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 . Claims 1-33 are pending.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Olsen et al (US Publication No. 6785394).
Regarding claim 1, Olsen teaches a hearing device (HD, 1) configured to be worn by a user, the hearing device (1) comprising: an input transducer (2a, input) configured to generate one or more input signals based on a received audio signal; a signal processor (7, processor) configured to provide an output signal based on the one or more input signals; an output transducer (13, output) configured to provide an audio output signal based on the output signal from the signal processor; and a time monitor (fig. 2; 23, sub-routine reg. time), configured to monitor a time associated with a subscription for the hearing device (col. 9 lines 33-43, utilization time value matching used in connection with a subscription arrangement); wherein the hearing device is configured to perform an action when the time associated with the subscription satisfies a criterion (col. 14 line 25 through col. 15 line 10; wherein the sub-routine reg time (23) performs the threshold/criterion matching).
Regarding claim 2, Olsen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the time comprises an elapsed time, and wherein hearing device is configured to determine the time as meeting the criterion when the elapsed time reaches a threshold (col. 14 line 25 through col. 15 line 10; wherein the sub-routine reg time (23) performs the threshold/criterion matching).
.
Regarding claim 3, Olsen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the time monitor is a software component in the hearing device (col. 13 lines 40-col. 14 line 11; wherein pre-stored software is used to execute processing).
Regarding claim 4, Olsen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the time monitor is one or more of: a calendar; a time meter/counter for measuring a period of time (col. 14 lines 25-48; time counting); or an event counter.
Regarding claim 5, Olsen teaches the hearing device (1) according to claim 1, wherein the action which the hearing device is configured to perform when the time associated with the subscription satisfies a criterion (col. 13 lines 40-col. 14 line 11; wherein pre-stored software is used to execute processing), is one or more of: connecting with a program product in an associated electronic device (16, PC Programming system; col. 13 lines 39-42 and col. 15 lines 16-51); providing a notification that the expiry time of the subscription is reached (col. 15 lines 1-10, notification emission and col. 15 lines 35-52, expiry time); or entering into a predefined mode (col. 13 line 57 through col. 15 line 52, wherein interrupts/changes occur which causes the Hearing aid to act a certain way).
Regarding claim 6, Olsen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the hearing device is configured to enter into a mode as the action, and wherein when the hearing device is in the mode, the hearing device is configured to: stop operating; output an audio alert; use or apply a predefined setting; or any combination of the foregoing (col. 15 lines 1-10, notification emission and col. 15 lines 35-52, expiry time; col. 13 line 57 through col. 15 line 52, wherein interrupts/changes occur which causes the hearing aid to act a certain way).
Regarding claim 7, Olsen teaches the hearing device (HD) according to claim 1, wherein the hearing device is configured to connect with a program product as the action; and wherein the hearing device is configured to receive an expiry time of the subscription via the program product (col. 15 lines 1-11, wherein the HD received limits are used to provide functionality/action; col. 15 lines 35-52, expiry time).
Regarding claim 8, Olsen teaches the hearing device according to claim 7, wherein the program product is in an electronic device (16, PC) of the user, and wherein the hearing device is configured to connect with the program product in the electronic device of the user (15, 17, interface).
Regarding claim 10, Olsen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the hearing device is configured to receive information regarding a feature (time counter) of the hearing device (col 15 lines 1-11, time value limits) via a program product in an electronic device (PC, 16) of the user.
Regarding claim 11, Olsen teaches the hearing device according to claim 10, wherein the information is associated with a renewal or an upgrade of a functionality of the hearing device (col. 15 lines 1-11, wherein the HD received limits are used to provide functionality/action; col. 15 lines 35-52, expiry time).
Regarding claim 12, Olsen teaches the hearing device according to claim 10, wherein the information comprises one or more parameters and/or algorithms (col. 14. Lines 1-18, frames processed through subroutines 20-26) for specifying and/or implementing a functionality for the hearing device.
Regarding claim 13, Olsen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the time associated with the subscription is an expiry time (col. 15 lines 35-51), and wherein the hearing device is configured to determine the time as satisfying the criterion when the expiry time is reached by an elapsed time of the subscription (col. 15 lines 1-10, wherein the time is compared to limit values).
Claim(s) 17-21, 28-33, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Westermann (WO 2017/005326 A1).
Regarding claim 17-18, Westermann teaches a server (25, Personal Service) inherently comprising: a non-transitory medium storing information relating to a subscription service (Description; page 1 line 28 through page 2 line 17) for a hearing device (10, 11), the hearing device configured to be worn by a user; wherein the server (25) is configured to communicate with a program product (Page 1 line 28 through page 2 line 17, data or subscription details or add-on program or renewal) in an electronic device (13) of the user; and wherein the server is configured to provide the information for reception by the hearing device via the program product in the electronic device (13) of the user.
Regarding claim 19, Westerman teaches the server of claim 17, wherein the information comprises one or more parameters and/or algorithms (coding, page 2 line 1-10) for specifying and/or implementing a functionality for the hearing device.
Regarding claim 20, Westerman teaches the server of claim 17, wherein the server (25) is configured to provide an expiry time of subscription for the hearing device (page 16 lines 23-25, expiry set in server) .
Regarding claim 21, Westermann teaches the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the electronic device is configured to provide payment information for the subscription service (Westerman; PC element 13, allows the user the accept the subscription bill for payment of a new/renewal service, page 17 line 22 through page 18 line 13).
Regarding claim 28, Westermann teaches an apparatus capable of performing a method comprising: communicating with a server (25) to obtain information regarding a hearing device (10, 11) in relation to a subscription service (page 1 lines 27 through col. 2 line 17; user pays for add-on services, i.e. subscription); connecting with the hearing device (10, 11); providing the information regarding the hearing device for transmission to the hearing device (col. 2 lines 19-27, hearing device receives information via the remote server); and checking a subscription status of the hearing device (page 2 lines 1-17, subscription status).
Regarding claim 29, Westermann teaches the apparatus capable of performing the method of claim 28, wherein the information is associated with a renewal or an upgrade of a functionality of the hearing device (page 1- Page 2, wherein the subscription status change allows the user the enable/disable add-on program).
Regarding claim 30, Westermann teaches the apparatus capable of performing the method of claim 28, wherein the information comprises one or more parameters and/or algorithms (col. lines 1-10, program code) for specifying and/or implementing a functionality for the hearing device.
Regarding claim 31, Westermann teaches the apparatus capable of performing the method of claim 28, further comprising receive an expiry time of subscription for the hearing device, and transmitting the expiry time for reception by the hearing device (page 16 lines 10-30, wherein expiry date of timed event sent to hearing aid,10).
Regarding claim 32, Westermann teaches the apparatus capable of performing the method of claim 28, further comprising: obtaining payment information for the subscription service; and providing the payment information for transmission to the server (page 11 lines 4-35, billing details recorded for hearing aid and server).
Regarding claim 33, Westerman teaches the apparatus capable of performing the program product (add-on program) having a processor-readable medium (memory or storage) storing a set of instructions, an execution of which will cause the method of claim 28 to be performed (Entirety of the reference supports the hearing aid and other components of the system having storing capabilities for maintaining instructions that allow for managing the execution of a subscription service).
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.
Claim(s) 9, 14-16, 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen et al (US Publication No. 6785394) in view of Westermann et al (WO 2017/005326 A1).
Regarding claims 9, 14-15, The hearing device according to claim 1 and 8 respectively, wherein the expiry time (col. 15 lines 1-15 and lines 35-52 and col. 13 lines 57 and col. 14 line 47) of the subscription is received via the program product in the electronic device (15, PC).
Olsen does not specifically teaches a server providing the subscription; however, Olsen does teach being able to communicate with the hearing aid from a remote location (remote location, col. 15 lines 35-42).
Westermann teaches a remote server (25) to communicate with a hearing aid over the internet for receiving or transmitting subscription information and enabling/disabling (expiry period/time) the hearing aid based on subscription status (Description; page 1 lines 30 through page 2 line 17, subscription) via a program product in an electronic device (13, Personal Device) without having to physically show-up to a dispenser.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that using a server would have yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Olsen and Westermann teaches a system comprising the hearing device of claim 1, and a server (Westermann; 25), wherein the server is configured to provide a new expiry time for reception by the hearing device (Description; page 1 lines 30 through page 2 line 17; where the user can choose to add-on program for a predetermined period).
Regarding claims 22-24, Olsen teaches an electronic device comprising: a communication interface (15, 17, interface) configured to communicate with a hearing device (1, hearing aid), wherein the hearing device is configured to be worn by a user; and a processing unit (7, CPU); wherein the electronic device (16, PC) is configured to receive information regarding the hearing device relating to a subscription service, and to transmit the information to the hearing device (1).
Olsen does not specifically teaches a server providing the subscription; however, Olsen does teach being able to communicate with the hearing aid from a remote location (remote location, col. 15 lines 35-42).
Westermann teaches a remote server (PC-server, 25) to communicate with a hearing aid over the internet for receiving or transmitting subscription information and enabling/disabling (expiry period/time) the hearing aid based on subscription status (Description; page 1 lines 30 through page 2 line 17, subscription) via a program product in an electronic device (13, Personal Device) without having to physically show-up to a dispenser.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that using a server would have yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Olsen and Westermann teaches the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the information comprises one or more parameters and/or algorithms for specifying and/or implementing a functionality for the hearing device (Olsen; col. 13 line 57 through col. 14 line 48).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Olsen and Westermann teaches the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the electronic device is configured to receive an expiry time of subscription for the hearing device from the server (Olsen teaches gather information from a remote location about subscription times/expirations, col 15 lines 1-10 and 35-51; and Westerman teaches the subscription information received via a remote server allowing for add-on programming, Description; page 1 lines 30 through page 2 line 17, subscription).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Olsen and Westerman further teaches the hearing aid system receiving payment (Abstract). Olson does not specifically teaches that the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the electronic device is configured to provide payment information for the subscription service
Westerman teaches the electronic device (PC, 13) configured to provide payment information for the subscription service (Westerman; PC element 13, allows the user the accept the subscription bill for payment of a new/renewal service, page 17 line 22 through page 18 line 13) without need for a dispenser assistance.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that using a server would have yield a predictable result.
Examiner’s Note
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner’s rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLESHA DABNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday and Friday 10:30-4:30PM.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 5712727547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
For general questions such as application status, Monday–Friday, 8:30AM -5:00PM, inquiry to:
Local: 571-272-1000
Toll-Free: 800-786-9199
TTY: 800-877-8339
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(703) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for informal or draft communications, please label "Proposed" or "Draft" when submitting an informal amendment.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
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.
June 17, 2026
/PHYLESHA DABNEY/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights