user estimated by the OVD and the separated one or more speech signals, and
Fischer describes classifying whether foreign speech belongs to a main speaker group or a secondary speaker group. Id. at ¶¶ 80–82. One feature for classifying speakers is the degree of overlap between a foreign speech interval and an own voice interval. Id.
“categorizing the one or more conversation groups with a varying degree of interest to the hearing aid user,
Speech categorized in the main speaker group has a higher degree of interest than speech categorized in the secondary speaker group. See id. at ¶ 106 (step 54: describing amplification to improve audibility of main speakers).
“wherein the hearing aid comprises one or more beamformers, and wherein the input unit is configured to provide at least two electric input signals connected to the one or more beamformers, and wherein the one or more beamformers are configured to provide at least one beamformed signal, and
Fischer describes a beamformer that receives signals from at least two microphones 6 and provides a beamformed signal that emphasizes a sound in the direction (i.e., lobe) of a main foreign-speech interval speaker while dampening sounds from other directions. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 14, 23, 34, 47.
“wherein, when the OVD estimates that the own voice of the hearing aid user is inactive, the one or more beamformers of the hearing aid is configured to estimate the direction to and/or location of one or more of the sound sources providing speech signals, and to use the estimated direction and/or location to update the one or more beamformers of the hearing aid to not attenuate said one or more speech signals.”
While Fischer describes estimating the direction of a main speaker and updating a beamformer to steer a lobe towards a main speaker to emphasize the main speaker over other speakers (i.e., not attenuate said one or more speech signals), Fischer does not expressly tie that estimating and updating to the condition of an OVD estimate.
Table 2
The table above shows that the Fischer reference describes a hearing instrument method that corresponds closely to the claimed method. The Fischer reference does not anticipate the claimed invention because it does not teach beamformers that are conditioned on when an OVD estimates that the own voice of the hearing aid user is inactive and then having the beamformers estimate the direction to and/or location of one or more of the sound sources providing speech signals and using the estimated direction and/or location to update the beamformers to not attenuate one or more speech signals.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Fischer reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Pedersen reference teaches a hearing aid that operates in different modes tailored to different acoustic situations. Pedersen at ¶¶ 16–21, 32. For example, when the hearing aid’s OVD determines that the hearing aid user is speaking, the hearing aid operates in an own voice mode. Id. at ¶¶ 32–33, 35, 68. The own voice mode features a beamformer that focuses a beam on the user’s own voice. Id. On the other hand, when the OVD determines that the hearing aid user is not speaking (i.e., the own voice of the hearing aid user is inactive), the hearing aid operates in a normal listening mode that includes a beamformer that tracks speech from another person. Id. at ¶¶ 32–33, 35, 72. The beamforming performed in the normal listening mode is separate from beamforming performed in the own voice mode. See id. Pedersen further teaches estimating the location of a target voice and updating its beamformer’s steering direction when a target voice is present. See id. at ¶ 77 (updating own voice beamformer when own voice present). Based on the above findings, Pedersen teaches operating its normal beamformer to estimate the location of speech from other people and update the beamformer’s steering to match the estimated location. Further, based on the foregoing findings, Pedersen reasonably teaches only performing the estimation and updating when the OVD indicates that the user’s own voice is inactive, which will trigger the normal listening mode in which the normal beamformer is actively used by Pedersen’s hearing aid.
Read together, the Fischer and Pedersen references reasonably teach and suggest modifying Fischer’s hearing aid to include multiple listening modes that are selected based on the status of an OVD. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results: applying Pedersen’s hearing aid modes to Fischer’s hearing instrument, which already includes an OVD and beamformers, to predictably produce a hearing aid capable of switching between different beamformer listening modes based on OVD status to suit different acoustic environments (communication, wireless sound receiving, telephony, silence, noisy, normal, user speaking)). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Fischer and the Pedersen references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–5 and 7–10, 12–14 and 16–18 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
Double Patenting
Applicant has filed a Terminal Disclaimer (13 August 2026) disclaiming any terminal portion of this Application that, if granted as a patent, would extend beyond the expiration of US 12,137,323. The Office has approved the Terminal Disclaimer on 24 August 2026. The Terminal Disclaimer accordingly overcomes the obviousness-type double patenting rejections included in the Non-Final Rejection at 16–19 (13 May 2026). The rejections have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed. Applicant has amended the claim so that it is now in independent form. This amendment has overcome the objection included in the Non-Final Rejection at 21 (13 May 2026). The objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (13 August 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 9–12 includes comments pertaining to the rejections included in the Non-Final Rejection (13 May 2026). Applicant’s comments have been considered, but they are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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 on 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2651
10/13/2026
