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 .
The Art Unit location of your application in the PTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Group Art Unit 2691.
This communication is responsive to the claims filed 10/04/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zurbruegg et al. (U. S. Pat. App. Pub. No. – 2013/0243209).
Regarding claim 1, Zurbruegg et al. disclose a hearing instrument (3) configured to be worn by a wearer (1-2), comprising: a processor (5-6 and 9) coupled to memory (0045); a user interface (34-35) operatively coupled to the processor (Fig. 3); one or more microphones (4, 8); an acoustic transducer (7); and audio processing circuitry (5-6 and 9) coupled to the one or more microphones, the acoustic transducer, and the processor, wherein the processor is configured to (Fig. 3): deliver, via the acoustic transducer, a series of supra-threshold (42-44, any stimulus, event, or quantity that is strong enough to cross a specific limit (threshold) and produce a perceptible or measurable response) audio stimuli to an ear of the wearer; receive, from the wearer via the user interface (34-35), an indication of the quality of perception of the stimuli; and store, the indication of the quality of perception in the memory ([0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the supra-threshold audio stimuli comprise predetermined sounds that vary in frequency and intensity and are known to be perceivable by the wearer ([0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the predetermined sounds vary in frequency across a specified frequency spectrum and vary in intensity between soft, moderate, and loud but comfortable amplitudes ([0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the supra-threshold audio stimuli are customized for an audiogram of the wearer (34-35).
Regarding claim 5, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the quality of perception of the stimuli comprises the presence or amount of distortion or noise perceived by the wearer (35).
Regarding claim 6, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the processor is configured to present the indication of the quality of perception of the stimuli via the user interface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the processor is configured to: compute a trend of indications of the quality of perception of the stimuli; and present the trend via the user interface (34-35).
Regarding claim 8, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the processor is configured to determine (48-49) whether the trend indicates that the quality of perception of the stimuli is stable, improving, or degrading.
Regarding claim 9, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the processor is configured to: analyze indications of the quality of perception of the stimuli in combination with information resulting from one or more events impacting the wearer (34-35 and 48-49); determine a relationship between a change in the indications and the one or more events; and present information about the relationship via the user interface ([0040-0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the processor is configured to concurrently perform a test of the hearing instrument’s hardware using the audio stimuli (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein: the user interface comprises a sensor (34); the processor is configured to receive the indication of the quality of perception of the stimuli using the sensor; and the sensor comprises an accelerometer or an inertial measurement unit (IMU)(Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 14, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein: the user interface comprises a touch display of an external electronic device (12); and the processor is configured to receive the indication of the quality of perception of the stimuli via the touch display (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the processor is configured to receive the indication of the quality of perception of the stimuli as a vocal response using the one or more microphones (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 16, Zurbruegg et al. further disclose the hearing instrument, wherein the processor is configured to store the indication of the quality of perception of the stimuli in the memory of the hearing instrument, an external electronic memory, or both (Figs. 2-3).
Method claims 17-23 are similar to claims 1-9 and 12-16 except for being couched in method terminology; such methods would be inherent when the structure is shown in the references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHAN NI whose telephone number is (571)272-7505. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10:00 am to 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a PTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/SUHAN NI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights