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 .
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 § 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, and 5-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 17 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12167195 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following reasons.
Current Application
Conflicting Patent 12167195 B2 (hereafter ‘195 patent)
Notes
Claim 1:
1. A binaural hearing aid system comprising a first hearing aid and a second hearing aid, and wherein said first hearing aid and said second hearing aid each comprises:
at least one input transducer for providing at least one electric input signal representative of sound in the environment of the hearing aid, wherein the at least one electric input signal comprises a) a target signal component assumed to be of current interest to a user, and b) a noise component;
an output unit configured to provide an output signal based on the at least one electric input signal, and comprising stimuli for being presented to the user;
a noise control system configured to provide an estimate of the noise component, and
wherein the noise control system is further configured to apply a statistical structure comprising a complex value to the estimate of the noise component to provide a modified noise component comprising the statistical structure,
wherein the output signal is determined and provided based on the modified noise component, and
wherein the complex value of the first hearing aid and the second hearing aid are different.
Claim 1 :
1. A hearing device configured to be worn by a user, the hearing device comprising
At least one input transducer for providing
at least one electric input signal
representative of sound in the environment of the hearing device,
wherein said at least one electric input signal comprises a) a target signal component assumed to be of current interest to the user, and b) a noise component;
An output unit configured to provide an output signal based on said at least one
electric input signal, either comprising stimuli for being presented to the user,
and/or for being transmitted to another device;
A noise control system configured to provide an estimate of said target signal component
and an estimate of said noise component in said at least one electric input signal, or in a
signal originating therefrom;
wherein the noise control system is further configured to apply a statistical structure to said estimate of said noise component to thereby provide a modified noise component comprising said statistical structure; and
to determine a modified estimate of said target signal component in dependence of said modified noise component, and
wherein said output signal comprises said modified estimate of said target signal component, or a further processed version thereof
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195. Complex value in current application is also in clam 15 of ‘195, i.e. complex time
Claim 5:
5. A binaural hearing aid system according to claim 1 wherein the noise control system is configured to apply the statistical structure to the estimate of the noise component by modulation.
Claim 2:
2. A hearing system according to claim 1 wherein said noise control system is configured to apply said statistic structure to said noise component by modulation.
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195
Claim 6:
6. A binaural hearing aid system according to claim 1 wherein the statistical structure is constituted by or comprises auditory texture in the form of sounds produced by the addition of a multitude of similar sound sources.
Claim 3:
3. A hearing system according to claim 1 wherein said statistical structure is constituted by or comprises auditory texture in the form of sounds produced by the addition of a multitude of similar sound sources.
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195
Claim 7:
7. A binaural hearing aid system according to claim 1 wherein the statistical structure is constituted by or comprises amplitude modulation in a rhythmic pattern.
Claim 4:
4. A hearing system according to claim 1 wherein said statistical structure is constituted by or comprises amplitude modulation in a rhythmic pattern.
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195
Claim 8:
8. A binaural hearing aid system according to claim 1
wherein the at least one input transducer comprises a multitude of input transducers providing a multitude of electric input signals representative of sound in the environment of the hearing aid, and wherein said noise control system comprises a directional system comprising at least one beamformer configured to provide an estimate of said target signal component in dependence of said multitude of electric input signals and predefined or adaptively updated beamformer weights based on the multitude of electric input signals.
Claim 5:
5. A hearing system according to claim 1
wherein said at least one input transducer
comprises a multitude of input transducers, each providing an electric input signal representative of sound in the environment of the hearing device, and wherein said noise control system comprises a directional system comprising at least one beamformer configured to receive as inputs said multitude of electric input signals, or signals originating therefrom, and to provide an estimate of said target signal component in dependence of said inputs and predefined or adaptively updated beamformer weights.
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195. Current application is broader
Claim 9:
9. A binaural hearing aid system according to claim 8 wherein the at least one beamformer comprises first and second beamformers, wherein the first beamformer comprises the target signal component, and wherein the second beamformer is a target-cancelling beamformer comprising said noise component.
Claim 7:
7. A hearing system according to claim 5 wherein said at least one beamformer comprises first and second beamformers, wherein said first beamformer comprises said target signal component, and wherein said second beamformer is a target-cancelling beamformer comprising said noise component.
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195.
Claim 10:
10. A binaural hearing aid system according to claim 9,
wherein the statistical structure is applied to the noise component of the respective hearing aid, and
wherein at least one of the following is performed:
the statistical structure is added directly to the noise component of the respective hearing aid;
the statistical structure is added to the noise component of the respective hearing aid in combination with other processing done on the noise component of the respective hearing aid; and
the statistical structure is added to the noise component of the respective hearing aid and added to the output signal of the respective hearing aid, after the original noise component provided by the second beamformer has been removed from the target signal component signal provided by the first beamformer.
Claim 8:
8. A hearing system according to claim 7
wherein said statistical structure is applied to
said noise component in that
the statistical structure is added directly to the noise component (i.e. the noise
component itself is modified); and/or
in that the statistical structure is added to the noise component in combination with other
processing done on the noise component; and/or
in that the statistical structure is added to the noise component and added to the output
signal, after the original noise component provided by the second beamformer has been removed from the target signal component signal provided by the first beamformer.
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195. Current application is broader
Claim 11:
11. A binaural hearing aid system according to claim 1 wherein said first hearing aid and said second hearing aid each comprises at least one analysis filter bank for providing the at least one electric input signal in a time frequency representation (k,l), where (k,l) represents a time-frequency tile, and k is a frequency index and l is a time index.
Claim 9:
9. A hearing system according to claim 1
comprising at least one analysis filter bank for providing said at least one electric input signal in a time frequency representation (k,l), where (k,l) represents a time-frequency tile, and k is a frequency index and l is a time index.
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195.
Claim 12:
12. A binaural hearing aid system according to claim 11 wherein auditory texture is added to time-frequency regions that are attenuated in the noise control system of the respective hearing aid.
Claim 10:
10. A hearing system according to claim 9 wherein auditory texture is added to time-frequency regions that are attenuated in the noise control system of the hearing device.
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195.
Claim 13:
13. A binaural hearing aid system according to claim 1 comprising an auxiliary device wherein a part of the processing of the binaural hearing aid system is performed.
Claim 11:
11. A hearing system according to claim 1 comprising an auxiliary device wherein a part of the processing of the hearing system is performed.
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195.
Claim 14:
14. A binaural hearing aid system according to claim 11 wherein the complex value has a random or a pseudorandom phase.
Claim 15:
15. A hearing system according to claim 14 when dependent on claim 9 configured to
provide that the phase of the complex time frequency tile of the at least one analysis filter bank of a given hearing device may be altered by multiplying the at least one electric input signal with a random or a pseudorandom phase.
The complex time in ‘195 is a complex value in current application
Claim 15:
15. A method of operating a binaural hearing aid system comprising a first hearing aid and a second hearing aid, the method comprising for each of said first hearing aid and said second hearing aids:
providing at least one electric input signal representative of sound in the environment of said respective hearing aid, wherein the at least one electric input signal comprises a) a target signal component assumed to be of current interest to a user, and b) a noise component;
providing an output signal based on the at least one electric input signal comprising stimuli for being presented to the user;
applying a statistical structure comprising a complex value to the estimate of the noise component to provide a modified noise component comprising the statistical structure;
determining and providing the output signal in dependence of the modified noise component;
wherein the complex value of the first hearing aid and of the second hearing aid are different.
Claim 16:
16. A method of operating a hearing system comprising a hearing device configured to be
worn by a user, the method comprising
providing at least one electric input signal representative of sound in the environment of the hearing device, wherein said at least one electric input signal comprises a) a target
signal component assumed to be of current interest to the user, and b) a noise component;
providing an output signal based on said at least one electric input signal, either comprising stimuli for being presented to the user, and/or for being transmitted to another device;
providing an estimate of said target signal component and an estimate of said noise
component in said at least one electric input signal, or in a signal originating therefrom,
applying a statistical structure to said estimate of said noise component to thereby provide a modified noise component comprising said statistical structure; and
determining a modified estimate of said target signal component in dependence of said modified noise component, and
providing that said output signal comprises said modified estimate of said target signal
component, or a further processed version thereof.
A binaural hearing aid system in current application is one type of a hearing system in ‘195. Complex value in current application is also in clam 15 of ‘195, i.e. complex time
Claim 16:
16. A computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 15.
Claim 17:
17. A computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 16.
Verbatim the same
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 15 of US Patent No. 12167195 B2. Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 116, 14, and 15 of US Patent No. 12167195 B2.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 16 recites “A computer program”, which is interpreted as processor control code that is not embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium or other machine capable of carrying out the instructions of the control code. Since processor control code (i.e. a computer program) is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process and a claim for a computer program is non-statutory functional descriptive material.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JP 2010200260 A) in view of Lesimple et al. (US 20180184213 Al). A machine translated English version of Ando (JP 2010200260 A) is used and attached.
Regarding claim 1, Ando teaches:
A binaural hearing aid system comprising a first hearing aid and a second hearing aid (the left-
ear and right0ear hearing aid correspond to a first and a second hearing aid, see [0008}:”A left-ear hearing aid is provided with the left-ear noise production|generation part which is a noise production|generation part for left ears, a right-ear hearing aid is provided with the right-ear noise production|generation part which is a noise production|generation part for right ears”),
wherein said first hearing aid and said second hearing aid each comprises (see [0020], [0030- 0032] for left ear elements 10a, 100a, 22a, 110a, 31a, and right ear elements 10b, 100b, 22b, 110b, 31b):
“at least one input transducer for providing at least one electric input signal…” ( The left-ear microphone is one input transducer and provides a sound signal, i.e. one electric input signal, see [0019]: “The left-ear microphone 10a converts the sound from the audio|voice input hole 3 into an audio|voice signal (analog signal)…”, also see [0020]:” Similarly, the right-ear main body 2b is provided with the right-ear microphone 10b…”),
“…representative of sound in the environment of the hearing aid…”, ( the sound of a various
direction is sound in the environment of the hearing aid, see [0015]: “…listening comprehension of the audio|voice of a various direction…”),
wherein the at least one electric input signal comprises a) a target signal component assumed to
be of current interest to a user, and b) a noise component (the audio|speech data is a target signal assumed to be of interested to a user, and ambient noise is a noise component, see [0028]: “A noise is generable using the ambient noise included in the audio|speech data supplied from the A/D-conversion part 100…”)
an output unit configured to provide an output signal based on the at least one electric input
signal, and comprising stimuli for being presented to the user (left ear speaker is an output unit providing an output signal, i.e. audio to the user’s left ear, based on the input signal from the left-ear microphone, see [0018]: “The left-ear main body 2a is provided with the left-ear microphone 10a… left-ear DSP(Digital Signal Processor)22a… The left-ear receiver 30a provides the left-ear speaker 31 a.”, the output sound comprises audio|speech data, i.e. stimuli, see [0019]: “Left-ear DSP(Digital Signal Processor)22a performs a predetermined process to the audio|speech data from the A/D-conversion part 100a, and supplies it to the D/A-conversion part 110a”);
“a noise control system configured to…and wherein the noise control system is further configured to apply a statistical structure comprising … to provide a modified noise component comprising the statistical structure” ( Part 130 and 150 is the noise control system to provide an estimate of the noise component by generating a noise from the input ambient noise, Part 150 provides a modified noise component by amplitude-modulating, see [0028]: “the noise production|generation part 130 is good also as what replaces with producing|generating a predetermined noise… the amplitude modulation part 150 amplitude-modulates the noise extracted by the noise production|generation part 130, and you may make it produce|generate a modulation noise….A noise is generable using the ambient noise included in the audio|speech data supplied from the A/D-conversion part 100”, a statistical structure comprises at least a signal representation e.g. a critical band width value , Part 130 of the noise control system applies the statistical structure to provide a modified noise component, i.e. white noise, comprising the critical bandwidth information , i.e. the statistical structure, see [0025]: “The noise production|generation part 130 produces|generates the noise (for example, white noise) more than a critical bandwidth”),
wherein the output signal is determined and provided based on the modified noise component (Modified noise is converted and provided as a component of the output signal to the speaker, therefore determines the output signal, see [0025]: “The noise production|generation part 130 produces|generates the noise (for example, white noise) more than a critical bandwidth …In addition, the D/A-conversion part 110 converts into an audiolvoice signal the audio|speech data output from the noise adding|adjunct part 170, and supplies it to the speaker 31.”), and
“wherein the complex value of the first hearing aid and the second hearing aid are different” (audio signals of the left ear and the right ear, i.e. the first hearing aid and the second hearing aid, are different see [0033]: “since the audio|voices of both ears differ normally…”).
Ando does not teach underlined limitations wherein “provide an estimate of the noise component… to the estimate of the noise component”, “a statistical structure comprising a complex value”, and “wherein the complex value of the first hearing aid…”
Lesimple teaches “provide an estimate of the noise component… to the estimate of the noise component” (a noise power estimator provides an estimate of the noise component, see [0063]: “The SNR driven compressive amplification system (SNRCA) is a compressive amplification (CA)”; also see [0230] : “in SNRCA, a noise power estimator is used to provide an estimate ldm,τL[n] for the noise power Pdm,τL[n]…”).
Lesimple further teaches underlined limitations wherein “a statistical structure comprising a complex value”, and “wherein the complex value of the first hearing aid…” ( signal can be represented in the form of complex value, see [0098]: “the time-frequency representation comprises an array or map of corresponding complex or real values of the signal…”)
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have provided an estimate of the noise component and integrated a complex value as taught by Lesimple in the noise control system and the statistical structure as taught by Ando. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “to improve the long-term SNR” (Lesimple: [0010])
Regarding claim 5, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated
in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Lesimple further teaches the noise control system is configured to apply the statistical structure to the estimate of the noise component by modulation (statistical structure comprises at least a signal representation and can be applied to signal/noise processing, and noise and signal are modulated, see [0009]: “This is dependent on interactions between the actual long term input SNR within the environment, the modulation characteristics of the signal and the noise, and additionally, the characteristics of the compression of the system (e.g. level estimation time constants, number of level estimation channels and compression ratio).”, the level detector unit can be part of the noise control system, which performs level estimate to derive, i.e. estimate, a noise floor of the noise component and a modulation index by modulation since noise and signal are modulated, see [0082]: “the level detector unit is configured to determine a top tracker and a bottom tracker ( envelope) from which a noise floor and a modulation index can be derived.”
Regarding claim 11, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated
in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Lesimple further teaches “…at least one analysis filter bank for providing the at least one electric input signal in a time frequency representation (k,l), where (k,l) represents a time-frequency tile, and k is a frequency index and l is a time index” ( t,f) is a time frequency representation related to sub-band signal component, where f is the frequency index and t is the time index, see [0078]: ” the signal to noise ratio is based on sub-band signal component estimates ( e.g. in the time-frequency domain, SNR=SNR (t,f), where t is time and f is frequency)”, an analysis filter bank provides sub-band signals i.e. electric input signal, see [0079] : “In an embodiment, the hearing device (e.g. the input unit) comprises an analysis filter bank for providing said electric input signal as a number of frequency sub-band signals”)
Regarding claim 13, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated
in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Lesimple further teaches “…comprising an auxiliary device wherein a part of the processing of the binaural hearing aid system is performed” (see [0129] : “a hearing system comprising a hearing device as described above, in the 'detailed description of embodiments', and in the claims, AND an auxiliary device is moreover provided”, also see [0132] : “In an embodiment, the auxiliary device is another hearing device. In an embodiment, the hearing system comprises two hearing devices adapted to implement a binaural hearing system, e.g. a binaural hearing aid system”)
Regarding claim 15, since the claimed method comprises the same operations conducted by the system in claim 1, claim 15 is rejected as being unpatentable over Ando in view of Lesimple for the reasons mentioned in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Regarding claim 16, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated
in claim 15’s 103 rejection. Furthermore, since the claimed computer and computer program perform the same operations conducted by the method in claim 15, claim 16 is rejected as being unpatentable over Ando in view of Lesimple for the reasons mentioned in claim 15’s 103 rejection.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JP 2010200260 A) in view of Lesimple et al. (US 20180184213 Al) in further view of Burleigh et al. (US 7120258 B1)
Regarding claim 2, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Ando in view of Lesimple does not teach “a frequency-dependent interaural timing difference between the first hearing aid and the second hearing aid”.
Burleigh teaches “a frequency-dependent interaural timing difference between the first hearing aid and the second hearing aid” ( there’s delay, i.e. interaural timing difference, between ears, i.e. the first hearing aid and the second hearing aid, and the timing difference is different for different frequency band, i.e. frequency dependent, see: “An electronic device (500) is used to measure the subjects ability to comprehend words at a variety of relative time delays between ears to estimate the ideal overall relative time delay… An electronic device (600) may be used to correct the pathological BPTD by delaying sound in different frequency bands differently to the target ear”, Abstract).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have integrated the frequency-dependent interaural timing difference as taught by Burleigh in the statistical structure as taught by Ando in view of Lesimple. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “to compensate for the pathological BPTD in the subject, significantly improves the speech intelligibility” (Burleigh: col.1, ln.67; col. 2, ln. 1-2)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JP 2010200260 A) in view of Lesimple et al. (US 20180184213 Al) in further view of Satongar et al. (US 11190896 B1)
Regarding claim 3, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Ando in view of Lesimple does not teach “…an inter-aural coherence”
Satongar teaches “…an inter-aural coherence” (see: “A degree of similarity can be determined by determining the interaural coherence of the channel recordings. For example, the selection criteria may include an interaural coherence threshold 802…”, col. 9, ln.1-5).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have integrated the inter-aural coherence as taught by Satongar in the statistical structure as taught by Ando in view of Lesimple. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to determine “a degree of similarity…of the channel recordings”(Satongar: col. 9, ln.1-3)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JP 2010200260 A) in view of Lesimple et al. (US 20180184213 Al) in further view of Edwards (US 20200068320 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Ando in view of Lesimple does not teach “…a delay”
Edwards teaches “…a delay” (phase shifting between two sound signals indicates time delay, see [0020] : “the sound presented to one ear is phase shifted relative to the sound presented to the other ear. In various embodiments, the phase shift arises from a constant time delay”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated the delay as taught by Edwards in the statistical structure as taught by Ando in view of Lesimple. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to provide better hearing, convenience”( Edwards: [0004])
Claims 6 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JP 2010200260 A) in view of Lesimple et al. (US 20180184213 Al) in further view of Vogel (US 20130301839 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Ando in view of Lesimple does not teach “…auditory texture in the form of sounds produced by the addition of a multitude of similar sound sources”
Vogel teaches “…auditory texture in the form of sounds produced by the addition of a multitude of similar sound sources” (sounds or partials are auditory texture, are synthesized by summing i.e. adding a multitude of similar sound sources, e.g. sine waves, see: “A system for synthesising sounds which allows the user to specify time varying functions for multiple partials. The partials can be cyclical waveforms, for example sine waves, or sampled sounds, or a mixture of each. Partials can be included in the resulting sound by summing, convolution or otherwise”, Abstract).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated the auditory texture as taught by Vogel in the statistical structure as taught by Ando in view of Lesimple. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “for an easy-to-use system for effectively combining harmonic synthesis”( Vogel: [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated
in claim 11’s 103 rejection.
Lesimple further teaches “…time-frequency regions that are attenuated in the noise control system…” (the time-frequency representation of signals are time-frequency regions, see [0098]: “the microphone unit, and or the transceiver unit comprise(s) a TF-conversion unit for providing a time-frequency representation of an input signal”, time-frequency regions of the noise signals are attenuated in a noise reduction system, i.e. noise control system, see [0016-0017] : “a noise reduction (NR) system that is usually embedded in a HA… the CA applies a gain on the noise signal that is proportional to the attenuation applied by the NR”)
Ando also teaches “…of the respective hearing aid” (see [0020], [0030- 0032] for left ear elements 10a, 100a, 22a, 110a, 31a, and right ear elements 10b, 100b, 22b, 110b, 31b)
Ando in view of Lesimple does not teach “…auditory texture…”
Vogel teaches “…auditory texture…” (sounds or partials are auditory texture, are synthesized by summing i.e. adding a multitude of similar sound sources, e.g. sine waves, see: “A system for synthesising sounds which allows the user to specify time varying functions for multiple partials. The partials can be cyclical waveforms, for example sine waves, or sampled sounds, or a mixture of each. Partials can be included in the resulting sound by summing, convolution or otherwise”, Abstract).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the auditory texture as taught by Vogel in the time-frequency regions as taught by Ando in view of Lesimple. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “for an easy-to-use system for effectively combining harmonic synthesis”( Vogel: [0004]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JP 2010200260 A) in view of Lesimple et al. (US 20180184213 Al) in further view of Qian (US 20200008739 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Ando in view of Lesimple does not teach “…amplitude modulation in a rhythmic pattern”.
Qian teaches “…amplitude modulation in a rhythmic pattern” ( amplitude-modulated tones is from the rhythmic audio template, therefore in a rhythmic pattern, see [0131]: “ the rhythmic audio template may include sounds of beats, metronome, ding, chirp, ticking, amplitude-modulated tones”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated amplitude modulation in a rhythmic pattern as taught by Qian in the statistical structure as taught by Ando in view of Lesimple. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to modulate physiological or pathological conditions of the user” (Qian: Abstract)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JP 2010200260 A) in view of Lesimple et al. (US 20180184213 Al) in further view of Yu (GB 2517823 A)
Regarding claim 8, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Ando teaches “…a multitude of input transducers providing a multitude of electric input signals… multitude of electric input signals… the multitude of electric input signals” (see [0020], [0030- 0032] for left ear elements 10a, 100a, 22a, 110a, 31a, and right ear elements 10b, 100b, 22b, 110b, 31b)
Lesimple further teaches “…the at least one input transducer…representative of sound in the environment of the hearing aid, and wherein said noise control system comprises a directional system comprising at least one beamformer configured to provide an estimate of said target signal component in dependence of said…” ( a directional microphone system is at least one input transducer, picking up sounds as microphone input signals from the environment, a beamformer filtering unit in a directional microphone system can be part of the noise control system, the microphone signal contains target signal, the direction of a particular part of the microphone signal is at least part of the target signal component, the directional system provides an estimate of the target signal component by adaptively detecting the direction of the microphone input signal, therefore in dependence of the input signal, see [0092]: “the hearing device comprises a directional microphone system (e.g. comprising a beamformer filtering unit) adapted to spatially filter sounds from the environment… In an embodiment, the directional system is adapted to detect (such as adaptively detect) from which direction a particular part of the microphone signal originate”, multiple microphones, i.e. input transducers, see [0375]: ”…they require the use of signals from multiple microphones” )
Ando in view of Lesimple does not teach “…predefined or adaptively updated beamformer weights based on the multitude of electric input signals”
Yu teaches “…predefined or adaptively updated beamformer weights based on the multitude of electric input signals” ( beamforming weights are adaptively updated based on the signals containing e.g. speech and noise, i.e. multitude of electric input signals, see: “Audio signals from a two microphone array (102, fig. 1) are adaptively null-beamformed in order to separate a target signal (e.g. speech from noise) by decomposing the signals into subbands and adaptively updating the complex beamforming weights based on the direction”, Abstract)
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated adaptive update of beamformer weights as taught by Yu in the statistical structure as taught by Ando in view of Lesimple. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to ignore noise in one particular direction while listening to speech from another direction” (Yu: Background)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JP 2010200260 A) in view of Lesimple et al. (US 20180184213 Al) in view of Yu (GB 2517823 A) in further view of Pedersen et al . (US 20210337306 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Ando in view of Lesimple in view of Yu teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 8’s 103 rejection.
Ando in view of Lesimple in view of Yu does not teach “…first and second beamformers, wherein the first beamformer comprises the target signal component, and wherein the second beamformer is a target-cancelling beamformer comprising said noise component”
Pedersen teaches “…first and second beamformers, wherein the first beamformer comprises the target signal component, and wherein the second beamformer is a target-cancelling beamformer comprising said noise component” ( target maintaining, reference beamformer and target cancelling beamformer correspond to the first and the second beamformers. see: “The sound capture device comprises a) an input unit providing a multitude of electric input signals, each comprising a target signal component and a noise signal component; b) a directional noise reduction system comprising a beamformer unit coupled to said multitude of input signals and configured to provide an estimate of the target sound s. The beamformer unit comprises b1) target maintaining, reference beamformer providing a current reference signal; and b2) a target cancelling beamformer providing a current target cancelling sign…”, Abstract; the target maintaining, reference beamformer, i.e. the first beamformer, contains target direction information, i.e. target signal component, also see [0138]: “The target direction of a target maintaining beamformer may be defined relative to the microphone direction or to the preferred direction of the housing of the sound capture device.”; the target cancelling beamformer, i.e. the second beamformer, comprises an estimate of the background noise, i.e. noise component, see [0141]: “A target cancelling beamformer is a directional beampattern pointing its null towards the signal of interest, ideally fully removing the target signal and hereby obtaining an estimate of the background noise in absence of the target signal”)
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated two beamformers as taught by Pedersen in the statistical structure as taught by Ando in view of Lesimple in view of Yu. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable “an efficient directional attenuation of background sounds” (Pedersen: [0139])
Regarding claim 10, Ando in view of Lesimple in view of Yu in further view of Pedersen teaches all the claim limitations previously stated in claim 9’s 103 rejection.
Ando also teaches “…the respective hearing aid…”(see [0020], [0030- 0032] for left ear elements 10a, 100a, 22a, 110a, 31a, and right ear elements 10b, 100b, 22b, 110b, 31b)
Lesimple further teaches “the statistical structure is applied to the noise component…” and “…the statistical structure is added directly to the noise component…” (signal can be represented in the form of complex value, and noise is one kind of signal, therefore the statistical structure is applied to the noise component and added directly to the noise component, see [0098]: “the time-frequency representation comprises an array or map of corresponding complex or real values of the signal…”)
Claim 14, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JP 2010200260 A) in view of Lesimple et al. (US 20180184213 Al) in further view of McGibney (US 20180132037 A1 )
Regarding claim 14, Ando in view of Lesimple teaches all the claim limitations previously stated
in claim 11’s 103 rejection.
Ando in view of Lesimple does not teach “…has a random or a pseudorandom phase”.
McGibney teaches “…has a random or a pseudorandom phase” ( sound signal’s phase can be a pseudo-random value [0044] :“ creating a unique speaker-specific pseudo-random phase-shifted wave”)
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated a pseudo-random phase as taught by McGibney in the statistical structure as taught by Ando in view of Lesimple. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to allow “for dynamic and scalable hardware changes” (McGibney: [0044]).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spittle (US 20230300532 A1) teaches signal data can be represented and processed in the form of complex numbers ([0229])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 pm ET.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/SHIN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/PAUL KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights