DETAILED ACTION
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 12/23/2024.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 15-21 recite “computer program product” and/or “computer readable medium”, however since the specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
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 15-21 claim the non-statutory subject matter of a computer readablemedium. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media aredescriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable ofcausing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31USPQ2d at 1754 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory).
Furthermore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficiently to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as classifying a sound environment that represents others, does not amount to significantly more.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,707. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,707 are similar in scope to the rejected claims 1-28 of the U. S. Pat. App (No. 18/914,007) with obvious wording variations.
U. S. Pat. App No. 18/914,007
U.S. Patent No. 12,160,707
8. A hearing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the hearing device to: receive, via a first microphone of the hearing device, first audio content; receive, via a second microphone of the hearing device, second audio content; and output the first audio content at a first volume and output the second audio content at a second volume, wherein the first volume is higher than the second volume.
9. A device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors cause the device to: receive audio content captured by a plurality of microphones associated with a hearing device; determine that a first portion of the audio content is associated with a first microphone of the plurality of microphones; generate, based at least on the first portion being associated with the first microphone, audio indicative of the first portion; and send, to the hearing device for output, the audio indicative of the first portion.
10. The device of claim 9, wherein the first microphone is a unidirectional microphone configured to capture audio content from a direction, and wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to determine that the first portion is associated with the first microphone cause the device to determine that the first portion originated from the direction.
11. The device of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to: determine that a second portion of the audio content is associated with a second microphone of the plurality of microphones; generate, based at least on the second portion being associated with the second microphone, audio indicative of the second portion, the audio indicative of the second portion having a different characteristic than the audio indicative of the first portion; and send, to the hearing device for output, the audio indicative of the second portion.
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, 4-8, 11-15, 18-22 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dave et al. (U. S. Pat. App. Pub. No. – 2016/0044424).
Regarding claim 8, Dave et al. disclose a hearing device (1) comprising: one or more processors (10-11, 26); and memory storing instructions (24) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the hearing device to: receive, via a first microphone (18/20) of the hearing device, first audio content; receive, via a second microphone (20/18) of the hearing device, second audio content; and output the first audio content at a first volume (5) and output the second audio content at a second volume (5), wherein the first volume is higher than the second volume ([0018, 0022-0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Dave et al. further disclose the hearing device, wherein the first audio content comprises speech (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 12, Dave et al. further disclose the hearing device, wherein the second audio content comprises background noise ([0018, 0022-0025]).
Regarding claim 13, Dave et al. further disclose the hearing device, wherein the instructions (24) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the hearing device to output the first audio (5) content at the first volume and output the second audio content at the second volume comprise instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the hearing device to simultaneously output the first audio content at the first volume and the second audio content at the second volume ([0018, 0022-0025]).
Regarding claim 14, Dave et al. further disclose the hearing device, wherein the instructions (24) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the hearing device to output the first audio (5) content at the first volume and output the second audio content (5) at the second volume comprise instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the hearing device to initiate output of the first audio content prior to initiating output of the second audio content ([0018, 0022-0025]).
Method claims 1 and 4-7 are similar to claims 8, 11-14 except for being couched in method terminology; such methods would be inherent when the structure is shown in the references.
Computer software product claims 15 and 18-21 are similar to claims 1, 4-8 and 11-14 except for being couched in computer software terminology; such limitation would be inherent when the structure/method is shown in the references.
A systematic claims 22 and 25-28 are similar to claims 1, 4-8 and 11-14 except for being couched in systematic terminology; such limitation would be inherent when the structure/method is shown in the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dave et al. (U. S. Pat. App. Pub. No. – 2016/0044424).
Regarding claim 9, Dave et al. may not specially teach that the first microphone comprises a unidirectional microphone as claimed. Since providing suitable microphone for a hearing device is very well known in the art (Official Notice), and Dave et al. do suggest for modification ([0026]), it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable microphone, such as unidirectional microphone, for the hearing device taught by Dave et al., in order to effectively and efficiently receive the user’s voice/speech.
Regarding claim 10, Dave et al. may not specially teach that the second microphone comprises an omnidirectional microphone as claimed. Since providing suitable microphone for a hearing device is very well known in the art (Official Notice), and Dave et al. do suggest for modification ([0026]), it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable microphone, such as omnidirectional microphone, for the hearing device taught by Dave et al., in order to effectively and efficiently receive the ambient sound, for noise reduction.
Method claims 2-3 are similar to claims 9-10 except for being couched in method terminology; such methods would be inherent when the structure is shown in the references.
Computer software product claims 16-17 are similar to claims 2-3 and 9-10 except for being couched in computer software terminology; such limitation would be inherent when the structure/method is shown in the references.
A systematic claims 23-24 are similar to claims 2-3 and 9-10 except for being couched in systematic terminology; such limitation would be inherent when the structure/method is shown in the references.
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