DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 7/27/2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending
Double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of accepted TD filed 7/27/2026
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Pedersen in view of Sinha fail to disclose the amended limitations (remarks, pgs. 11-12).
However, as pointed out by the Applicant, Pedersen teaches switching to a packet loss reception mode upon fulfilling some sort of condition(s). The condition(s) can be that one or more packets are detected as being not received (similar to Applicant’s claim condition (i)) and when there’s been so many packet losses that latency becomes an issue (i.e. quality issue) (similar to Applicant’s claim condition (ii)). ¶125 of Pedersen recites “The audio codec may for example be configured to execute a Packet Loss Concealment algorithm to perceptually mask the lost audio frames of incoming real time audio data stream.”
Although Pedersen does not go into detail as to how the PLC algorithm works, Sinha is seen as teaching the limitation of “wherein in the packet loss reception mode the hearing device which misses reception of an audio packet containing audio data of its dedicated channel uses an audio packet containing audio data of another one of the channels as input to a packet loss concealment (PLC) algorithm for reproducing its audio signal” (Sinha, §4, an example of a packet loss concealment algorithm comprises of interpolation among other channels to derive a substitute waveform).
Thus the combination of both Pedersen (applying PLC when it is detected that packets are not being received or due to a quality issue) and Sinha (using interpolation to derive a substitute waveform for PLC) is seen as teaching the limitations of “wherein in the packet loss reception mode…wherein each hearing device operates in the packet loss reception mode by…is below a predefined threshold.”
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-3, 8-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al (US20200053460, hereinafter “Pedersen”) in view of Sinha et al (NPL: “Loss Concealment for Multi-Channel Streaming Audio”, hereinafter “Sinha”).
Regarding claim 1, Pedersen teaches a method for streaming a multichannel audio signal comprising a first channel (L) and a second channel (R) from an audio source device to a binaural hearing system comprising a first hearing device worn at first ear of a user and a second hearing device worn at a second ear of the user (¶72, Fig. 2, a method of streaming a multichannel audio signal to a binaural hearing system); the method comprising:
establishing a first wireless link between the audio source device and the first hearing device and a second wireless link between the audio source device and the second hearing device (Fig. 2, a first wireless link, 12L, between the audio source and the left hearing device and a second wireless link, 12R, between the audio source and the right hearing device);
transmitting, from the audio source device, the multichannel audio signal as audio packets via the first and second wireless links (¶2, plurality of audio packets being transmitted from the audio source to the respective hearing devices via their respective wireless links), the first channel being transmitted on the first wireless link and the second channel being transmitted on the second wireless link, the audio packets including first audio packets transmitted on the first wireless link containing audio data of the first channel only and second audio packets transmitted on the second wireless link containing audio data of the second channel only (Fig. 3, ¶118, 128, each hearing device may comprise of a unique ID and connected via individual wireless links such that respective audio packets (i.e. P1L and P1R) are sent to their respective devices (note the “L” and “R” notation on the packets to signal that said packets are meant for specific hearing devices)); and
receiving the audio packets by each of the hearing device and reproducing, by each of the hearing devices, an audio output from the received audio packets (Fig. 2, audio output from each of the respective hearing devices);
wherein each hearing device is operated in a packet loss reception mode under instable link conditions in which packet loss occurs or is to be expected for the respective hearing device (¶48, when audio data is not received or received too late, a “concealment” method is performed),
wherein each hearing device operates in the packet loss reception mode (i) when it is detected by that hearing device that an audio packet containing audio data of its dedicated channel (L, R) is not received by that hearing device, or in case of multiple packet transmission, that none of the transmissions of the same audio packet is received by that hearing device, and/or (ii) when it is detected by that hearing device that a quality of its link with the audio source device, as determined by that hearing device, is below a predefined threshold (¶142-143, processing is altered based on the monitoring of the quality of the communication link such that delay/buffering can be changed for improved synchronization between devices; ¶125, if large amount or a threshold amount of packet loss is determined to have occurred, a PLC algorithm can be applied).
Pedersen fails to explicitly teach and wherein in the packet loss reception mode the hearing device which misses reception of an audio packet containing audio data of its dedicated channel uses an audio packet containing audio data of another one of the channels as input to a packet loss concealment (PLC) algorithm for reproducing its audio signal;
wherein each hearing device operates in the packet loss reception mode by using the audio packet containing the audio data of the another one of the channels as the input to the PLC algorithm….
Sinha teaches and wherein in the packet loss reception mode the hearing device which misses reception of an audio packet containing audio data of its dedicated channel uses an audio packet containing audio data of another one of the channels as input to a packet loss concealment (PLC) algorithm for reproducing its audio signal (§4, an example of a packet loss concealment algorithm comprises of interpolation among other channels to derive a substitute waveform);
wherein each hearing device operates in the packet loss reception mode by using the audio packet containing the audio data of the another one of the channels as the input to the PLC algorithm…(§4, an example of a packet loss concealment algorithm comprises of interpolation among other channels to derive a substitute waveform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the packet concealment method (as taught by Pedersen) for the packet substitution method (as taught by Sinha). The rationale to do so is to substitute one well known packet loss concealment method for another to yield the predictable result of creating an improved packet loss concealment method that outperforms current concealment method(s) (Sinha, abstract and §4).
Regarding claim 2, Pedersen in view of Sinha teaches wherein each hearing device computes a bit error rate and/or a packet error rate and/or an RSSI readout for determining the quality of its link with the audio source device (Pedersen, ¶24, 125, packet error detection is implemented to determine amount of packet loss; ¶142, quality of the wireless link is monitored as a function of the amount of data received in relation to the amount transmitted).
Regarding claim 3, Pedersen in view of Sinha teaches wherein each hearing device switches from the packet loss reception mode to the normal packet reception mode once the determined quality of its link with the audio source device is found to be above the predefined threshold for a predetermined mode switching time period (Pedersen, ¶138-150, quality of the wireless link is monitored as a function of the amount of data received in relation to the amount transmitted wherein parameters such as timestamps is kept track of; concealment algorithm is performed as a result of determining that certain amount of packet loss has occurred (in a set time frame); buffer depth can also be dynamically adjusted in accordance with the determined packet loss), wherein in the normal packet reception mode the first hearing device receives only audio packets containing audio data of the first channel as its dedicated channel for reproducing its audio output, and the second hearing device receives only audio packets containing audio data of the second channel as its dedicated channel for reproducing its audio output.
Regarding claim 8, Pedersen in view of Sinha teaches wherein the audio packets are transmitted in an interleaved sequence from the audio source device, and wherein an audio packet containing audio data of one of the channels (L, R) is followed by an audio packet containing audio data of another channel (R, L) (Pedersen, Fig. 3, data is transmitted in an interleaved manner).
Regarding claim 9, Pedersen in view of Sinha teaches wherein in the packet loss reception mode in addition to the audio packet containing audio data of said other one of the channels (R, L) at least one previously received audio packet containing audio data of the dedicated channel (R, L) is used as input to the packet loss concealment (PLC) algorithm for reproducing the audio signal by the respective hearing device (Pedersen, ¶48, concealment algorithm may comprise of interpolation between previous and next frames).
Regarding claim 10, Pedersen in view of Sinha teaches wherein a treatment of the audio packet containing audio data of said other one of the channels (R, L) by the PLC algorithm is controlled based on at least one previously received audio packet containing audio data of the dedicated channel (L, R) (Pedersen, ¶48, concealment algorithm may comprise of interpolation between previous and next frames).
Regarding claim 11, Pedersen in view of Sinha teaches wherein the PLC algorithm uses a similarity score of the audio signal of the dedicated channel (L, R) and the audio signal of said other one of the channels (R, L) (Sinha, §4.1, spatial proximity (i.e. audio channel closely related to the channel suffering from packet loss) is the main criterion for selecting candidate channels for interpolation (concealment algorithm)).
Regarding claim 12, Pedersen in view of Sinha teaches wherein a weight of the audio packet containing audio data of said other one of the channels (R, L) and a weight of at least one previously received audio packet containing audio data of the dedicated channel (L, R) used as input to the PLC algorithm are determined according to the similarity score (Sinha, §4-4.1, interpolation involves taking a portion of one channel and a portion of another channel (wherein the channels are of acoustical proximity)) to create the concealment waveform).
Regarding claims 13-15, they are rejected similarly as claims 1-3, respectively. The binaural hearing system can be found in Pedersen (Fig. 1, binaural hearing system).
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected similarly as a claim 8. The binaural hearing system can be found in Pedersen (Fig. 1, binaural hearing system).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al (US20200053460, hereinafter “Pedersen”) in view of Sinha et al (NPL: “Loss Concealment for Multi-Channel Streaming Audio”, hereinafter “Sinha”) in further view of El-Hoiydi (US20150319557).
Regarding claim 4, Pedersen in view of Sinha fail to explicitly teach wherein in the packet loss reception mode the respective hearing device eavesdrops audio packets containing audio data of said other one of the channels (R, L).
El-Hoiydi teaches wherein in the packet loss reception mode the respective hearing device eavesdrops audio packets containing audio data of said other one of the channels (R, L) (¶29, audio eavesdropping may be performed on a second hearing device in order to eavesdrop on the data being transmitted to a first 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 combine the audio playback method (as taught by Pedersen in view of Sinha) with the audio eavesdrop method (as taught by El-Hoiydi). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of allowing a further hearing device to receive the same data being transmitted to a hearing device without creating an additional connection (El-Hoiydi, ¶12).
Regarding claim 5, Pedersen in view of Sinha in further view of El-Hoiydi teaches wherein in the packet loss reception mode the respective hearing device opens a reception window for receiving an audio packet containing audio data of said other one of the channels (R, L) during a transmission slot of audio packets containing audio data of said other one of the channels (El-Hoiydi, ¶46, one or more further audio devices can receive the same data being transmitted to a first hearing device).
Regarding claim 6, Pedersen in view of Sinha in further view of El-Hoiydi teaches wherein each of the hearing devices is provided with synchronization information of the link of the other one of the hearing devices with the audio source device so as to enable said eavesdropping of audio packets containing audio data of said other one of the channels (El-Hoiydi, ¶36, one or more further audio devices is provided with synchronization information in order to perform the eavesdropping method).
Regarding claims 16-18, they are rejected similarly as claims 4-6, respectively. The binaural hearing system can be found in Pedersen (Fig. 1, binaural hearing system).
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al (US20200053460, hereinafter “Pedersen”) in view of Sinha et al (NPL: “Loss Concealment for Multi-Channel Streaming Audio”, hereinafter “Sinha”) in further view of Haartsen et al (US20200396028, hereinafter “Haartsen”).
Regarding claim 7, Pedersen in view of Sinha fail to explicitly teach wherein in the packet loss reception mode the respective hearing device requests, via a binaural link, from the other one of the hearing devices transmission of an audio packet containing audio data of said other one of the channels (R, L) via the binaural link.
Haartsen teaches wherein in the packet loss reception mode the respective hearing device requests, via a binaural link, from the other one of the hearing devices transmission of an audio packet containing audio data of said other one of the channels (R, L) via the binaural link (¶89-90, Fig. 16, each hearing device receives both left/right audio data such that during packet loss situations (for either hearing device), the other hearing device can forward the proper audio information via a binaural link (wireless connection between a first and second 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 substitute the concealment method (as taught by Pedersen in view of Sinha) for the binaural link method (as taught by Haartsen). The rationale to do so is to substitute one well known method of managing packet/data loss for hearing devices for another to yield the predictable result of providing data path diversity to ensure successful data transmission. This reduces the number of retransmissions (i.e. traffic between the hearing devices and the audio source device) while also providing battery saving measures for the audio source device (Haartsen, ¶107).
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected similarly as a claim 7. The binaural hearing system can be found in Pedersen (Fig. 1, binaural hearing system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
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 CFR 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM EST.
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, 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights