DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the communication filed on October 23, 2024. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 18 are independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/835,853 filed on June 8, 2022, which claims priority to European Patent Application No. 19218358.0 filed on December 19, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 23, 2024 and February 17, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been fully considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
6. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 19-21 of application 17/835,853, now U.S. Patent No. 12,231,886 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced US patent since the two claimed common subject matter. This commonality is outlined in the table below.
Instant Application 18/923, 686
Reference U.S. Patent No. 12,231,886 B2
A hearing device comprising: a processing unit configured to process audio signals for a user of the hearing device,
1. A hearing device comprising: a processing unit configured to compensate for hearing loss of a user of the hearing device,
wherein the processing unit comprises hardware; an interface; and a memory unit,
wherein the processing unit comprises hardware; an interface; and a memory unit,
wherein the memory unit has stored therein: a first certificate comprising a first hearing device identifier, a second certificate, and customer data indicative of the hearing device being a customer hearing device;
wherein the memory unit has stored therein: a first primary certificate comprising a first primary hearing device identifier, a second primary certificate comprising a second primary hearing device identifier, and customer data indicative of the hearing device being a customer hearing device;
wherein the processing unit is configured to: determine if the hearing device is configured to operate as the customer hearing device based on the customer data; and in accordance with a determination that the hearing device is configured to operate as the customer hearing device, operate the hearing device according to the second certificate.
wherein the processing unit is configured to: determine if the hearing device is configured to operate as the customer hearing device based on the customer data; and in accordance with a determination that the hearing device is configured to operate as the customer hearing device, operate the hearing device according to the second primary certificate.
4. The hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to compensate for hearing loss of the user of the hearing device.
1. A hearing device comprising: a processing unit configured to compensate for hearing loss of a user of the hearing device,
18. A method performed by a processing unit of a hearing device to operate the hearing device, the processing unit configured to process audio signals for a user of the hearing device,
15. A method performed by a processing unit of a hearing device to operate the hearing device, the processing unit configured to compensate for hearing loss of a user of the hearing device,
the hearing device comprising an interface and a memory unit,
the hearing device comprising an interface and a memory unit,
wherein the memory unit has stored therein a first certificate comprising a first hearing device identifier, a second certificate, and customer data indicative of the hearing device being a customer hearing device,
wherein the memory unit has stored therein a first primary certificate comprising a first primary hearing device identifier, a second primary certificate comprising a second primary hearing device identifier, and customer data indicative of the hearing device being a customer hearing device,
the method comprising: determining if the hearing device is configured to operate as the customer hearing device based on the customer data;
the method comprising: determining if the hearing device is configured to operate as the customer hearing device based on the customer data;
and in accordance with a determination that the hearing device is configured to operate as the customer hearing device, operating the hearing device according to the second certificate.
And in accordance with a determination that the hearing device is configured to operate as the customer hearing device, operating the hearing device according to the second primary certificate.
In particular, instant claims 2, 3 and 5-17 are anticipated by patented claims 2, 3, 5-14 and 19-21, respectively. Instant claims 19 and 20 are anticipated by patented claims 16 and 17, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-10, 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pedersen et al. (EP 3113513 A1), hereafter Pedersen.
Regarding claim 1, Pedersen discloses a hearing device comprising: a processing unit configured to process audio signals for a user of the hearing device, wherein the processing unit comprises hardware; an interface; and a memory unit, {Pedersen [Fig. 2, Para. 0051] “The hearing device 2 comprises a processing unit 4, a memory unit 6 and an interface 8… The processing unit 4 is configured to receive and process the converted sound signal(s) into a processed sound signal according to a hearing loss of a user of the hearing device 2.”}
wherein the memory unit has stored therein: a first certificate comprising a first hearing device identifier, {Pedersen [Para. 0051, Fig. 3] “A hearing device certificate 100 is stored in the memory unit 6.” [Para. 0052] “The hearing device certificate 100 optionally comprises a hearing device identifier 112… The hearing device identifier 112 may refer to a unique or a pseudo-unique identifier.” [Para. 0056] “The hearing device certificate 100 optionally comprises one or more hardware identifiers including a first hardware identifier 148 and/or a second hardware identifier 150. The first hardware identifier 148 is indicative of a hardware identifier of the processing unit 4 and is stored in a register of the processing unit 4. The first hardware identifier 148 may comprise a serial number, a medium access control, MAC, address, a chip identifier, or any combination thereof.”} The hearing device stores a hearing device certificate 100 in its memory, which includes a hearing device identifier 112. The hearing device certificate 100 also contains a first hardware identifier 148 for the processing unit within the hearing device. Both are examples of hearing device identifiers.
a second certificate, {Pedersen [Para. 0051, Fig. 4] “Further, an access right certificate 102 may be stored in the memory unit 6.”} The hearing device also stores an access right certificate 102 in its memory.
and customer data indicative of the hearing device being a customer hearing device; {Pedersen [Fig. 4, Para. 0064] “The access right certificate 102 may comprise an issuer identifier 152 indicative of the person who has signed the access right certificate. The access right certificate 102 may comprise an addressee identifier 154 indicative of the person/group requesting the access right certificate 102.”} Paragraphs 59-65 describe the structure of the access right certificate 102. This certificate contains customer data indicating that the hearing device is a customer hearing device. For example, this certificate contains an address identifier 15, which specifies the entity requesting the access right certificate.
wherein the processing unit is configured to: determine if the hearing device is configured to operate as the customer hearing device based on the customer data; {Pedersen [Para. 0004] “The processing unit may be configured to obtain an access right certificate, the access right certificate optionally comprising an access right identifier; verify the access right certificate; and if the access right certificate is verified, provide an access right according to the access right identifier.” [Para. 0066] “…verifying S2 the access right certificate; and if the access right certificate is verified S3, providing S4 an access right according to the access right identifier, wherein providing S4 an access right comprises granting S41 access to execute unauthorized firmware if the access right identifier is indicative of unauthorized firmware execution allowed.”} The hearing device’s processor verifies the access right certificate to determine if it has permission to execute specific tasks, such as running unauthorized firmware.
and in accordance with a determination that the hearing device is configured to operate as the customer hearing device, operate the hearing device according to the second certificate. {Pedersen [Para. 0042] “The processing unit is configured to, e.g. if the access right certificate is verified, provide an access right according to the access right identifier.” [Para. 0043] “To provide an access right according to the access right identifier may comprise to allow control of one or more hearing device features.” [Para. 0066] “…if the access right certificate is verified S3, providing S4 an access right according to the access right identifier, wherein providing S4 an access right comprises granting S41 access to execute unauthorized firmware if the access right identifier is indicative of unauthorized firmware execution allowed.”} The hearing device’s processor verifies the access right certificate to determine whether it is authorized to execute specific firmware or control particular features.
Claim 2:
Regarding claim 2, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the first certificate is different from the second certificate. {Pedersen [Para. 0051]“A hearing device certificate 100 is stored in the memory unit 6. Further, an access right certificate 102 may be stored in the memory unit 6.”} Paragraphs 59-65 describe the structure of the access right certificate 102. Paragraphs 52-58 describe the structure of the hearing device certificate 100. Hearing device certificate 100 is distinct from the access right certificate 102.
Claim 3:
Regarding claim 3, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Westermann further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to: in accordance with a determination that the hearing device is not configured to operate as a customer hearing device, operate the hearing device according to the first certificate. {Pedersen [Para. 0049] “The processing unit may be configured to, if the access right certificate is not verified, abort normal operation.” [Para. 0074] “If any of S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, S26 results in non-verification, the access right certificate is not verified S28. The order of S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, and S26 may be changed. If all of S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, and S26 succeed, the access right certificate is verified S27. The processing unit may be configured to verify S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, and S26.”} If the access right certificate is not verified, the hearing device will not function as a customer hearing device under the certificate. The hearing device’s processor is always configured to operate in accordance with its hearing device certificate.
Claim 4:
Regarding claim 4, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to compensate for hearing loss of the user of the hearing device; {Pedersen [Para. 0051] “The hearing device 2 comprises a processing unit 4 configured to compensate for hearing loss of a user of the hearing device 2.”}
Claim 5:
Regarding claim 3, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the customer data comprises a BLE identifier and/or a customer identifier indicative of a customer, {Pedersen [Fig. 4, Para. 0064] “The access right certificate 102 may comprise an issuer identifier 152 indicative of the person who has signed the access right certificate. The access right certificate 102 may comprise an addressee identifier 154 indicative of the person/group requesting the access right certificate 102.”} The access right certificate 102 contains customer identifier indicating a customer. This certificate contains an address identifier 15, which specifies the entity requesting the access right certificate.
and wherein the processing unit of the hearing device is configured to use the BLE identifier and/or the customer identifier to determine whether to operate the hearing device according to the first certificate or the second certificate. {Pedersen [Para. 0004] “The processing unit may be configured to obtain an access right certificate, the access right certificate optionally comprising an access right identifier; verify the access right certificate; and if the access right certificate is verified, provide an access right according to the access right identifier.” [Para. 66]”… verifying S2 the access right certificate; and if the access right certificate is verified S3, providing S4 an access right according to the access right identifier, wherein providing S4 an access right comprises granting S41 access to execute unauthorized firmware if the access right identifier is indicative of unauthorized firmware execution allowed. Providing S4 an access right optionally comprises granting S42 access to store firmware in the memory unit if the access right identifier is indicative of firmware storing allowed.” [Para. 0049] “The processing unit may be configured to, if the access right certificate is not verified, abort normal operation.”} Paragraphs 69-73 detail the verifications the hearing device’s processor performs to validate the access right certificate. The hearing device’s processor verifies the access right certificate to determine whether it is authorized to download and execute specific firmware or control particular features. If the access right certificate cannot be verified, the hearing device’s will not operate in accordance with its terms. The hearing device’s processor is always configured to operate in accordance with its hearing device certificate.
Claim 6:
Regarding claim 6, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine if the second certificate is valid, and wherein the processing unit is configured to, in accordance with a determination that the second certificate is not valid, forgo to operate the hearing device according to the second certificate. {Pedersen [Para. 66]”… verifying S2 the access right certificate; and if the access right certificate is verified S3, providing S4 an access right according to the access right identifier, wherein providing S4 an access right comprises granting S41 access to execute unauthorized firmware if the access right identifier is indicative of unauthorized firmware execution allowed.” [Para. 0049] “The processing unit may be configured to, if the access right certificate is not verified, abort normal operation.” [Para. 0074] “If any of S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, S26 results in non-verification, the access right certificate is not verified S28…. The processing unit may be configured to verify S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, and S26.”} Paragraphs 69-73 detail the verifications the hearing device’s processor performs to validate the access right certificate. If the access right certificate cannot be verified, the hearing device’s will not operate in accordance with its terms.
Claim 7:
Regarding claim 7, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine if the second certificate is valid by verifying a second signature of the second certificate. {Pedersen [Para. 0019] “The access right certificate may comprise a digital signature, and to verify the access right certificate may comprise to verify the digital signature… The digital signature is optionally generated by a manufacturing device using a access right private key. The hearing device may be configured to verify the digital signature of the access right certificate when obtaining. The digital signature is verifiable by the hearing device using a corresponding access right public key. If the digital signature is not successfully verified using the alleged public key, the hearing device access right certificate is not verified.”} Also see para. 73. The access right certificate includes a digital signature, which is verified using a corresponding access right public key.
Claim 8:
Regarding claim 8, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 7 as outlined above.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the second certificate as invalid if the second signature of the second certificate is not verified. {Pedersen [Para. 0073] “To verify or verifying S2 the access right certificate comprises to verify S26 the digital signature of the access right certificate using an access right public key stored in the memory unit.” [Para. 0074] “If any of S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, S26 results in non-verification, the access right certificate is not verified S28.”} Also see para. 19. The access right certificate includes a digital signature. If the digital signature cannot be verified, the access right certificate will not be validated.
Claim 9:
Regarding claim 9, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the second certificate comprises a second hearing device identifier, {Pedersen [Para. 0022] “The access right certificate may comprise one or more hardware identifiers. To verify the access right certificate may comprise to verify at least one of the one or more hardware identifiers. A hardware identifier may identify a piece of hardware comprised in the hearing device, such as a radio chip (part of the interface) comprised in the hearing device or the processing unit of the hearing device. A hardware identifier may be stored in a register of the piece of hardware comprised in the hearing device during manufacturing of the piece of hardware. A hardware identifier may comprise a serial number, a medium access control, MAC, address, a chip identifier,...” [Para. 0023] “The access right certificate may comprise a hardware platform identifier, e.g. indicative of a hardware platform of the hearing device. The hardware platform identifier may identify a hardware platform, such as an operational hearing device hardware platform, i.e. a hardware platform compatible with the hearing device.} Also see paragraphs 62 and 63. The access right certificate contains a hardware identifier and a hardware platform identifier. Both are examples of hearing device identifiers.
and wherein the processing unit is configured to determine if the second certificate is valid by comparing the first hearing device identifier and the second hearing device identifier. {Pedersen [Para. 0070] “To verify or verifying S2 the access right certificate comprises to verify S23 at least one, such as the first hardware identifier and/or the second hardware identifier, of the one or more hardware identifiers based on the actual values of respective hardware registers and/or corresponding respective hardware identifiers of the hearing device certificate. [Para. 0071] “To verify or verifying S2 the access right certificate comprise to verify S24 the hardware platform identifier,… of the access right certificate based on the hearing device certificate or at least parts thereof, e.g. based on respective hardware platform identifier,… of the hearing device certificate.” [Para. 0074] “If any of S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, S26 results in non-verification, the access right certificate is not verified S28.”} To verify the access right certificate, Pedersen compares the hardware identifier and hardware platform identifier in the access rights certificate against the corresponding ones in the hearing device certificate (see paragraphs 36 and 38).
Claim 10:
Regarding claim 10, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 9 as outlined above.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the second certificate as invalid if the first hearing device identifier is different from the second hearing device identifier. {Pedersen [Para. 0070] “To verify or verifying S2 the access right certificate comprises to verify S23 at least one, such as the first hardware identifier and/or the second hardware identifier, of the one or more hardware identifiers based on the actual values of respective hardware registers and/or corresponding respective hardware identifiers of the hearing device certificate.” [Para. 0071] “To verify or verifying S2 the access right certificate comprise to verify S24 the hardware platform identifier,… of the access right certificate based on the hearing device certificate or at least parts thereof, e.g. based on respective hardware platform identifier,… of the hearing device certificate.” [Para 0074] “If any of S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, S26 results in non-verification, the access right certificate is not verified S28.”} If the hardware identifier or hardware platform identifier in the access rights certificate are different from the corresponding ones in the hearing device certificate, the access right certificate will not be validated.
Claim 15:
Regarding claim 15, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the first certificate and the second certificate are both in the memory unit concurrently at least for a period of time. {Pedersen [Fig. 2, para. 51] “A hearing device certificate 100 is stored in the memory unit 6. Further, an access right certificate 102 may be stored in the memory unit 6. Optionally, a firmware certificate 104 may be stored in the memory unit 6. The processing unit 4 is configured to obtain an access right certificate by retrieving the access right certificate 102 from the memory unit.”} The hearing device stores a hearing device certificate 100 and an access right certificate 102 in its memory.
Claim 16:
Regarding claim 16, Pedersen discloses the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the customer data is indicative of the hearing device being associated with an original-equipment-manufacturer (OEM) customer. {Pedersen [Fig. 4, Para. 0064] “The access right certificate 102 may comprise an issuer identifier 152 indicative of the person who has signed the access right certificate. The access right certificate 102 may comprise an addressee identifier 154 indicative of the person/group requesting the access right certificate 102.”} The access right certificate 102 contains customer data indicating that the hearing device is a customer hearing device. This certificate contains an address identifier 15, which specifies the entity requesting the access right certificate.
Claims 18-20:
Regarding claims 18-20, these claims are directed to a method for operating a hearing device, and the method is performed by the hearing device’s processor recited by claims 1-3. Therefore, the rejection applied to claims 1-3 also applies to claims 18-20. Claim 1-3 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 18-20.
Claim 18 further recites a method performed by a processing unit of a hearing device to operate the hearing device, the processing unit configured to perform the operations of claims 1. {Pedersen [Para. 0005] “Also disclosed is a method of operating a hearing device comprising a processing unit configured to compensate for hearing loss of a user of the hearing device; a memory unit; and an interface.”}
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
13. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen as applied to claims 1 and 6, and further in view of Dickmann et al. (US 2019/0335281 A1), hereafter Dickmann.
Noted that indicates what the cited art does not teach.
Regarding claim 11, Pedersen teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
Pedersen further teaches wherein the customer data comprises a first OEM customer identifier, {Pedersen [Fig. 4, Para. 0064] “The access right certificate 102 may comprise an issuer identifier 152 indicative of the person who has signed the access right certificate. The access right certificate 102 may comprise an addressee identifier 154 indicative of the person/group requesting the access right certificate 102.”} The access right certificate 102 contains an address identifier 15, which specifies the entity requesting the access right certificate.
However, Pedersen does not teach wherein the second certificate comprises a second OEM customer identifier, and wherein the processing unit is configured to determine if the second certificate is valid by comparing the second OEM customer identifier with the first OEM customer identifier of the customer data.
However, Dickmann teaches wherein the second certificate comprises a second OEM customer identifier, {Dickmann [Para. 0060] “The certificate may be of a standard format and may contain an authenticator of the client to which the certificate is issued, a client public key generated and provided by the client to the authorization service, and the security levels granted to the client.” } Dickman’s certificate contains a client authenticator, which corresponds to the second customer identifier.
wherein the processing unit is configured to determine if the second certificate is valid by comparing the second OEM customer identifier with the first OEM customer identifier of the customer data. {Dickmann [Para. 0060] “The token may be a digital certificate issued by the authorization service to the client, wherein the digital certificate may be signed with the private key of the authorization service and wherein the hearing instrument may use the public key to validate the signature of the certificate in order to verify the certificate. The hearing instrument may install the certificate, when successfully verified, in its write-protected memory.” [Para. 0042] “Runtime enforcement of hearing instrument service access starts once the hearing instrument receives a hearing instrument service access request from a client. Once the client has been authenticated based on the stored client authenticator of the respective client, the security level associated with the hearing instrument service requested by the client is compared to the highest security level granted to the client according to the stored authorization of the client.“} Dickman’s client is authenticated based on the stored client authenticator. Dickman compares the client's authenticator against the stored client authenticator in the hearing instrument.
Dickmann is an analogous art because each of Pedersen and Dickmann pertains to operating a hearing device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen to include Dickmann’s teaching of the limitations of claim 11, listed above. Doing so would “protect the hearing device from man-in-the-middle attacks during pairing“ (Dickmann, Para. 0076).
Claim 12:
Regarding claim 12, Pedersen and Dickmann teach the elements of claim 11 as stated.
However, Pedersen does not teach the limitations of claim 12.
However, Dickmann teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to determine if the second certificate as invalid if the second OEM customer identifier is different from the first OEM customer identifier of the customer data. {Dickmann [Para. 0060] “The token may be a digital certificate issued by the authorization service to the client, wherein the digital certificate may be signed with the private key of the authorization service and wherein the hearing instrument may use the public key to validate the signature of the certificate in order to verify the certificate. The hearing instrument may install the certificate, when successfully verified, in its write-protected memory.” [Para. 0042] “Once the client has been authenticated based on the stored client authenticator of the respective client, the security level associated with the hearing instrument service requested by the client is compared to the highest security level granted to the client according to the stored authorization of the client.”} When Dickmann’s certificate is not successfully verified, it is invalid. Dickman compares the client's authenticator against the stored client authenticator in the hearing instrument. In this context, when comparing the client authenticators, they are either the same or different. Therefore, it would have been obvious to conclude that if the two client authenticators fail the authentication, they are different.
Dickmann is an analogous art because each of Pedersen and Dickmann pertains to operating a hearing device and controlling access to hearing device services. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen to include Dickmann’s teaching of the limitations of claim 12, listed above. Doing so would implement “a service access control that requires only little resources of the hearing instrument with regard to memory space, power consumption and computational effort” (Dickmann, Para. 0076).
14. Claims 13, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Westermann et al. (Pub No. US2017/0318457 A1), hereafter Westermann.
Regarding claim 13, Pedersen teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Pedersen does not teach the limitations of claim 13.
However, Westermann teaches wherein the second certificate comprises a keyset having a key, {Westermann [Para. 0073] “The Digital Certificate includes a certificate ID as certificate version, serial number and identification of the signature algorithm used, and issuer of the certificate. A public key for the encryption is identified together with a Certificate Signature Algorithm and a Certificate Signature.” [Para. 0065] “By using private-key encryption techniques, the client 210, 211 and the server 225 generate a shared secret that can be exchanged secretly over the Internet.”} Westermann’s keyset contains a public key and a private key.
and wherein the processing unit is configured to operate the hearing device according to the second certificate by operating the hearing device to set up a connection with an accessory device based on the key of the keyset. {Westermann [Para. 0064] “There exist many authentication methods that may be applied when setting up a secure session preferably employing encryption. Such authentication methods include a handshake procedure and subsequent exchange of cryptographic parameters. The server 225 authenticates the client 210, 211 by means of validating its IP-address which is defined by the IP address of the gateway (personal communication device 13). The server 225 initiates the secure, and the session is set up based upon the root certificate store as the memory part 114 in the hearing aids 10, 11.” [Para. 0070] “The public key is used to verify digital signature, and the associated data is used to constrain the types of information or actions for which the trust anchor is authoritative.”} Westermann sets up a secure session between server 225 and clients 210, 211 using encryption and the authentication method uses a public key. The personal communication device corresponds to the accessory device.
Westermann is an analogous art because each of Pedersen and Westermann pertains to operating a hearing device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen to include Westermann’s teaching of the limitations of claim 13, listed above. Doing so would provide a system “for managing settings for configuring a hearing aid in a secure way” (Westermann, Para. 05).
Claim 14:
Regarding claim 14, Westermann teaches the elements of claim 13 as outlined above.
However, Pedersen does not teach the limitations of claim 14.
However, Westermann teaches wherein the hearing device is configured to set up the connection with the accessory device by obtaining a session key, encrypting the session key with the key of the keyset to obtain an encrypted session key, and transmitting the encrypted session key to the accessory device. {Westermann [Para. 0065] “Initially, the client 210, 211 and the server 225 have to agree on a protocol version, select cryptographic algorithms, and optionally authenticate each other which is done by the “Secure Session Set Up” message 240 and the “Verification” message 241. By using private-key encryption techniques, the client 210, 211 and the server 225 generate a shared secret that can be exchanged secretly over the Internet.” [Para. 0066] “In step 283, the client 210, 211 and the server 225 exchange encrypted data 250—“Encrypted Data Exchange” marked by the arrows in both ends indicating that the traffic may go both ways.} Westermann’s encrypted data 250 corresponds to the encrypted session key. In this context, the private key used in the private-key encryption corresponds to the key. Client 210 or 211 corresponds to the accessory device.
Westermann is an analogous art because each of Pedersen and Westermann pertains to operating a hearing device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen to include Westermann’s teaching of the limitations of claim 14, listed above. Doing so would provide a system “for managing settings for configuring a hearing aid in a secure way” (Westermann, Para. 05).
Claim 17:
Regarding claim 17, Pedersen teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Pedersen further teaches wherein the customer data is different from the sound processing parameter. {Pedersen [Fig. 4, Para. 0064] “The access right certificate 102 may comprise an issuer identifier 152 indicative of the person who has signed the access right certificate. The access right certificate 102 may comprise an addressee identifier 154 indicative of the person/group requesting the access right certificate 102.”} The access right certificate 102 contains customer data. This certificate contains an address identifier 15, which specifies the entity requesting the access right certificate.
However, Pedersen does not explicitly teach wherein the hearing device is configured to operate based on a sound processing parameter.
However, Westermann teaches wherein the hearing device is configured to operate based on a sound processing parameter. [Para. 52] “When the authorized hearing aid professional has determined the hearing loss of his client and an appropriate hearing aid has been chosen, the authorized hearing aid professional sets the hearing aid parameter in an interactive dialogue with the client by using the audiological test and fitting equipment 23 communicating directly with hearing aids 10, 11 via the wireless data link 24. When the fitting has been completed, the settings are stored in the data file 110 defining the hearing compensation profile in the hearing aid memory 123 in each of the hearing aids 10, 11.”}
Westermann is an analogous art because each of Pedersen and Westermann pertains to operating a hearing device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen to include Westermann’s teaching of the limitations of claim 17, listed above. Doing so would provide a system “for managing settings for configuring a hearing aid in a secure way” (Westermann, Para. 05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pedersen (US 2018/0160240 A1) teaches a hearing device that compensates for hearing loss of a user of the hearing device. The hearing device’s memory contains a hearing device identifier and model data that identifies available model(s) for the hearing device. The hearing device’s processor verifies the model data and rejects the model data if verification of the model data fails.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIN QING ZHENG whose telephone number is (703)756-1535. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 am -5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip J. Chea can be reached on 571-272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BIN QING ZHENG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2499
/PHILIP J CHEA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights